GETTING A LIBERAL INFUSION HOUSE ANTIRED COMMITTEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 18, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 23, 1969
• Content Type: NSPR

NEW YORK TI1vIf-oved For Release 2001/08/28: CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
DATE ____ _ PAGE 2.1
Getting a Liberal Inf usionHouse Antired Committee
By MARJORIE HUNTER
Spadal to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22-The
Liiii Uri-Ampriran Articjtjpc
CDMmitt e, until now a bastion
of right-wing conservatism, is
getting a major liberal infusion,
including the first Negro mem-
ber in its history.
The following four moder-
ate-to-liberal Democrats were
named to the nine-member
committee this week:
ui Stokes of Ohio, a Negro
freshman memo r of the
House, the brother of Mayor
Carl Stokes of Cleveland.
Clain d-yP_ppera Florida libe al
who attributed his defeat for
re-election to the Senate in
1950 to right-wing accusa-
tions that he had associated
with Communists.
Mi ichardson Pr .v r- a Nth
named to the Federal bench
in 1961 by President Ken-
nedy and subsequently de-
feated in his bid for Governor
in 1964.
dwtn W_ Edward of Lodi-i-
a,~j , generally regarded as al
moderate on most issues aside
from civil rights.
While they are outnumbered
y the other more conservative
embers of the committee, the
panel's right-wing
reputation and its reputation
for, witch-bunting.
HouspIiberals have frequent-
ly sought to abolish the com-
mittee. Some of the more mili-
tant liberals are expected to
try again within the next few
weeks, but are certain to fail.
Less militant liberals, finally,
convinced that the House would
not abolish the committee,
helped engineer the change in
H.U.A.C., as it is generally
called by friend and foe alike.
The House Democratic lead-
ership, too, embarrassed in re-
cent years by the committee's
disputed inquiries into left-wing
causes, also insisted on the ma-
jor shift.
New Image Sought
And the committee's new
chairman, Richard H. Ichord,
Democrat of Missouri, is known
to have favored improving its
reputation. While he is largely
conservative, Mr. Ichord is far
more temperate than many
earlier chairmen, including the
flamboyant Martin Dies Jr. of
Texas and John E. Rankin of
Mississippi.
Until this year, there had
been few chances to change the
committee's image, for it had
been dominated by incumbent
Republicans and Southern Drug
ocrats.
While the committee usually
included at least one liberal-'
even two on occasion-their'
voices weer seldom heard.
Last session, John C. Culver,
an Iowa Democrat, was the'
only liberal on the committee.'
Obviously frustrated in the as-
signment, he was taken off this
year at his request.
The way was opened for the
shift in membership this year
by the death, resignation and!
defeat of three Southern Demo-
crats.
Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana,i,
the chairman, was defeated for
re-election. William M. Tuck'
of Virginia did not seek another
term, and Joe R. Pool of Texas!
died.
The Republican members are!
John M. Ashbrook of Ohio,;
Richard L. Roudebush of In-1
diana, Albert W. Watson ofd
South Carolina and John
Buchanan of Alabama.
The smallest but most con-;
troversial of all Congressiona'
committees, H.U.A.C. has hac
a turbulent existence :., its
pursuit of Communists, mr tior
picture actors, educational
leaders, peace movements, the the committee an instrument
Ku Klux Klan and instigators "bridge the communication ?
of the riots at the Democratic between the black and wh
National Convention last sum- the young and old, the strc
mer. and the weak and the otl
Its most famous investiga- extremes of our society."
tion-the Alger Hiss case in oMr. Stokes said he hoped
1948-brought national prom- of a the stanch
absolute voice beh
of protection
inence for one of the com- constitutional rights and f
mittee's most junior members, play."
Richard M. Nixon, then a first-
term Representative.
Mr. Ichord announced re-
cently that the committee's
first order of business would
be to investigate the Students
for a Democratic Society in
view of the group's "conduct-
ing classes in sabotage how to
make Molotov cocktails and
teaching violent guerrilla
tactics."
He has also proposed that
the committee's name be,
changed to the House Commit-i
tee on Internal Security. The
House has not yet approved
the change.
In accepting assignment to
the committee, Mr. Pepper
pledged that he would not en-
gage in "any witch hunt." He
said he would "not investigate
for the purpose of pillorying
any or tlr Ljon.
Mots may
that he tents.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28: CIA-RDP711~21`1~k9'
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : Cl, RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
EVENING STAR DATE S t)"4' PAGE
Rules Panel
Backs HUAC
Name Change
By United Press International
Teh House Committee on -
er tivities, repea y
a c ~e by liberal forces as a
panel of publicity-seeking witch
hunters, is a step closer to the
new name which its chairman
hopes will give it a less sensa-
tional image.
The House Rules Committee
agreed after hearings yesterday
to approve HUAG Chairman
Richard Ichord's resolution to
call his panel the House Internal
Security Committee.
But many congressmen, who
want HUAC abolished entirely,
are expected to fight the Mis-
souri Democrat's proposal when
it comes onto the House floor.
At the hearing, Ichord said he
plans far-reaching hearings into
the new faces of subversion in
the United States.
He promised a "study in
depth" of groups such as Stu-
dents for a Democratic Society
and of various "Marxist-
Leninists" who are not members
of the Communist party, tradi-
tional target of HUAC in the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIfQP71B00364R000200040001-1
EVENING STAR DATE PAGE 2Z ,
01 MQ,%L.
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
HllA: Reforms Under the Knife
The House Committee on
Un-American Activities is not
much heard about these days,
so intimidated is it, and its
natural publicists, by the cu-
mulative impact of years and
years and years of derogation
by those who would rather de-
nounce a committee on un-
American activities than un-
American activities. When a
week or so ago it transpired
that Congressman Claude Pep-
per had become a member of
HUAC, one could only recall
the wonderful fantasy of 1964.
In those days American con-
servatives, dreaming of the
glorious possibility of a Gold-
water victory, envisioned the
scene on the Capitol steps dur-
ing the Inauguration ceremon-
y. "Do you," said Supreme
Court Justice Earl Warren,
addressing President-elect
Barry Goldwater, "solemnly
swear to defend the Constitu-
tion of the United States?"
Answered President Goldwa-
ter: "I do. You're under ar-
rest, Warren."
A Committee on Un-
American Activities of which
Claude Pepper is a member!
As well a committee on ethical
union practices of which
James Hoffa is a member.
Twenty years ago Sen. Claude
Pepper was parroting the
Communist party line as ar-
dently as a seminarian recites
the Apostles' Creed. But things
have changed. Congressman
Pepper now has a constituency
heavily Cuban, and it would
hardly be profitable to go
about the country suggesting
other than that Castro and
those who succor him are un-
American activities.
But let us also grant the
probability, which is that Pep-
per laments his past attitudes;
grant, even, the possibility
that he hopes, in his new role
as a member of HUAC, to in-
struct others who make such
mistakes as he so robustly and
noisily made during the 40s.
The big news is that a major
effort will be made to abolish
HUAC. Approximately 30 reso-
lutions have been introduced
to that effect, one of them,
ironically, by a member-
designate of HUAC, Louis
Stokes, the brother of the emi-
nent mayor of Cleveland. The
committee has been under at-
tack for so very long that the
fiction is widely accepted that
the committee has been use-
less throughout its career.
In fact it has engineered im-
portant legislation; indeed
only a season ago it drafted
and got through Congress a
bill making it illegal to collect
funds for the benefit of the
Viet Cong. Contributors to the
volume published in 1962 enti-
tled, "The Committee and Its
Critics" adequately establ-
ished that over a period of
years the committee has in-
vestigated activity which Con-
gress should investigate, and
proposed legislation which
Congress should enact.
Even so, the friends of the
committee were, many of
them, disposed to agree on one
point, namely that the title of
the committee was unfortu-
n te: it is, though not impossi-
ble, difficult and always a lit-
tle impudent to define the
term "un-American." Accord-
ingly, the chairman of the
Committee, Richard Ichord of
Missouri, has joined with John
M. Ashbrook of Ohio to urge
that the name of the commit-
tee be changed to "The Corn-
rrittee on Internal Secur,'ty."
More important than no-
menclature is the change in
the proposed mandate, which
drops the committee's power
to investigate such activity as
might be protected under the
First Amendment, for instance
speeches, books, pamphlets,
that kind of thing. The new
mandate as proposed by
Ichord and Ashbrook grants
the committee the power to
investigate the "extent, char-
acter, objectives, and activi-
ties" of such groups as would
"establish or assist in the es-
tablishment of a totalitarian
dictatorship within the United
States," or which would at-
tempt to overthrow the gov-
ernment by force or violence.
Moreover, to permit the
committee to investigate, as
any committee on internal se-
curity obviously should, the
anarchistic or nihilistic
groups, which think not so
much of totalitarian dictator-
ship as of the lure of chaos,
the mandate would also enjoin
the investigation of "activities
within the United States of or-
ganizations or groups, their
members, agents and affili-
ates, which incite or employ,
acts of force, violence, terror-
ism, or any unlawful means,
to obstruct or oppose the law-
ful authority of the govern-
ment of the United States in
the execution of any law or
policy affecting the internal
security of the United States."
And that means, e.g., that
the committee could, as it cer-
tainly should do, investigate
such organizations as the
Black Panthers, and the S.D.S.
and, even as before, the Ku
Klux Klan. One suspects that
those congressmen who vote
against the Ichord-Ashbrook
resolution will be doing so pre-
cisely because they desire to
perpetuate those features of
HUAC which are most
vulnerable in order to seek,
eventually, to destroy the
whole of it, rather than to
cleanse it of the main sources
of their alleged aggravation.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 WAA ?edV8& PIeSTe 2001/08/D28 -RDP 003 42000200040001-1
Rules Unit
Approves
PAGE 2
HUAC Name Change
By Warren Unna
Washington Post Staff Writer
"Communism is kind of old
hat today."
This was a surprising com-
ment from Rep. Richard H.
lchord (D-Mo.), chairman of
the House 1Tn-Amt rirnn AP iv-
_itie, Commi t.Perrrar~
He was testifying before the
House Rules Committee yes-
terday on his resolution to ex-
tend his Committee's author-
ity under a new name, House
Committee on Internal Secu-
rity.
The Rules Committee gave
Ichord its blessing, just as it
had last year when the resolu-
tion first came up but never
got to the floor for a vote be-
cause of the rush of final busi-
ness.
This year it presumablyi
will, but with considerable op-
position. There are those who
think Ichord's committee
should be abolished entirely:
those who see no need for a
name change and those who
see its crusade against subver-
sion as a way of subverting
the jurisdiction of the senior
House Judiciary Committee.
Yesterday, Ichord told the
river." (He presumably was
giving CIA a backhanded
compliment).
But Ichord said he was wor-
ried by "the erosion of our lib-
erties." He cited the Students
for Democratic Society which,
in Ichord's words, combine
"communism, pacifism, nihil-
ism and treachery" and con-
found everybody by "condon-
ing violence" while not "advo.
cating" it.
"The present mandade is ad.
ambi
guous, Icuoru
Rules Committee he wasn't _..,...,.-,,
told his Rules Committee col-
worried that any organization leagues. "It gives rise to the
was going to overthrow the thought that the committee
diversified and they could
never do it without the help
Of some people across the
lion-a-year budget.
Rep. Thomas P. O'Neill Jr.
(D-Mass.) wondered why the
whole burden couldn't be
turned over to the House Judi.
ciary Committee. "You've
brought crackpots and nuts
before this (House Un-Ameri.
can Activities) Committee and
!aused more concern because
)f the inept way the HUAC
ias acted through the years,"
1e told Ichord.
Reps. Don Edwards (D-
,,alif.) and Abner J. Mikva (D-
11.), in a joint statement, de-
lared: "Although the words
vould be different, nothing
vould be changed ... What
s sought to be maintained is a
)ermanent standing investi-
:ating committee to
investigate . . . members of
the public to determine if they
have said the wrong thing,
joined the wrong group or vio-
lated the laws."
Edwards and Mikva also
challenged Ichord's desire to
authorize the Committee to in-
vestigate "treachery," If need
be, they said, "treachery"
could be interpreted to in-
clude a group willing to make
a political deal to enlarge its
own strength.
Rep. John C. Culver (D-
Iowa) urged the Rules Com-
mittee to hold full hearings,
transfer the HUAC to the Ju-
diciary Committee and estab-'
lish a "Code of Fir Commit- j
tee Conduct." He was over-
ruled.
(HUAC) is concerned with po-
litical thought and ideas. I.-hat
we are concerned about Is po-
litical action . . . I am not In-
terested in any witch-hunt .. .
or pillorying anybody for
unorthodox thoughts."
Ichord indicated he already
had his investigation of the
SDS under way and probably
would be able to run the com-
mittee on the same $375 mil.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I take
this time to commend Father Hesburgh,
the president of Notre Dame University,
for stating in no uncertain terms that he
is not going to allow any of these campus
radicals to upset Notre Dame University.
He said very clearly they would be given
15 minutes to meditate and 5 minutes to
change their minds, and if they carried
their nonsense on after that, they would
be expelled.
I think Father Hesburgh is taking just
exactly the right positions. If more of our
heads of colleges and universities would
take the same stand, maybe we could
restore order to the campuses of our
country.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. LATTA addressed the House. His
remarks will appear hereafter in the Ex-
tensions of Remarks.]
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND PER-
MISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COM-
MERCE TO HAVE UNTIL MID-
NIGHT TO FILE REPORT ON H.R.
4214, COMMUNICATIONS SATEL-
LITE ACT
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
may have until midnight tonight to file
a report on H.R. 4214, the Communica-
tions Satellite Act, and such other re-
ports as they may desire to submit.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, and I do
not intend to object, is it the intention
to program this legislation this week?
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, under the
unanimous-consent request, may I ad-
vise Members that the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Rules will
call up various investigative authority
resolutions tomorrow, and the gentle-
man from West Virginia (Mr. STAGGERS)
has advised me he would ask by unani-
mous consent to bring up H.R. 4214, the
Communications Satellite Act, on tomor-
row.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
that I may insert in the RECORD a list of
the resolutions from the Rules Commit-
tee and the bill from the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce which
will be on the program for tomorrow.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The lists referred to follow:
C:mmifIce cn. Rules: February 18, to con-
the following resolutions:
H. Res. 143, investigative authority, Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs;
H. Res. 131, investigative authority, Com-
inittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries;
H. Res. 200, investigative authority, Com-
mittee on Education and Labor;
H. Res. 192, investigative authority, Com-
mittee on Science and Astronautics;
H. Res. 127, investigative authority, Com-
mittee on Agriculture;
H. Res. 189, investigative authority, Com-
mittee on Public Works; and
H. Res. 152, investigative authority, Com-
mittee on Banking and Currency, 10:30 a.m.,
H-313, Capitol.
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce: H.R. 4214, Communications Satellite
Act.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the
following Members failed to answer to
their names:
[Roll No. 15]
Anderson, Ill.
Holifield
Passman
Arends
Howard
Pelly
Barrett
Jones, Ala.
Powell
Bell
Kuykendall
Quillen
Burton, Utah
Landgrebe
Riegle
Carey
Long, La.
Rosenthal
Casey
Long, Md.
Roudebush
Clark
Lu]an
Rumsfold
Davis, Ga.
Lukens
Ruppe
Delaney
McFall
Sandman
Diggs
Macdonald,
Scheuer
Evins, Tenn.
Mass.
Shriver
Feighan
Mailliard
Smith, Calif.
Flynt
Matsunaga
Stubblefield
Ford,
Moss
Sullivan
William D.
Murphy, N.Y.
Teauge, Calif.
Gettys
Myers
Udall
Gray
Nichols
Waldle
Green, Oreg.
O'Hara
Watts
Hagan
O'Neal, Ga.
Heckler, Mass.
Ottinger
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 372
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
CONSUMPTION TAXES ON OILSEED
PRODUCTS IMPOSED BY EEC
(Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama asked
and was given permission to extend his
remarks at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, I am introducing today a House
concurrent resolution expressing the po-
sition of Congress in opposition to the
imposition of consumption taxes on oil-
seed products by the European Economic
Community.
The EEC is giving serious thought to
imposing what they term an internal
tax of $60 per ton on imports of soybean
oil, and a tax of $30 per ton on soybean
meal.
This action would cost our country an
export market of nearly $500 million a
year at a time when we are endeavoring
to solve a serious balance-of-payments
problem.
This move would not technically vio-
late the letter of agreements between
this country and the EEC. But it would
clearly violate the spirit of those agree-
ments.
American farmers have depended on
U.S. trade negotiators to provide agree-
ments which result in fair balance of
trade for the mutual benefit of the
H-957
United States and of our close friends in
the European Economic Community.
If these agreements are sidestepped
in ways such as this the consequences
can be serious.
I urge prompt approval of this reso-
lution.
ELECTION TO COMMITTEE
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 250) and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as
follows :
H. RES. 250
Resolved, That Shirley Chisholm, of New
York, be, and she is hereby, elected a mem-
ber of the standing committee of the House
of Representatives on Veterans' Affairs.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
FIRST REPORT OF NATIONAL
SCIENCE BOARD-MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES
The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following message from the Presi-
dent of the United States; which was
read, and, together with the accompany-
ing papers, referred to the Committee
on Science and Astronautics:
To the Congress of the United States:
I am pleased to submit to the Congress
this first Report of the National Science
Board, "Toward a Public Policy for
Graduate Education in the Sciences," to-
gether with a companion volume, "Grad-
uate Education: Parameters for Public
Policy," which contains information and
discussion supporting the basic Report.
These documents have been prepared in
accordance with Section 4(g) of the Na-
tional Science Foundation Act, as
amended by Public Law 90-407.
Graduate education is a critically im-
portant element in the educational proc-
ess and one which is entering a particu-
larly difficult period. As the Board points
out, graduate enrollments are expected
to double and the costs of graduate pro-
grams are expected to quadruple during
the next decade. Thus it is most impor-
tant that colleges and universities, state
and local authorities, and the interested
branches of the Federal Government all
re-examine their role with respect to
graduate education.
On several occasions, most recently
when I increased the expenditure ceiling
of the National Science Foundation for
the fiscal year 1969, I have emphasized
our nation's special debt to its scientists
and its special responsibility to maintain
an outstanding record in both basic re-
search and technological advance. I
emphasize here again that education in
general and scientific development in
particular will be among the highest
priorities in this Administration. One
measure of the greatness and vitality of
a nation is manifested, I believe, in its
readiness to explore the unknown.
The National Science Board has rightly
concluded that adequate funding for
graduate education and for academic
science is only one of the problems we
face. Of comparable importance is the
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 II 558
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1969
need to develop a new strategy for that
Federal aid which may be required. I
have recently instructed the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
establish an interdepartmental study
group to make an overall review of the
Federal role in education, including
higher education. The Report of the
National Science Board will provide a
useful resource for that review.
I know that the Congress, like the
Executive Branch, will give the Report
its careful consideration. I solicit your
assistance in developing solutions to the
problems which have been identified by
this distinguished group of citizens.
RICHARD NIXON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, February 18, 1969.
AMENDING RULES, HOUSE OF REP-
RESENTATIVES, TO CHANGE NAME
OF COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 89 and ask for its im-
mediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows :
H. RES. 89
Resolved, That rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended-
(1) by striking out clause 19;
(2) by renumbering clauses 11 through
18 as clauses 12 through 19, respectively;
and
(3) by inserting immediately after clause
10 the following new clause:
"1. Committee on Internal Security.
"(a) Communist and other subversive
activities affecting the internal security of
the United States.
"(b) The Committee on Internal Security,
acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is
authorized to make investigations from time
to time of (1) the extent, character, objec-
tives, and activities within the United
States of organizations or groups, whether
of foreign or domestic origin, their mem-
bers, agents, and affiliates, which seek to
establish, or assist in the establishment of,
a totalitarian dictatorship within the United
States, or to overthrow or alter, or assist
in the overthrow or alteration of, the form
of government of the United States or of any
State thereof, by force, violence, treachery,
espionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any un-
lawful means, (2) the extent, character, ob-
jectives, and activities within the United
States of organizations or groups, their mem-
bers, agents, and affiliates, which incite or
employ acts of force, violence, terrorism, or
any unlawful means, to obstruct or oppose
the lawful authority of the Government of
the United States in the execution of any
law or policy affecting the internal security
of the United States, and (3) all other ques-
tions, including the administration and ex-
ecution of any law of the United States,
or any portion of law, relating to the fore-
going that would aid the Congress or any
committee of the House in any necessary
remedial legislation.
"The Committee on Internal Security shall
report to the House (or to the Clerk of the
House if the House is not in session) the
results of any such investigation, together
with such recommendations as it deems
advisable.
"For the purpose of any such investigation,
the Committee on Internal Security, or any
subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit
and act at such times and places within the
United States, whether the House is in ses-
sion, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold
such hearings, and to require, by subpena or
otherwise, the attendance and testimony of
such witnesses and the production of such
books, records, correspondence, memoran-
dums, papers, and documents, as it deems
necessary, Subpenas may be issued under the
signature of the chairman of the committee
or any subcommittee, or by any member des-
ignated by any such chairman, and may be
served by any person designated by any such
chairman or member."
Sec. 2. (a) Rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives is amended-
(1) by striking out clause 1(s) ;
(2) by redesignating clauses 1(k) through
1(r) as clauses 1(1) through 1(s), respec-
tively; and
(3) by inserting immediately after clause
1(j) tie following:
"(k) Committee on Internal Security, to
consist of nine Members."
(b) Clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives is amended by
striking out "Un-American Activities" and
inserting in lieu thereof "Internal Security".
SEC. 3. As of the date of adoption of this
resolution, all property (including records)
of the Committee on Un-American Activities
is hereby transferred to the Committee on
Internal Security and shall be available for
use by the latter committee to the same ex-
tent as if such property (including records)
was originally that of the Committee on In-
ternal Security.
SEC. 4. Nothing in this resolution shall af-
fect (1) the validity of any action or pro-
ceeding of the Committee on Un-American
Activities or of the House of Representatives
before the date of adoption of this resolution,
or (2) the validity of any action or proceed-
ing by any officer or agency of the executive
branch of the Government, or by any court
of competent jurisdiction, based on any ac-
tion or proceeding referred to in clause (1)
of this sentence. Any action or proceeding
referred to in clause (2) of the preceding
sentence and pending on the date of adop-
tion of this resolution shall be continued
by the officer, agency, or court concerned in
the same manner and to the same extent as
if this resolution had not been adopted.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. COLMER) is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
usual 30 minutes to the minority to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA) and
pending that use of the time I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. IcuoRD) the chairman of the House
Committee on Un-American Activities.
The SPEAKER. For debate purposes?
Mr. COLMER. The rule calls for 1 hour,
and it is limited.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. IcHORD) is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, I appreci-
ate the courtesy of the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Rules in
yielding me this time so that I might ex-
plain the purpose of House Resolution 89,
a resolution to clarify the mandate of the
House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities and to change the name of the
House Committee on Internal Security,
a name which I think more clearly in-
dicates the scope of the work of the
committee.
House Resolution 89 is identical to a
resolution that was reported out by the
Committee on Rules during the last Con-
gress. This is a rule that falls within the
original jurisdiction of the Committee on
Rules. It is identical to H. Res. 148 that
last year was reported out by the Com-
mittee on Rules but which was not taken
up during the final hours of the adjourn-
ment of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the charge has been made
that this resolution infringes upon the
jurisdiction of the great House Commit-
tee on the Judiciary. I wish to state at
this time, Mr. Speaker, that the resolu-
tion is not intended to infringe upon the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on
the Judiciary and I state without equi-
vocation or any mental reservation what-
soever that it does not infringe upon the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on
the Judiciary. I think that the need for
the resolution is readily apparent by a
cursory examination of the present man-
date of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities. The present man-
date of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities reads as follows:
(a) Un-American activities.
(b) The Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is
authorized to make from time to time in-
vestigations of (1) the extent, character, and
objects of un-American propaganda activities
in the United States, (2) the diffusion with-
in the United States of subversive and un-
American propaganda that is instigated from
foreign countries or of a domestic origin and
attacks the principle of the form of govern-
ment as guaranteed by our Constitution.
Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, this mandate
is very vague and ambiguous on its face,
and this is the reason why I offered this
resolution 2 years ago and reoffered it
this session. This vagueness has given
some credence to the charge that the
committee is not interested in subversive
activities but has the power to investigate
unorthodox political views and opinions.
Also the vagueness has unnecessarily
caused the committee to become involved
in many legal actions.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it possible
to accurately define the jurisdiction of
the House Committee on Un-American
Activities by examining the mandate it-
self. It is true however that the Supreme
Court decisions surrounding the work of
the House Committee on Un-American
Activities have lent some definite mean-
ing to the very ambiguous terms used in
the mandate.
The change in the language of the
mandate of the new committee, the
House Committee on Internal Security,
is contained in the last few lines on page
1 of the resolution and the first line on
the top of page 2 thereof. It reads as
follows:
11. (a) Communist and other subversive
activities affecting the internal security of
the United States.
Now, this is intended for bill reference
purposes only. There are many bills that
are introduced in this body dealing with
Communist activities. Some may or may
not be constitutional; they may or may
not be wise and prudent as legislative
measures. But this is for bill reference
purposes only. There are however many
such bills, and, traditionally these bills
are sent to the House Committee on
Un-American Activities.
(b)The Committee on Internal Security,
acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is
authorized to make investigations from time
to time of (1) the extent, character, objec-
tives, and activities within the United States
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
Feb r itary 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 959
of organizations or groups, whether of
foreign or domestic origin, their members,
agents, and affiliates, which seek to establish,
or assist in the establishment of, a total-
itarian dictatorship within the United States,
or to overthrow or alter, or assist in the
overthrow or alteration of, the form of
government of the United States or of any
State thereof, by force, violence, treachery,
espionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any
unlawful means.
This resolution if adopted would give
the Committee on Internal Security
jurisdiction over revolutionary groups
which would work toward the change or
the alteration of our institutions and sys-
tems of government through revolution-
ary means outside the democratic proc-
ess. It is not concerned with change
through the democratic process which is,
of course, inherent in our system of gov-
ernment. But every democratic govern-
ment has the responsibility to take the
necessary steps to preserve and protect
itself from unlawful subversion.
Now, it does not give the committee
jurisdiction over espionage as such,
which is properly lodged within the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary. "Espionage" as
used in the resolution is merely a modi-
fying word and is used to describe the
type of revolutionary activity over which
the House Committee on Internal Se-
curity will have jurisdiction as distin-
guished from efforts to change our insti-
tutions through the democratic process.
The second part, part (2), reads as
follows:
* * * the extent, character, objectives,
and activities within the United States of
organizations or groups, their members,
agents, and affiliates, which incite or em-
ploy acts of force, violence, terrorism, or
any unlawful means, to obstruct or oppose
the lawful authority of the Government of
the United States in the execution of any
law or policy affecting the internal security
of the United States.
This is for the purpose of giving the
committee jurisdiction over such groups
as the Klux Klux Klan and black mili-
tant groups that may not be revolution-
ary groups in the traditional sense.
What we have attempted to do here-
and I submit, do accomplish-is to spell
out in clear and precise legal language
a limited but very important field of
law-criminal subversion.
I think what has happened is that the
House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities has been caught-not only the
House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities, but the House of Representatives
itself-has been caught up in a battle
between two extreme views in this coun-
try, the extreme view on the one hand
that people with unorthodox political
thought, political ideas or political ideol-
ogies, should be taken out and eradicated
and in some way disposed of, and the
equally absurd view on the other extreme
holding that Congress has no business
legislating or investigating in the very
important field of subversion. As I stated
before, this is the basic right of every
democratic government. Subversion is
as old as the history of organized society
and the threat may be one form of ism
today and a different one tomorrow.
The resolution spells out and gives
the House Committee on Un-American
Activities the power to make investiga-
tions into the matter of subversion, to
advise the House of the nature and the
extent of such activities so that the
House and the Senate can legislate with-
in this very important field and still pre-
serve the constitutional liberties which
we all cherish as Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House of
Representatives will give the new com-
mittee and the membership of this new
committee a chance to make an effec-
tive contribution to the internal security
of the Nation.
I ask that the Members of the House
vote in favor of the previous question
and subsequently thereto in favor of H.R.
89.
Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. ICHORD. I gladly yield to the dis-
stinguished gentleman from Ohio, the
ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
I ask the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Icaoxn) if the Members of the
House of Representatives can under-
stand from the statement of the author
of the resolution that it was meant to
clarify, but neither to enlarge the juris-
diction of the to-be-created Committee
on Internal Security, nor to diminish the
jurisdiction so long exercised by the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives?
Mr. ICHORD. That is quite true, and
I am very glad that the gentleman asked
that question in order to properly es-
tablish legislative intent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MILLS). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 5 minutes.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, at the outset
let me say that I support House Resolu-
tion 89, wholeheartedly even though I
would have preferred to have seen the
name of this committee remain the same.
At every session of the Congress since
I have been a Member, there has been a
certain group of individuals who have at-
tempted to bring an end to this commit-
tee. This session is no exception.
There have been those who always
make attacks on the appropriations for
this committee. Today there will be at-
tacks made on this proposed change of
name for the committee and for clari-
fication of the responsibilities of the
same.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Com-
munist Daily World is against this reso-
lution that we are discussing today-
and speaking only for the gentleman
now in the well, I cannot think of a better
reason why I should be for the resolution.
The purpose of the resolution is to do
just as the gentleman who preceded me
in the well has stated, and that is to
change the rules of the House of Repre-
sentatives in three instances, each con-
cerning the existing Committee on Un-
American Activities.
The name of the committee will be
changed to the Committee on Internal
Security.
The membership of the committee will
remain at nine.
Turning to page 2 of the resolution,
let us examine the jurisdictional grant
of authority being made to the com-
mittee.
Certainly, items (1) and (2) do not
necessarily broaden the present powers
of the committee to investigate internal
subversive and anti-Government activi-
ties. But they do clearly spell out spe-
cific kinds of activities that fall under the
jurisdiction of the new renamed commit-
tee.
Subparagraph (3) is merely a restate-
ment of current committee jurisdiction.
On page 3 of the resolution there is pro-
vision for the granting of subpena pow-
ers and the right to hold meetings while
the House is in session.
Section 3 and 4 of the resolution are
technical amendments to insure, first,
that all published documents and so
forth of the Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities are transferred to the re-
named Committee on Internal Security,
and second, that the adoption of this
resolution will not invalidate or in any
way hinder any action or proceeding cur-
rently in existence which has been initi-
ated by the Committee on Un-American
Activities.
Speaking about the duties and respon-
sibilities of this committee during the
91st Congress, let me say that I hope
that this committee will go into the mat-
ter of SDS activities on our college cam-
puses.
When this resolution was before the
Committee on Rules, I asked the chair-
man of the committee whether or not it
was the committee's intention to do this,
and I might yield to him now to ask him
if it is his intention to investigate the
activities of this SDS group which is
causing so much trouble on our college
campuses.
Mr. ICHORD. Let me say to the honor-
able and distinguished gentleman from
Ohio that at the meeting tomorrow I
intend to lay before the committee a pro-
posal to make a study in depth of revolu-
tionary violence within this Nation.
I have publicly stated that if the SDS
is conducting classes in guerrilla war-
fare, the making of molotov cocktails
and other explosives, as testified to by
J. Edgar Hoover before the House Ap-
propriations Committee-and I have
complete confidence in Mr. Hoover's
testimony-then SDS should be investi-
gated by a committee of Congress. This
matter will be laid before the committee
and appropriate action taken.
Mr. LATTA. I wish to commend the
chairman for taking this position and
for making this statement as I do not
know of a more pressing problem than
the one dealing with the activities of
certain groups on our college campuses.
Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. LATTA. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. McCULLOCH. Would the gentle-
man say to the Members of the House
that it is his opinion and the opinion of
the members of the Committee on Rules,
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1969
so far as he could determine it, that this We are told by proponents that House
resolution is without condition, to clarify Resolution 89 merely intends to "clarify"
and not to enlarge the jurisdiction of the and not expand the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Internal Security which is Committee on Un-Amercian Activities.
hereby created nor to diminish the pres- But the prsent-day intent of any Mem-
ent jurisdiction of the House Committee her cannot protect against broadened
on the Judiciary. interpretations of the committee's man-
Mr. LATTA. In answer to the gentle- date in the future.
man's question, I would like to say as the On January 27, when I learned that
gentleman from Missouri did today that House Resolution 89 would be considered
there is no intention to expand the juris- by the Committee on Rules, I wrote to
diction of this committee or any inten- Chairman COLMER and urged that no
tion to encroach on the jurisdiction of favorable action be taken by the Com-
any other committee. mittee on Rules until the need for the
Mr. McCULLOCH. I thank the gentle- proposed amendment had been demon-
man. strated on the record, nor until the com-
Mr. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, will the mittee had considered whether or not
gentleman yield? the adoption of House Resolution 89
Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman. would result in a division of legislative
Mr. WATSON. If I may pursue that and investigatory jurisdiction between
question one step further, as the gentle- two or more standing committees of the
man from Ohio just said on the ques- Blouse.
tion as to whether or not there was any I would urge the Committee on Rules
intention to diminish the authority of to reconsider, what must be obvious to
the distinguished Committee on the all, is a vague and imprecisely drawn
Judiciary, and the response was, "No"- amendment to the rules of the House. I
likewise this resolution in no way is in- also would urge that a thorough and de-
tended to diminish the jurisdiction of the tailed comparison be made between the
former House Committee on Un-Ameri- language of House Resolution 89 and
can Activities; is that not correct? that which is already set forth in the
Mr. LATTA. That is absolutely true jurisdictional mandates of other stand-
and the gentleman in the well would not ing committees under rule XI, including
be for the resolution if he had the slight- that of the Committee on the Judiciary.
est thought that it would be diminishing I am not persuaded that any of these
the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Un-American Activities.
Mr. WATSON. I appreciate the gentle-
man's statement and I wanted to have
that clarified in the RECORD. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MILLS). The gentleman from New York
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
oppose House Resolution 89. I urge my
colleagues to join with me in rejecting
this resolution irrespective of whether
they support or oppose the operations of
the Committee on Un-American Activ-
ities.
Rule XI of the rules of the House
contains the jurisdictional charter of
each standing committee, marking the
boundaries of its legislative and investi-
gative powers. Such demarkation is es-
sential to the orderly and efficient con-
duct of the business of the House. A
change in the jurisdictional charter of a
+andin committee should be approved
g
essential studies have been undertaken,
and until they are, I would urge my col-
leagues to vote down House Resolution
89.
MMf.r. Sneaker, I am not one of those
who have ranted and railed against the
Un-American Activities Committee. But
on this occasion I cannot remain quiet
because I feel that this resolution
poaches on the preserves of the Judiciary
Committee.
The gentleman from Missouri makes
the assertion that this resolution clari-
fies the jurisdiction heretofore given to
the Uri-American Activities Committee.
I take issue with that statement. I believe
ti le vague and imprecise wording of the
resolution further obscures the judica-
tion of Un-American Activities Commit-
tee. It creates grave doubt as to what
the jurisdiction of that committee really
is.
Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD the letter, to which I have
already referred, which I sent to the
distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Missis-
after the most painstaking and de- sippi (Mr. COLMER) under date of Janu-
only
tailed examination and upon a record ary 27, 1969.
clearly demonstrating the need for the The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
proposed change. I am not persuaded objection to the request of the gentle-
that such an examination has been un- man. from New York?
dertaken in the case of House Resolu- There was no objection.
tion 89. The letter is as follows:
Before approving an amendment to JANUARY 27, 1969.
the jurisdiction of a standing commit- Hon. WILLIAM M. COLMER,
toe, the House should consider the effect COci+man, Committee on Rules,
of such an amendment on the jurisdic- U.S. House of Representatives,
L'7asitington, D.C.
t . Such mandate of other standing ieOOm- DEAR MJR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to ex-
--void Such a comparison is essential
?void conflicts. A grant of jurisdiction, press my opposition to H. Res. 89, a resolu-
tion to amend the Rules of the House of
.ch, by its terms or by implication, Representatives to change the name of the
l ,'licts with another committee's Committee on Un-American Activities, and
;Oil. sdiction will surely lead to confusion for other purposes, which is now pending be-
i__ the Committee on Rules
lm- r e e
Activities Committee to the "Committee on
Internal Security." It would also describe
the jurisdiction of the Committee in broad,
vague language whose ultimate consequences
cannot be predicted. If all that is intended
is a restatement of existing jurisdiction,
the amendment is unnecessary and is un-
desirable because it might create jurisdic-
tional disputes between Standing Commit-
tees of the House. If, on the other hand, it
is intended to increase the jurisdiction of
the Committee and confer investigative au-
thority over subject matter not heretofore
covered, the amendment should be opposed
because no need has been demonstrated for
any such expansion and because the resolu-
tion does not make clear what transfer of
jurisdiction from what other Standing Com-
mittees of the House is contemplated.
In this respect, H. Res. 89 departs from
recent precedent. On October 20, 1967, the
House, by amendment of its Rules, trans-
ferred jurisdiction over military and na-
tional cemeteries from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs to the Commit-
tee on Veterans' Affairs. That amendment
made perfectly clear the precise impact of
the change in the jurisdiction of both Com-
mittees. The resolution apparently resulted
from the cooperative efforts of the Chairmen
of both Standing Committees involved. It
was approved without opposition.
Such precedent should be observed when-
ever changes in the jurisdiction of Standing
Committees of the House are made.
Illustrative of the vague and imprecise
character of H. Res. 89 is the language au-
thorizing investigations by the Committee
with respect to activities involving "... vio-
lence, treachery, espionage sabotage, insur-
rection, or any unlawful means " (p. 2.
lines 8-10), A comparison with Rule XI,
clause 19, dealing with the present investiga-
tive jurisdiction of the Committee on Un-
American Activities indicates that the pres-
ent jurisdiction is limited to "un-American
propaganada." Read literally, the language
in H. Res. 89 thus contemplates a sub-
stantial expansion of the investigative au-
thority of the Committee.
Further, a comparison with Rule XI,
clause 12, dealing with the jurisdiction of
the Committee on the Judiciary indicates
that insofar as espionage is concerned, sub-
paragraph (c) of clause 12 specifically con-
fers such jurisdiction on the Committee on
the Judiciary. Traditional practice and cus-
tom also indicate that the Committee on the
Judiciary, established in 1813, historically
has exercised legislative jurisdiction over
bills dealing with crime, espionage, sedition
and penalties (Hines Precedents, vol. IV,
see. 4069 et seq., Cannon's Precedents, vol.
VII, sec. 1747 et seq.). Paradoxically, one
consequence of adoption of H. Res. 89 might
be a division of legislative and investigatory
jurisdiction between two Standing Commit-
tees of the House on the subject matter of
certain crimes and penalties.
Changing the name of the Committee on
Un-American Activities may or may not be
appropriate. However, the aggrandizement
of that Committee by the delegation to it of
jurisdiction customarily exercised by the
Committee on the Judiciary is a matter of
critical concern to me.
I would appreciate it if you would make
this letter part of your Committee's record
on H. Res. 89.
Sincerely yours,
EMANUEL CELLAR
Chairman, .
Mr. CELLER. Ordinarily, when the
jurisdiction of a standing committee is
changed, there is a hearing and a full
record developed. There is careful in-
quiry and investigation made as to
whether a change in the rules is justified.
But there has been no record made here
and disputes in the future an may
pair the effective flow of legislative The proposed rule would do much more to support the proposed changes. We are
business in this Chamber. than change the name of the Un-American not told even what jurisdiction, if any,
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
would be taken from one committee and
granted to another. That question is left
unanswered.
As one reviews the history of the House
Un-American Activities Committee, he
observes that the exercise of jurisdiction
by that committee has not been unac-
companied by puzzlement and befuddle-
ment. With the passage of this resolu-
tion, and as cases come before the courts,
there will be even more befuddlement
and more puzzlement and more confu-
sion. I do not think even the distin-
guished chairman of that committee, for
whom I have a deep and abiding affec-
tion and a high regard, is going to bene-
fit very much by the adoption of the
resolution.
For example, specific mention is made
of espionage. Since 1813-for over 150
years-the Judiciary Committee has had
jurisdiction over espionage. Espionage is
also specifically mentioned in House Res-
olution 89. It is mentioned along with
some so-called clarifiyng language. If a
bill is offered that mentions espionage,
what will the Parliamentarian do? What
will the Speaker do? Will that bill be re-
ferred to this so-called new committee,
the old House Un-American Activities
Committee? Wiill it be referred to the
House Judiciary Committee? We should
not permit that doubt.
That uncertainty will hold good for
many of the specific items mentioned in
the bill, such as sabotage, insurrection,
and so forth.
It is because of such doubts that I
raise these questions. Therefore, I hope
that the Members of this House, will
carefully reexamine this question and
reject House Resolution 89.
A change in name is proposed to be
effectuated. Although I am not so much
interested in the change of name, it is
well to make one or two observations
with reference thereto.
I remember that Lincoln once asked
this question: "If you call a dog's tail a
leg, how many legs will the dog have?"
Someone answered, "Five legs."
Lincoln said, "No, the dog would still
have four legs, because calling the dog's
tail a leg does not make it a leg."
There is another old adage that is well
to bring forward now: "An ass is an ass
although his saddle cloth be satin."
Whatever the committee is called the
important thing is what is being done
under the name of that committee. It is
well to keep that in mind. It is what the
committee has done that has caused all
the contention and difficulty.
Therefore, I must perforce indicate
my opposition to House Resolution 89.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. ASHBROOK).
Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of House Resolution 89 which
I am proud to cosponsor with the gentle-
man from Missouri and the gentleman
H 961
have carefully studied his proposed new still obtain credibility with their claim
mandate. that the committee's mandate is uncon-
Before stating the reasons why I urge stitutionally vague because of the word
adoption of House Resolution 89, I would "Un-American" in it.
like to make one important point. I be- Despite numerous holdings of the
lieve it is essential that this point be very courts to the contrary, the same critics
clearly stated at this time before, as I repeatedly claim-with some success-
hope, the House confers a newly worded that the investigation of propaganda, an-
mandate on the Committee on Un-Amer- other word in the committee's mandate,
ican Activities. The point is this : is a violation of the first amendment, an
Neither I nor any other member of invasion of one's right to speak and write
the Committee on Un-American Activi- freely and to hold such political views as
ties, to my knowledge, believes that the he chooses.
present mandate is constitutionally in- By their constant attacks on the com-
firm on the ground of vagueness or any mittee on these two major points, Com-
other ground. munists and other committee enemies
During the 30 years the present man- have scored significant gains in what I
date has been operative as the authority have referred to as the political, prop-
of the Committee on Un-American Ac- aganda, and psychological war this
tivities, it has been challenged over and House is engaged in, in its efforts to com-
over again in the courts of our land- bat subversion. Specifically, they have
more times than I can remember at the raised doubts and concern in the minds of
moment. It has survived each and every many loyal and decent Americans who
one of these challenges. Attorneys for have no sympathy whatsoever with those
the Communist Party and other enemies people-Communists, Nazis, Facists, or
and critics of the committee have racked others-who would destroy this Nation
their brains for years to find some legal with the help of hostile foreign powers,
or constitutional point on which they or even alone if they could. They have
might get the Supreme Court to nullify raised doubts, I say, in the minds of these
the present mandate as violative of the people about the fairness and wisdom of
Constitution. They have never succeeded. the House in creating, and continuing
In case after case, they have gone to the life of, the Committee on Un-Ameri-
courts of appeals and then on to the can Activities.
Supreme Court with their claims against The present mandate, in other words,
the committee's mandate. In not one has a few words and phrases in it that
case have they been upheld. enable the enemies of this country to
The landmark Supreme Court decision further their cause by effectively hang-
on the question of the constitutionality ing certain "smear America" and
of the present mandate is the 1959 Bar- "smear the Congress" propaganda op-
enblatt case which settled once and for erations on them.
all-by rejecting it-the often heard Times change. Concepts and ideas,
claim, the one that is so frequently words and phrases, that were politically
pressed, that the mandate is so vague effective 20 and 30 years ago are not
that it can not be supported under our necessarily effective today. Developments
Constitution. The Supreme Court held, in recent years have indicated that a
and I quote: change in the name and mandate of the
The rule cannot be said to be constitu- committee might be advisable. This has
tionally infirm on the score of vagueness. been discussed within the committee for
I stress the word "cannot." a considerable length of time and I know,
This tribute to the present mandate for example, that the late former com-
should be a part of this record at the mittee chairman, Tad Walter, a few
years of what, I believe, will be its retire- tho3s before his unfortunate
al
For 30 years, it has served the , gave serious thought hought to this, death
thou, he eventually decided not to act
ct
commistee, the House, and the Nation upon it.
well. The Court's words are a tribute to While on this matter, it should be
the judgment of the House. If we are to pointed out that it is not only the en-
bury the mandate now-and I think my emies of the committee who have been
role as a cosponsor of House Resolu- critical of the words and the phrases in
tion 89 makes me kind of an honorary its mandate I have referred to. William
pallbearer in the ceremony-it should be F. Buckley, Jr., for example, the \vci'.-
with respect and with pride. I for one, known editor of the conservative Na-
feel no shame for the old mandate of the tional Review, who has also edited a
committee. book supporting the committee and its
But, why do we need a new mandate work, as well as some other friends and
if the old one is constitutionally sound? defenders of the committee, have raised
My answer is this. When dealing with questions about the wording of the man-
subversive activities, we are engaged in date.
more than a purely constitutional and These are the reasons why, I believe,
legal battle. We are also involved in a the House should act favorably on the
form of political propaganda, and psy- measure now before us. A reading of the
chological warfare, and in these areas, new mandate of the Committee on Un-
there are certain disadvantages in the Ame A +
f
ncan
t
fiom California. name of the committee and the wording
As ranking minority member of the of its present mandate.
committee, I have given serious thought Despite the 10-year old Baranblatt lul-
to the idea of a new mandate for the ing, the Communist Party, the fronts it
Committee on Un-American Activities has created to work for abolition of the
for a number of years, have discussed it committee, other Communist groups, and
with the gentleman from Missouri as assorted individual, newspaper, and or-
well as other committee members, and ganizational enemies of the committee,
4
;
c lvl les,
o be renamed the
Committee on Internal Security, makes
it clear beyond all doubt that, the word-
ing is much superior to that of the old
mandate. This is true not only from the
legal and constitutional viewpoint, but
also from the viewpoint of political real-
ity. It is much more precise in spelling
out just what the committee is empow-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
H 962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
ered to investigate. As the gentleman
from Missouri has stated repeatedly-
and I agree with him completely on
this-it does not change the power or
the authority of the committee. It re-
tains for it all the authority it has had
for the past 30 years under its old man-
date, neither diminishing nor expand-
ing it-authority, I should add, which
the courts have consistently upheld as
constitutional.
Periodically, over the last 25 years, it
has been urged by a few Members that
the investigation of subversive activities
be turned over to the Judiciary Commit-
tee. Not once in the course of the 37
years during which the House has been
investigating subversive activities, how-
ever, has this view been accepted. Time
will not permit me to spell out now all
the reasons why it would be most unwise
to transfer the jurisdiction of the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities to the
Judiciary Committee. However, I do ask,
Mr. Speaker, for leave to extend and re-
vise my remarks so that this RECORD
will clearly reflect why the House on
various occasions in the past has not
agreed to such a move and why it should
not do so now.
I am certain that there is no doubt in
the mind of the great majority of the
Members of this House but that we
should continue our 37-year practice,
tradition-and duty-of investigating
subversive activities so that the Con-
gress-in the people's interest-will be
enabled to take all legislative measures
possible to protect the security of this
Nation. It is my carefully considered view
that House Resolution 89 is the best pos-
sible foundation for continuing this vital
activity and I join with the gentleman
from Missouri in strongly urging that it
be passed.
Now I would like to address my re-
marks particularly to the question that
was raised by my distinguished colleague
from Ohio, the ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary (Mr.
MCCULLOCH). He expressed the concern
whether or not it was the intention on
our part in any way to expand our juris-
diction or invade what might be called
the prerogatives of the Judiciary Com-
mittee. I would say to the gentleman
and to the Members of the House that
there is no inclination on the part of
any member of this committee to do so.
It is our belief that there is nothing
contained in this resolution which would
allow us to do so.
I can say as the ranking minority
member, there is no area that we intend
to investigate that we could not now
investigate. We are simply trying to
clarify the mandate of our committee.
The contention that we will be invad-
ing the jurisdiction of the Judiciary and
that our functions should be transferred
to the Judiciary Committee are the basic
arguments against House Resolution 89.
I do not believe either contention should
b accepted by this House.
In his appearance before the Rules
Committee on February 4, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. CULVER) advanced a
number of arguments in support of House
Resolution 211, which he had introduced
to abolish the HCUA and transfer some,
but by no means all, of the functions of
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties to the Judiciary Committee. Inas-
much as the same basic arguments will
probably be made a part of the RECORD
today, I will make the following observa-
tions concerning them.
The gentleman from Iowa said that one
of the purposes of his resolution was "to
consolidate internal security functions in
the one Committee which presently has
jurisdiction over espionage as well as the
criminal code in general."
Let us examine the two basic points in
that argument-those relating to espio-
nage and the criminal code.
We are all agreed, I am sure, that in-
ternal security functions should be con-
solidated in one committee, but why the
committee that has jurisdiction over
espionage?
It is true that during the 1930's, during
the period of World War II, and for some
time thereafter, the U.S. Communist
Party was deeply involved in espionage.
The Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties, however, played a major role in
terminating its extensive activities in this
area. The revelations of Whittaker
Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and others
before the committee in the latter part
of the 1940's, along with subsequent com-
mittee hearings on the subject-and the
trials of the Rosenbergs and others which
were based on the work of the FBI-re-
sulted in Moscow's instructing the U.S.
Communist Party to divorce itself from
the espionage business. Since that time,
espionage in the United States has been
the province of Soviet military intelli-
gence, the GRU, and Moscow's civilian
espionage agency, the KGB.
If it is intended that the House will
continue to investigate all Communist
and other subversive activities, then the
Judiciary Committee's traditional juris-
diction over espionage legislation is no
argument for transferring the functions
of the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities to that committee.
The Bolsheviks did not take over Rus-
sia through espionage; Moscow did not
take over its satellites in Eastern Europe
through espionage; the Communists did
not take over China through espionage;
Castro did not take over Cuba through
espionage; and while espionage has been
a traditional Communist weapon, the
U.S. Communist Party has never hoped
to take over this country solely or pri-
marily through espionage.
This House first decided that inves-
tigation of communism was called for 39
years ago-in 1930. House Resolution 220
of the 71st Congress, second session, did
not provide for an investigation of Com-
munist espionage, however, but of Com-
munist propaganda in the United States.
Even then, the House recognized that the
major danger in communism was not the
theft of some Government secrets, but its
attack on men's minds. Pursuant to that
resolution, a special committee, since
generally referred to as the Fish com-
mittee, was established to investigate
Communist propaganda.
In 1934, House Resolution 198 of the
73d Congress authorized the creation of
a Special Committee on Un-American
Activities not to investigate Nazi and
February -18, 1969
certain other espionage, but "Nazi prop-
aganda activities" and "certain other
propaganda activities." This was the so-
called McCormack-Dickstein committee.
It was chaired by the present distin-
guished Speaker of the House. The
name of that committee and the word-
ing of its mandate again demonstrated
that, as far back as 35 years ago, the
majority of the Members of the House
perceived what was the real danger in
the foreign "isms" that were trying to
gain a foothold in this country.
In 1938, when the present Committee
on Un-American Activities was first es-
tablished as a special committee, it was
created not because the House believed
that the national problem requiring the
attention of a special committee was
Communist, Nazi, and Fascist espionage,
but rather Communist, Nazi, and Fascist
propaganda activities-again, the at-
tacks of these foreign "isms" on the
minds of the American people, their at-
tempts to win adherents and agents in
this country, to turn loyal Americans
into traitors. This is why the original
mandate of the committee contained the
word "propaganda."
To summarize, the great majority of
the Members of the House, during the
past 39 years, have exhibited a clearer
understanding and comprehension of the
evils and dangers of communism than
some Members do today. They have real-
ized that the Communist propaganda
they have been rightly concerned about
could-as it has-create Rosenbergs,
Hisses, and Remingtons.
If it is to be argued that the functions
of the Committee on Un-American Activ-
ities should be transferred to another
committee, and to a committee which al-
ready has jurisdiction over an area in
which there is continuing, significant,
Communist activity, then it would be
far more logical to transfer its functions
to the Education and Labor Committee,
rather than the Judiciary Committee. I
say this because for the past 15 years or
so, the Communist Party has been far
more active in the field of eduction and
labor than it has been in the field of es-
pionage.
In addition, there are other clearly
subversive groups in this country whose
activities warrant investigation but
which, so far as the public record shows,
have never been engaged in espionage. 1
am referring, for example, to the openly
Communist and revolutionary, Peking-
oriented, Progressive Labor Party and
also to certain black militant organiza-
tions which are openly advocating guer-
rilla warfare and are training and arming
their members for this purpose. Nothing
in the Judiciary Committee's mandate
would justify a claim to jurisdiction over
their activties.
The fact that espionage happens to be
in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Com-
mittee, therefore, is really-to those who
know something about subversive activi-
ties in this country-no argument for
transferring the broad functions of the
Committee on Un-American Activities to
that committee.
Espionage is as old as governments.
It was a problem that existed many,
many years before we ever heard of Com-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 11963
munists, Nazis, or Fascists in this coun-
try. The House did not originally create
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties to deal with any special problem
caused by espionage and, although Com-
munist espionage activities have always
been recognized as being within its juris-
dition, that has never been considered
by informed persons as a major reason
for the existence of the Committee on
Un-American Activities.
The argument that investigation of
subversive activities should be turned
over to the Judiciary Committee because
that committee has jurisdiction over "the
criminal code in general" is equally fal-
lacious. Nowhere in the rules of the
House is it stated that the judiciary
Committee has jurisdiction, exclusive or
concurrent, over all statutes or bills con-
taining criminal provisions. It is cer-
tainly erroneous to claim that it has jur-
isdiction over all such statutes except
those assigned to the Committee on Un-
American Activities.
In addition to the Committee on Un-
American Activities, the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs, Post Office and Civil
Service, Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
as examples, have been responsible for
the enactment of various regulatory stat-
utes in the area of their jurisdiction
which provide criminal penalties for
acts committed in violation of the stat-
utes' provisions. No one has ever con-
tended, however, that amendments to
these statutes or new bills in these areas
are the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee.
The mere fact that a bill has a crimi-
nal provision in it does not mean and
has never meant that it is--or should
be-referred to the Judiciary Commit-
tee. Bills and statutes dealing with sub-
versive activities are generally recog-
nized as being within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties, even though they may contain
criminal provisions.
The gentleman from Iowa next argued
that the committee's function should be
transferred to the Judiciary Committee
so that investigation of subversive ac-
tivities would be assigned to Members
"who are lawyers and can bring to bear
the required judicial temperament in
this highly sensitive area bearing so im-
mediately on constitutional responsibili-
ties and restraints."
As a lawyer myself, with appropriate
respect for my profession and its mem-
bers, I reject the idea that only lawyers
are capable of judicious legislative be-
havior and of sitting in competent judg-
ment on legislation dealing with sub-
versive activities. I have been. a member
of the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities for 6 years and have read its
hearings and reports, going back many,
many years. Analyzing the testimony
received and numerous books on commu-
nise which I have read or with which I
am familiar, the one thing that is clear
beyond all doubt in my mind is that the
persons in this country who are best in-
formed about communism, those who
are generally recognized as being au-
thorities or experts on the subject, are
for the most part nonlawyers.
Expertise on subjects within a com-
mittee's jurisdiction is most. desirable.
But a law degree gives no one expertise
on subversion and knowledge of it is es-
sential to effective legislation and in-
vestigation. We would be denying the
Committee on Un-American Activities
valuable members if we were to make it
compulsory that all members be lawyers.
There should always be a good pro-
portion of lawyers on the Committee on
Un-American Activities. The committee
does deal not only with highly sensitive,
but extremely complicated, constitutional
issues. For this reason, I am glad that it
is the policy of the Democratic Party to
require that its members who are as-
signed to the Committee on Un-American
Activities be lawyers. I believe it would
be a grave mistake, however, for the Re-
publican Party to do the same, or to
transfer the committee's functions to a
committee made up entirely of lawyers.
There is no profession or trade in this
Nation that does not have a vital interest
in protecting the security of our country
and which does not have representatives
far better informed about communism
and other subversive activities than many
lawyers are. To the greatest degree pos-
sible, the House committee investigating
subversion should be representative of
all walks of life, and not merely the legal
profession. Breadth of vision, outlook,
and interest is most desirable and needed
on the committee.
Finally, it is urged that the functions
of the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities be turned over to the Judiciary
Committee in order "to withdraw from
this investigative activity the imprimatur
of special legitimacy suggested by the
designation of a standing committee."
This is asking the House to reverse a
decision in which it has persisted-
against all arguments-for 24 years. Of
course, it is possible that the House could
be mistaken in its judgment for such a
length of time, but no facts have been
presented to indicate that this is so.
And what must we and the American
people think of the suggestion that pro-
tecting this country and its people from
the operations of those who would de-
stroy this Nation and the liberties of its
people is unworthy of the same consider-
ation given to problems of transporta-
tion, agriculture, veterans' affairs, and
other matters which have the "imprima-
tur of special legitimacy" conferred by
the jurisdiction of standing committees?
The Supreme Court itself has stated:
To preserve its independence, and give
security against foreign aggression and en-
croachment, is the highest duty of every
nation.
The Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, in a decision on the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities, has
stated that the Government of the
United States, of which this Congress
is a part, has "a prime obligation to pro-
tect for the people that machinery of
which it is a part."
I have no desire to disparage in any
way the work of other standing com-
mittees of the House, or to underrate
the importance of various other areas
of our national life, but I know of no
court decision which has ever conferred
on any matter in the jurisdiction of other
committees an "imprimatur of special
legitimacy" equal to that conferred on
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties by the above-quoted, and numerous
other, Court decisions.
Protecting this country from those
who would destroy it from within,
whether they be agents o foreign pow-
ers or indigeneous enemies of democracy,
is a vital part of cur overall defense ef-
fort. For 24 years, the House has taken
the position that investigating the ac-
tivities of such elements has the same
legitimacy as its concern with our Armed
Forces and the conduct of our foreign
policy. No valid reason has been pre-
sented for a change in the position of
the House on the subject.
Mr. Speaker, there are yet other rea-
sons for opposing this transfer to the
Judiciary Committee which has been
proposed.
THE JUDICI^ARY COMMITTEE IS ALREADY
OVERWORKED
On the average, 40 to 45 percent of
House legislation emanates from the Ju-
diciary Committee. In the 90th Congress,
more than 38 percent of all bills intro-
duced in the House-and they totaled
over 24,000-were referred to the Judi-
ciary Committee.
During the debate on the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, the present
chairman of the Judiciary Committee
protected that the reorganization bill
would reduce the members on the Judi-
ciary Committee from 27 to 25, even while
imposing more work on the committee by
giving it jurisdiction previously exercised
by four standing committees.
He pointed out that as a result of its
"avalanche of business," the Judiciary
Committee had already been divided into
five subcommittees and all five were then
behind in their work because of the "tre-
niendous number of bills" which were
continually referred to the Committee on
Judiciary. He enumerated the additional
duties being imposed on the Committee,
their complexity, the hundreds of addi-
tional bills it would have ..o consider each
year because of them, and then stated:
How we are going to do all that work with
25 members is beyond my comprehension.
That, gentlemen, was 23 years ago.
What is the situation today as far as the
Judiciary Committee is concerned? The
committee has had its membership en-
larged to 35. Despite this, everyone knows
that it is the most overworked commit-
tee in the House. It now has seven sub-
committees and its jurisdiction embraces
19 different subjects. I can say without
fear of contradiction, because it is known
to everyone, that it is having difficulty-
and has always had difficulty-keeping
up with all the work that is assigned to it.
Imposing cal the already overworked
Judiciary Committee the numerous prob-
lems associated with the operations of
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
tics would mean either one of two things:
First, that much less would be done in
the field of countering subversion; or sec-
ond, that other vital matters which are
already within the province of the Judi-
ciary Committee would be neglected.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DOES NOT WANT
JURISDICTION
At no time since the Committee on
Un-American Activities was created has
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Februai?,/ 18, 1969
the Judiciary Committee stated or indi-
c_ited that it wished to take over the in-
estieati.on of subversive activities.
At no time during the 20 years he has
ed as chairman of the Judiciary
Crmr_;.ittee has the present distinguished
c_. irinan of that committee asked or
d that the investigation of Commu?-
isle.t activities and subversive activities
vi general be turned over to his commit-
tee. Moreover, over the years, not more
than a handful of members of that com-
rittee have ever made s~._.. a sugges-
tion.
Not a single mcnlbc-? of the Judiciary
Committee appeared before the Joint
Comnmitt e on the Orran_,ation of the
Congress during its 1965 hearings to urge
that the Judiciary Committee be granted
the authority of the Committee on Un-
American Activities.
At no time during the debate on the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
dill a single member of the Judiciary
Committee recommend that the func-
tions of the Committee on Un-American
Activities be turned over to that com-
mittee.
In addition to the fact that the chair-
man of the Judiciary Committee has
never asked for authority to investigate
subversive activities, prominent mem-
bers of that committee have consistently
and strongly opposed the transfer of
such authority to it.
The late Francis E. Walter served as a
Member of Congress for 30 years. He was
a member of the Judiciary Committee
for 28 of those years and, for many years,
the chairman of its Immigration and
Naturalization Subcommittee. In addi-
tion to being chairman of the Demo-
cratic caucus and chairman of the Dem-
ocratic patronage committee, he served
on the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities for 14 years and was its chair-
man for 8 years.
In February 1963, when the Rules
Committee held hearings on a resolution
which would transfer the functions of
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties to the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Walter was in the hospital where he died
a few months later of leukemia. Unable
to testify before the Rules Committee, he
addressed a letter to judge Smith, its
chairman, in which he strongly opposed
the resolution and urged that the Rules
Committee reject it. The R files Commit-
tee did so.
Enemies of the Committee on Un-
American Activities frequently point out
that Mr. Walter had stated some years
before that he was not irrevocably wed-
ded to any particular structural organi-
zation for the unit of the House charged
with investigating subversive activities
and that he had said that, in his opinion,
when the Committee on Un-American
Activities was first established, it should
have been as a Subcommittee of the Ju-
diciary Committee.
In his letter to Judge Smith, Mr. Wal-
tcr pointed out that these earlier state-
Di ins "were on the purely theoretical
level." He added:
When we consider the advisability of ac-
tually transferring the Committee's func-
tions to another committee at this very late
dote, my experience as Chairman of the
Corunittee for eight years has convinced me
that certain very practical considerations
arise which strongly militate against such
action.
He then listed six compelling reasons
why he strongly opposed any move to
transfer the authority of the Committee
on Un-American Activities to the Judic-
iary Coa mitt-e.
Ou~ recent colleague, Edwin E. Willis,
served in the Congress for 20 years. He
was member of the Judiciary Commit-
tea 0-iroughout those 20 years and, in
ad_;iion, served as chairman of four of
its sul:eommi.ttees. Moreover. he was a
rnenmar of the Committee on Un-Amer-
ican ?cc tine for 13 years and its chair-
man for 5 s.rs. Throughout his congres-
st.on al c re r r. he opposed and fought
e~-ery move to transfer the functions of
the Committee on Un-American Activ-
it es to the Judiciary Committee.
I svIbmit there are no Members of this
body who, by reason of experience, are
better qualified than these two men to
form a sou 1d i:_ldgmcnt as to the advis-
ability of imposing on the Judiciary
Committee the duties of the Committee
or. Un- imeric n Activities. Tad Walter
end 'lid Willis were recognized as
out- Members of the House. They
were prominent on both committees for
inane years and devoted to both com-
mittees. They knew the problems of both
committees well and, in their wisdom, al-
ways urged the retention of the Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities as a
standing committee.
T_-IO17S.E HAS RE"EAIEOL7 REJECTED IDEA AS
UNSOUND
It is now being argued that, if the
House will only give full and careful con-
sideration to the idea of transferring the
functions of the Committee on Un-
Amcrican Activities to the Judiciary
Committee, it will see wisdom in this step
and decide to take it.
This argument deserves careful anal-
ysis because the fact is that the House
has repeatedly considered the idea-di-
rectly or indirectly-over a period of
many years and rejected it every time
it has been proposed.
Just 3 years ago, in the 89th Congress,
a Joint Committee on the Organization
of the Congress was established pursuant
to Senate Concurrent Resolution 2,
adopted on March 11, 1965. The joint
committee held lengthy hearings. It
heard 199 witnesses, more than 100 of
them Members of the Congress. Testi-
mony received was published in 15 vol-
umes, totaling 2,322 pages.
Two separate recommendations con-
cerning the Committee on Un-American
Activities were heard by the joint com-
mittee. Representatives of two Cominu-
nist fronts and a representative of the
ACLU urged that the committee be abol-
ished. One Member of the Ho.ise urged
that the committee's function:: be trans-
ferred to the Judiciary Committee.
On July 28, 1966, the joint committee
published a 97-page report. The report
rejected both the recommendation that
the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties be abolished and also the recom-
mendation that its functions be turned
over to the Judiciary Committee.
In 1963, as previously indicated, the
Rules Committee held hearings on reso-
lutions introduced by three Members of
the House to eliminate the Committee
on Un-American Activities and transfer
some of its functions to the Judiciary
Committee.
On February 26, 1963, the Rules Com-
mittee, after due deliberation, voted 12
to 1 against reporting the resolutions.
In 1945 the House found itself in an
unfortunate situation ,%Inch interfered
with, and strongly h ;n,pcred. its effective
operation as the leg islative and investi-
gative agency of the American people-
that arm of Governnicilt which is the
most immediate expression of the will of
the people in the affairs of our Nation.
The House then had 48 standing com-
mittees-far too many. The Members of
the 79th Congress wisely decided to do
something to correct this situation, to
reorganize and streamline this body, so
that it could effectively meet the great
challenges it faced in the period inmzed-
iately following World War II.
A Joint Committee on Reorganization
of the Legislature was formed. Senator
1A2onroney, then a Member of the House
and the vice chairman of the joint com-
mittee, described the situation which
then prevailed in the House as "a
sprawling, overlapping, crazy quilt" that
presented the Congress with a "hopeless
morass of legislative difficulties."
Five months of hearings followed the
formation of this joint committee. These
hearings comprised the most thorough
analysis and review of the Legislature of
this country, its basic and necessary
functions, and the type organization
needed to carry them out in the most
sufficient possible manner that had taken
place since our Government was estab-
lished.
These extensive hearings and debates
culminated in Public Law 601, the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1946, which,
in effect, established the structure of the
Congress as we know it today. Public
Law 601 reduced the standing commit-
tees of the House from 48 to 19. It elim-
inated 29 standing committees as super-
fluous. At the same time, however, it
retained the Committee on Un-American
Activities as a standing committee even
though the committee had enjoyed that
status for only a year.
Most significantly, during all the de-
bate on the Legislative Reorganization
Act, no proposal was ever made that the
function of the Committee on Un-Amer-
ican Activities be turned over the Judi-
ci K Com:mih -ee. A proposal to abolish
th com iittee ir%ustered only 25 votes.
Now, let us go back to 1930 when the
House undertook its first investigation
of co_n>_x;uni: iri. It could have decided at
that time to assign the task of investi-
gating Communist propaganda to the
Judiciary Committee. Apparently, how-
ever, sec u absolutely no logical rea.s~ ~z
or justification for doing so, it created
the Fish co:m?,ittee, a special commit-
tee, to conduct the investigation.
The sa n.= thing happened in 1934
when the House. for the second time,
decided to investigate subversive ele-
ments in this country. No one, apparent-
ly, believed there was any good reason
to assign the task to the Judiciary Com-
mittee, and so the McCormack-Dickstein
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
Febr?uaiy 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
committee, another special committee,
was set up to do the work.
And, of course, the same thing hap-
pened in 1938 when the Committee on
Un-American Activities was first estab-
liehee d as a special committee. This time,
with the experience of two special coin-
nfate s behind it, it apparently never
occurred to anyone in the House that
there was some need, reason, or justifiea-
t in for assigning an investigation of this
type to the Judiciary Committee.
In each of the , cc, ad g C: ,. es es,
through the 78th, the House, instead of
c o-htinuing the .ie of the Special Com-
inittee on Un-AI herican Activities, could
h. ,,-,,c conferred its authority on the Ju-
diciary Coi mnittee. Instead, with due
deiibeeation and thought, it voted in each
Congress to renew the life of the Special
Committee on Un-American Activities.
Finally, in 1945, the year before the Re-
organization Act, the House voted to
make the Special Committee on Un-
American Activities a standing commit-
tee. There was no hue and cry, no urging
that the functions of the special com-
mittee be turned over to the Judiciary
Committee rather than a standing Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities.
And so we have a clear and unbroken
record of almost 40 years; we have a
House tradition; we have a House policy
which states, in effect, that on organiza-
tional, constitutional, or other grounds,
there is no basis for a claim that inves-
tigation of subversion should be in the
hands of the Judiciary Committee.
How can it be argued, in view of this
history, that the House has not given
careful thought to the idea in the past?
Is it not true that each time the House
considered the question of voting on a
committee to investigate subversion dur-
ing the past 40 years, its Members must
have given serious thought about how
best to do it, which committee and which
kind of committee would be best suited
to the task? At this point, it appears to
me, as I am sure it must to many others,
that further consideration of this ques-
tion would serve no purpose except to
waste the time of the House.
As a member of the Committee on Un-
American Activities, I have naturally
kept myself informed about the various
proposals made affecting it. I have read
and listened to the arguments pro and
con these various proposals. I must say
frankly that in the 8 years I have served
as a Member of the House, I have not
read or heard a single argument on this
issue that provided any logical grounds
for changing the reasoned and well-
established policy of the House.
NONPARTISAN INVESTIGATION OF SUBVERSION
DESIRED
The House wisely decided years ago
that its investigations into Communist
subversion, no matter what form it took,
sho'z'.d be as nonpartisan as possible and
th-!t, from the organizational viewpoint,
:steps should be taken to see that investi-
g ations would not become political foot-
alls.
For this reason, the House deliberately
created the Committee on Un-American
Activities with a structure different from
I h t of all other committees, to make it
.-s nonpartisan and nonpolitical as pos-
sible. Throughout its life, except for a
lapse during the 89th Congress, the House
has given the majority and minority
parties equal representation on the com-
mittee--four Republicans and four Dem-
ocrats-with the chairman being a
member of the majority party.
The record of the Committee on Un-
A.,nerican Activities has been excellent
in keeping partisan politics out of its
work. But we must all face the fact that
if we were to give either party a sig-
niiea zt h,hajo] ity on the committee, we
would be creating , avery real danger
that i~ eet~ ati ns in, this f)elc. could
become partisan.
The Judiciary Committee, lik t., : l u tier
committees except the Co mitt.ee on
Un-American Activities, is political, or
partisan, in its structure. Its 35 mem-
bere are now divided between the ma-
jority and minority parties on the ratio
of 20 to 15.
It is vital that Congress and the
American people have full confidence in
the activities of the House in this area.
They must know that its investigations
are not politically inspired. The orga.ni-
z ational setup of the Committee on Un-
American Activities is designed to give
them that assurance; the setup of the
Judiciary Committee is not. For this
reason, too, it would be an error to trans-
fer the functions of the Un-American
Activities Committee to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
INVESTIGATION OF SUBVERSION SHOULD NOT BE
DOWNGRADED
The Communist Party and other sub-
versive elements in this country have
been working for the abolition of the
Committee on Un-American Activities
virtually from the day it was created.
They want it eliminated completely.
Transferring the committee's functions
to a Judiciary Committee subcommittee
would not completely satisfy the Com-
munists, but it would be a step in the
direction they want because it would very
clearly downgrade the importance this
body attaches to protecting our internal
security by thoroughgoing investigation
of subversive activities. In this respect, it
is most important to point out that not
one of the various resolutions introduced
over the years to transfer the, investiga-
tion of subversion to the Judiciary Com-
mittee would have conferred on the new
judiciary Subcommittee all the power
and authority exercised by the Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities. Each and
every one of them, in one way or another,
would have limited or curbed the author-
ity the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities has enjoyed for 30 years.
This question, therefore, must be ex-
amined in its real light. The proposals at
issue have not been simply proposals to
transfer authority. They have been, and
are, proposals to abolish the Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities, to take
away from the House an investigative
power it has enjoyed for 30 years and
supplant it with a much reduced author-
ity.
NOOSE Of;G.NIZATION SHOULD NOT BE
IDEOLOGICAL
During the debate on the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, one Member
mittee on Un-American Activities be
eliminated as a standing committee.
Senator Monroney, the floor leader on
the bill as well as vice chairman of the
Committee on Reorganization, objected
to the proposal on the grounds that it
did not concern the "functional re-
organization aa` Con tress," but was rather
a political or ` ico'_:;eical considaeration.''
Obvious',-,,,,, Rouse should he orga-
in the n-oin er best calculated to
er . ble it to c gat its ;, r;,titutional
neti h,::. It. n sh=}uld not be
hosed on 'J ,p of a, distinct
minority of Inernb rs. During the 30-
y-ear existence at the Committee on Un-
ime-loan Act vities. a relative handful
of the thousands of Members w ho have
see :-cd in the have urged th!-.t its
functions be turned over to the Judiciary
Committee or that it be col oplete]y
abolished.
When the -merits these Members
have advanced in support of their posi-
tion are studied .,.!hen their comments
related to the committee and the investi-
gation of subversive activities in general
are analyzed, it becomes clear that their
position is designed neither to improve
the organization and the effectiveness
of the Congress as such, nor to bring
about more intensive and forceful effort
against subversion in both the investiga-
tive and legislative fields. It becomes ap-
parent-though I do not question their
motives or the sincerity of their beliefs-
that they want less done in this area
and oppose the committee because, in
their view, it does too much. They feel
confident less would be done under the
Judiciary Committee.
To put it in a nutshell, their recom-
mendation, as Senator Monroney said of
a similar one in 1946, is ideological or
political. For this reason, it should be
rejected.
HOUEU SHOULD NOT UNFAIRLY ATTACK ITSELF
All proposals to abolish the Committee
on Un-American Activities and/or trans-
fer its authority to the Judiciary Com-
mittee have been based on unfounded
claims that the committee has continu-
ously operated in an irresponsible, un-
democratic manner; that it has failed to
abide by rules of fair procedure; that it
is a threat to the constitutional rights
and civil liberties of American citizens
and so on, ad infinitum.
The House has rightly rejected these
charges for 30 years. For the House to
affirm these unfounded accusations today
by transferring investigation of sub-
version to the Judiciary Committee would
be tantamount to admitting that the
charges I have referred to have been true
all along, that the House has been in
error in rejecting them for the past 30
years and that the House has, in effect,
condoned, financed and approved what
were actually un-American operations by
one of its own creatures.
There is no basis for such an admission.
The charges are not true and I am certain
that the Members of this House will not
thus falsely condemn themselves and
their former colleagues.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
H 966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1969
Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, will the narrow the free-wheeling scope of opera-
yielding. gentleman yield? tion of the proposed Committee on
Mr. Speaker, in reading the resolution Mr. ASHBROOK. I yield to the gentle- Internal Security in any way.
I see it refers to investigative authority man from Missouri. The difficulty with House Resolution
of the committee. Mr. ICHORD. I also wish to state that 89, as with the present HCUA, is that
Will the committees under this resolu- the resolution will give the House Com- the Congress grants investigating powers
tion have authority to originate legisla- mittee on Internal Security a threefold whose broad sweep is inimical to consti-
tion as well as to investigate? function, as any committee of the House tutional principles and unwise as legis-
Mr. ASHBROOK. Our committee has has: legislative, oversight, and investi- lative policy. For example, the following
always had authority to make investiga- gatory. I point out that there are only questions at a minimum are left unre-
tions and to offer such remedial steps as three permanent investigating commit- solved by the proposal:
are necessary. This may demand legisla- tees of the House, that is, the Appropria- What does it mean to "incite" acts of
tive action or executive department tions Committee, the Government Oper- "terrorism" to "oppose" the "policy af-
action. In the past 10 or 15 years, I will ations Committee, and the House Com- fecting the internal security of the
say frankly, most recommendations we mittee on Un-American Activities. United States?"-page 2, lines 12-16.
have made have dealt with steps to be (Mr. ASHBROOK asked and was What is a group's "character" and
taken in the structure of the agencies of given permission to revise and extend what relevance does this have?--page 2,
the executive departments of the Gov- his remarks.) line 1.
ernment. For example, almost a decade Mr. COT_MER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 What does "treachery" mean?-page 2,
ago when Berner) Mitchell and William minutes to the gentleman from Iowa line 9.
Martin defected to the Soviet Union the (Mr. CULVER). Moreover, whatever clarity can be dis-
House Committee on Un-American Ac- (Mr. CULVER asked and was given tilled from such words is entirely dis-
tivities conducted a thorough investiga- permission to revise and extend his re- sipated by subparagraph 3, page 2, line
tion. No legislation came as a result of marks.) 16-which would retain committee juris-
this inquiry which was brought to the Mr. CULVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to diction over "all other questions" that in
House but, even more important, recom- urge Members to vote "no" on the pre- some unspecified way might aid the
mendations were made to the President vious question at the close of this de- Congress in any remedial legislation.
which resulted in a number of significant bate. I urge this with gratitude to the But the central weakness of the pro-
changes in security practices within the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. IcxoRD) posal, wholly apart from these ambigui-
NSA. The late Allen Dulles edited a new for giving this House a much-needed op- ties, is that once an organization falls
book, entitled "Great True Spy Stories," portunity to consider the vital question within the category of organizations to
which notes on page 67: of reform of HUAC. However, only if the be investigated, and this I want to em-
Investigation revealed that both Martin previous question is defeated will it be phasize, all activities-innocent ones as
and Mitchell were sexually abnormal, a situa- possible under our rules to offer an well as threatening ones-may be investi-
tion which should have alerted security amendment which would cure what, in gated. Such innocent activities are most
agents, but Maurice H. Klein, NSA's Assistant my judgment, are the serious deficiencies often those of speech, association, and
Director and Personnel Chief at the time, of House Resolution 89. belief.
insisted the agency enjoyed "as tight a A large number of Members, including The very times in which we live suggest
security program as there is in the whole gov- the author of House Resolution 89, are a pragmatic reason why the powers of
ernment." Unimpressed congressional prob- justifiably concerned over the ambigu- investigation should be refined, not, as
ers discovered it was loose enough for Klein ous language of the present HCUA man- House Resolution 89 would have it, main-
himself
is f to own have personnel file. fabricated some He was of the forced out, records
n his
in date of authority. Moreover, many Mem- tamed intact. In the past the HCUA has
and NSA took 22 steps to tighten its vigilance. bers are concerned over the past excesses often functioned under its overly broad
It fired 26 suspected sex deviates on its roles Of the committee which have fostered powers to provide gratuitious publicity
and in mid 1962 told Congress it had re- excesses on the part of its critics. to those it purports to oppose. As these
viewed the security file of every employee. The time is opportune to consider groups increasingly seek out rather than
This example indicates, in answer to anew how the Congress can best dis- shun the spotlight of the mass media,
the gentleman from Virginia, that our charge its dual responsibilities of pri- the Congress needs some assurance that
functions have been those of all other testing the internal security of our Na- its committees will not become unwitting
committees-investigate, legislate, and tion and guarding the civil liberties of foils for publicity-seeking extremists.
co t They wel continue exactly the our Nation's citizens. But we should not There is another very important point
same if House Resolution 89 is adopted set sail here under a false flag-either we of Congressional organization at issue
today. are genuinely interested in reform or here. The very attempt of House Resolu-
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time we are engaging in political public rela- tion 89 to reword investigating authority
of the gentleman has expired. tions. in the field of internal security in general
Mr. SCOTT. n Mr. Speaker, I yield the In my judgment, House Resolution 89 and espionage in particular raises serious
geMr SCOTT. additional minute. is not reform; further, the measure's at- questions of jurisdictional conflict be-
eman
Ml Speaker
will the gentleman yield? tempt at clarification of the HCUA man- tween the successor to the HCUA and the
Mr. ASHBROOK. I eige to the gentle- date does not constitute a serious effort Committee on the Judiciary, which has
man from Virginia. toward reform. been so ably covered by the chairman of
Meaningful reform in this area must the Committee on the Judiciary, the gen-
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, my thought involve a more precise and confining tleman from New York (Mr. CELLER).
was, can this committee under the au- mandate for investigations concerning Subparagraph (c) of clause 12 in rule
thority of the resolution bring matters matters of internal security. Such an XI explicitly grants jurisdictional au-
to the floor of the House just as any effort must at the least, in my judgment, thority over "espionage" to the Judiciary
other standing committee by its own seek to weigh the respective interests of Committee. By granting authority over
initiative, or does it merely investigate internal security and civil liberty, and "espionage" matters-page 2, line 9-to
and then let the regular committee or mark out as clearly as possible the re- another standing committee, as House
the other committees of the House bring spective boundaries of each interest, Resolution 89 would do, jurisdictional
these matters to the floor? however wide or narrow. conflict between two House committees
Mr. ASHBROOK. We can obviously House Resolution 89 fails to attempt is made inevitable.
bring matters to the floor at any time, such an effort. The author of the reso- By opening up and making clear for
I will say to the gentleman. In sound lution has stated that his proposal "will our consideration the possibility of a di-
practice, we are going to investigate the preserve for the committee the full juris- vision of legislative and investigative au-
need before we bring a bill out. I do not diction and all the powers it has pos- thority between two standing committees
know of any time that we have brought sessed during the almost 29 years of its of the House, House Resolution 89, in my
up a bill without a thorough investiga- operation under the present mandate."- judgment, provides the occasion for the
tion in advance and being able to show CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, January 18, 1967, House to effect meaningful and sound
a specific need for the bill. We intend page 725. After careful review, I must reform.
to continue on that exact course of action agree that his assessment is correct. A consolidation of both investigative
which we followed in the past. House Resolution 89, in fact, does not and legislative internal security functions
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
within the Judiciary Committee, which
has traditionally handled espionage and
sedition matters as well as criminal mat-
ters in general, commends itself on
grounds of sound congressional adminis-
tration.
Furthermore, I believe that assign-
ments in this highly sensitive area bear-
ing so immediately on constitutional re-
sponsibilities and restraints should go to
Members who are lawyers by education
and who can bring to bear the required
judicial temperament.
I might add that in choosing such a
course of action the House would be fol-
lowing the precedent of the other body,
as well as heeding the advice of a past
HCUA chairman, the late Honorable
Francis Walter, who aa dvocated such con-
solidation as late as 1960. In trial testi-
mony Mr. Walter stated:
I am one of the 42 men who voted against
creating the committee. I thought that its
functions should be within the framework
of the Judiciary Committee, just as it is in
the Senate, where this work is done by a sub-
committee of the Judiciary Committee.
Q. Do you still feel that way?
WALTER. Of COW-SC. (U.S. v. Yellin, Mar.
9, 1960.)
Therefore, I urge Members to defeat
the previous question, after which I would
then hope to offer an amendment to
House Resolution 89 which would first
consolidate all internal security func-
tions in the Judiciary Committee; and
second, it would provide for a more pre-
cise mandate on the one hand to protect
constitutionally privileged activities, and
on the other to provide for the internal
security needs of our country.
I believe my amendment would allow
the House better to discharge its duties
in this most sensitive area. But voting
down the previous question does not com-
mit Members to my amendment any more
than it commits them ultimately to op-
position to House Resolution 89.
In conclusion, there is no subject to
which we as Members of Congress have
a greater obligation than the protection
of the very life of our Nation against
those who would destroy it, along with
the preservation of our constitutional
freedoms against those who would defy
them.
We should not delude ourselves that
the problems spawned by the Committee
on Un-American Activities will be solved
even in part, if we merely change words
and fail to grip the very serious root is-
sues suggested by those words. So I urge
you to defeat the previous question in
order that we may consider meaningful
reform. Thank you.
Mr. O'NEILL of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to give notice I will sup-
port the substitute offered by the honor-
able gentleman from Iowa, if the pre-
vious question is defeated.
I have long believed that the activities
and interests of the House Un-American
Activities Committee rightly belong un-
der the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee. The rules of the House and
traditional practice have granted the
Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over
legislation dealing with espionage, sedi-
tion, crime, and punishment. The al-
ways-too-vague and all-embracing in-
vestigative powers of the HUAC have
conflicted with that jurisdiction.
The proposed change in the mandate
of the HUAC will not make that power
less vague or indefinite. What could be
more comprehensive than the phrase
"all other questions, including the ad-
ministration and execution of any law
of the United States, or any portion of
the law, relating to the foregoing that
would aid the Congress or any other
committee of the House in any neces-
saty remedial legislation."
This mandate grants to the commit-
tee what we do not have the constitu-
tional power to grant.
The Judiciary Committee, under its
powers to investigate and propose legis-
lation, has always concerned itself with
real attempts to overthrow our Govern-
ment by force. And this committee of
able and dedicated lawyers has always
weighed constitutional rights and pro-
tections in its efforts.
Through the years HUAC has brought
disrepute to the House of Representa-
tives. The coverage and elevation of
ridiculous and farcial groups has not en-
hanced the reputation or the influence
of the Congress, but has instead made a
mockery of the important legislative and
investigative powers and responsibilities.
The serious and meaningful work of
the Congress is delegated to a lesser po-
sition when equal standing and power
are given to a committee that exposes for
exposure's sake and gives priority to
hearings rather than meaningful leg-
islation.
The Congress has been and should be
concerned with the legislative process
and the protection of constitutional
rights. Yet we have allowed this com-
mittee, which has only dabbled in legis-
lation and completely ignored constitu-
tional guarantees, to continue unchecked
and unabated.
The Judiciary Committee has been
and is concerned with threats to the
Government and our democratic system.
They have been concerned with dangers
from organized groups who wish to over-
throw the Government by force, and
they have been equally concerned with
the dangers of slow steady erosion of our
constitutional guarantees. These threats
are equally serious. The HUAC, I am
afraid, has encouraged the latter in often
blind pursuit of the former.
The Judiciary Committee which has
demonstrated its concern and knowledge
regarding threats to freedom and democ-
racy, should be given full and sole au-
thority over these questions.
We are obligated to consider means as
well as ends. If the means are unconsti-
tutional, unfair, and morally objection-
able, it matters little how worthy the
ends. The Constitution and the Rules of
the House have described and restricted
procedure as much as substantive con-
tent. We should seek a studied, legal, and
truly American approach to solving these
problems and eliminating these dangers.
Such an approach can best be found in
the Judiciary Committee.
If the motion of the previous question
is not defeated, I will vote "aye" and hope
the changing of the name of the com-
mittee will help aleviate the stigma the
Un-American Activities Committee has
placed on the Congress and that the new
committee and new members will reverse
H 967
the policies of the old committee and
bring respect and honor to the Congress.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I now
yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
YATES) for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. YATES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, the trouble
with some committee members is that
they forget they have been appointed and
believe they have been anointed. This is
particularly true of the Committee on
Un-American Activities. Since its origin.
a great many members of that commit-
tee have assumed a messianic role of
defining to the House and the country
the limitations of what free Americans
may think or say or do.
The letter we received yesterday from
the chairman of the committee is a typi-
cal example of committee thinking. He
writes:
Most of the opposition to the bill appears
to come from the radically extreme left, as
evidenced by the enclosed article from the
Communist Daily World.
Although couched in innuendo, the in-
tent is clear: If Members of the House
dare oppose this bill, they are joining the
radically extreme left. I thought the ex-
treme left, being extreme, was as bad as
could possibly be. Apparently, "the radi-
cally extreme left," to use the chairman's
phrase, whatever that means, is much
worse.
But, Mr. Speaker, the letter did serve
a most useful purpose in making crystal
clear that changing the name will not
change the committee, for if the com-
mittee was known for one thing, it was
name calling and guilt by implication.
But name calling won't stifle opposition
to this bill because it is a bad bill. The
same nefarious practices and ambigui-
ties which marked the committee's activ-
ities in the past are authorized and ap-
proved in this bill.
And changing the committee's name
will not help. A bad committee is a bad
committee, no matter what its name.
Shakespeare said:
A rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.
And obvious corollary would be:
A noxious weed by any other name would
smell as foul.
We are all familiar with the legisla-
tive nonrecord of the House Committee
on Un-American Activities-it has made
virtually no substantive legislative pro-
posals in recent years. It has expended
more funds with less legislative return
than any other committee in this body.
In the process of conducting its investi-
gations, HUAC has consistently played
the dangerous game of confusing unor-
thodoxy with subversion and has sacri-
ficed constitutional guarantees by extra-
legal actions. I would be the last one to
suggest that the internal security of the
United States is not of the utmost im-
portance, but there is no evidence that
HUAC has made any significant contri-
bution to the maintenance of that se-
curity.
The time has come for us to repudiate
HUAC, not to give it new life. The in-
vestigatory mandate of House Resolu-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
H 968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1969
tion 89 is no less ambiguous than that The renaming of this committee, if rule XI of the Rules of the House. Rule
which has guided the uneven course of that is all the resolution does, is without XI currently gives the committee au-
HUAC since its establishment as a purpose. But, if it seeks to enlarge the thority to investigate "the extent, char-
standing committee. There is no reason function and jurisdiction of this commit- acter, and objects of `un-American prop-
to believe that a facelift for HUAC will tee, it is then unthinkable. To the extent aganda' activities in the United States,"
magically endow it with the common- this resolution infringes or seeks to in- and to determine the diffusion of "un-
sense and appreciation of fairplay it has fringe upon or take away the jurisdiction American propaganda." Under the pro-
lacked for the past 24 years. HUAC as a of the Committee on the Judiciary and visions of House Resolution 89, the com-
committee has not served this House other committees, it should be flatly mittee's mandate would not be limited
well, and House Resolution 89 retains rejected. to investigation of "propaganda" but
that free-wheeling autonomy that has Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that would explicitly extend into the activi-
bred so many abuses in the past. the motion to close debate be rejected so ties of "organizations and groups." Con-
Many Members, myself included, have that we may appropriately deal with this trary to the statements of the sponsors
introduced legislation that would abolish committee of the Congress. of this resolution, the language proposed
HUAC and transfer its investigatory Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 in the mandate is no less vague than the
mandate to the Committee on the Judi- minute to the gentleman from New York language in the present mandate. For
ciary, where it should be, because that (Mr. RYAN). example, the new mandate would em-
committee now has jurisdiction under (Mr. RYAN asked and was given per- power the committee to investigate orga-
the rules over matters involving sabotage mission to revise and extend his nizations or groups which seek in the
and espionage. remarks.) committee's view to overthrow or alter
On a strictly procedural basis, the Ju- Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, House Res- the Government by such means as
diciary Committee is the proper place for olution 89 would not only change the "treachery." What does "treachery"
inquiries relevant to our internal security. name of the Un-American Activities mean? Beyond that, who establishes
Moreover, the Judiciary Committee is Committee to the Committee on Internal which groups or organizations seek to
made up of men with the legal expertise Security but extend its jurisdiction overthrow the Government by force or
necesary to conduct investigations with into areas of criminal jurisdiction which violence or "any unlawful means?" Will
the proper regard for procedural due are the province of the House Judiciary the committee decide what is "unlawful"
process. We could therefore achieve some Committee as was so well pointed out by activity? Again the proposed mandate is
additional assurance that its investiga- the distinguished chairman of the Judi- open ended.
tions would be germane to our internal ciary, the gentleman from New York These changes would give the commit-
security and not merely showcases for (Mr. CELLER). Time and time again on tee the congressional sanction it seeks to
ideological polemics which breed discord. the floor of this House, I have pointed initiate new investigations into civil
Moreover, there would be the combined out how the House Un-American Activi- rights, peace, student and other organi-
wisdom and proud supervision of the full ties Committee serves no useful legisla- zations which the House Un-American
committee to oversee the actions of the tive purpose and how it has consistently Activities Committee has already inves-
subcommittee to protest against the kind violated our basic constitutional guar- tigated under its old mandate. None of
of noxious investigations that marked antees of due process, bringing discredit the committee's previous sallies into the
its predecessor. upon the House of Representatives. activities of these organizations-which
The parliamentary situation under House Resolution 89 seeks, according have made a mockery of the value and
which we are considering this legislation to its principal sponsor, the gentleman utility of respectable congressional in-
does not provide time for the kind of from Missouri (Mr. ICHORD), to strength- vestigation-suggests this extension of
serious consideration necessary in order en the committee in every possible way, its powers would be in the interest of
to make a reasoned judgment on the clarify its mandate and eliminate any protecting the "internal security" of the
merits of this resolution. The procedure possible misunderstanding and confu- United States.
by which this matter was brought to the sion about the specific powers and juris- In addition to broadening the investi-
floor ought to be of concern to all of us. diction of the committee"-CONCRES- gatory authority, the proposed changes
It is in a sense additional evidence that SIONAL RECORD, January 18, 1967. in the subject matter of the jurisdiction
nothing is really changed by House Reso- What would the practical effect of the of the House Un-American Activities
lution 89. approval of this resolution be? Let me Committee would encroach upon powers
In closing, I want to urge my colleagues turn first to the proposed change in its already delegated to the Judiciary Com-
to seize this opportunity to repudiate the name. mittee. As the chairman of the Judiciary
past actions of HUAC. What is at stake During the past several years opposi- Committee, the gentlemen from New
here is nothing less than the constitu- tion to HUAC has increased steadily and York (Mr. CELLER), pointed out in his
tional guarantees of the Bill of Rights- grown more influential. More and more letter to the Rules Committee opposing
not to mention the reputation of this Members of Congress have begun to pub- House Resolution 89, the powers invested
body. I urge you to vote down the previ- lically express, their opposition to the in the Committee on Internal Security
ous question and support the amendment committee, and a distinguished body of by paragraphs 11(b)1, 11(b) 2, and 11
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. lawyers and jurists has urged that the (b) 3 of the resolution clearly overlap the
CULVER) which would transfer the juris- committee be abolished. Larger and jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,
diction of the Committee on Un-Ameri- larger numbers of citizens are beginning which has long had responsibility for
can Activities to the Committee on the to question the very concepts embodied investigating matters of espionage, sedi-
Judiciary. in its authorizing mandate. tion, and the criminal penalties associ-
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I now The attempt made through this reso- ated with these crimes. If this resolution
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from lution to cloak the committee's activities is approved, a conflict in authority be-
California (Mr. BURTON). in a more euphemistic and respectable tween the Judiciary Committee and the
Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. sounding name is directly related to this Committee on Internal Security will
Speaker, I rise today in support of the growing opposition. For the name of the surely result.
position espoused by our distinguished committee has itself become a symbol of Seven other members of the Judiciary
colleague from Iowa (Mr. CULVER). the vagueness and arbitrariness under Committee, including myself, outlined
I have noted with approval that the which its activities are carried out. A our reasons for opposing this resolution
debate, at least, on our side of the issue change in name and expanded jurisdic- in a letter which we sent to our col-
today, has not resembled a fictional Al tion will create the impression that the leagues on February 13. Are all of these
Capp cartoon depicting the Dogpatch committee has been given new certifica- arguments, which ask only that no other
City Council meeting to resolve to re- tion by the House. committee of the House be granted pow-
name the local skunk works as the Ozark This resolution, which would enlarge ers which infringe upon the mandate of
Perfume Factory. the mandate of the present House Un- the Judiciary Committee, to be ignored?
It was Shakespeare who said: American Activities Committee, would If there is any reason why the House Un-
What is in a name? That which we call a give the committee significantly broader American Activities Committee is better
rose would by any other name smell as sweet. powers than are presently authorized by qualified to carry out the duties already
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
-February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
assigned to the Judiciary Committee
than that committee, I suggest the spon-
sors of this bill make their reasons
known. The sponsor of House Resolu-
tion 89, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. ICHORD), has suggested that Chair-
man CELLER would not have time to take
on the responsibilities outlined in his
resolution. However, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee has never indicated
any lack of willingness to carry out re-
sponsibilities already invested in the Ju-
diciary Committee to investigate espio-
nage or sedition. On the other hand, if
the intent of House Resolution 89 is to
create new areas of investigative respon-
sibility, I would remind my colleagues
that as yet no need has been demon-
strated for the creation of such addi-
tional areas of inquiry. It is important to
note that the present Committee on Un-
American Activities since its inception
has trespassed upon the jurisdiction of
the Judiciary Committee as well as other
House committees.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution cannot be
considered in isolation from the record
of the committee which is the subject of
this bill. For that reason, I wish to very
briefly discuss in "cost-effectiveness"
terms, the legislative record of the House
Un-American Activities Committee dur-
ing the Congress just concluded, the
90th Congress.
In addition to the funds allocated un-
der the Legislative Reorganization Act
og 1946, which in past years has aver-
aged more than $150,000, the Un-Ameri-
can Activities Committee received $725,-
000 in additional funds during the 90th
Congress, the fifth largest sum allocated
to any committee in the House. The Ju-
diciary Committee, by contrast, received
$500,000 in additional funds.
The Un-American Activities Commit-
tee also had the fourth largest staff, em-
ploying more people-47---on its payroll
through December 1968 than all but the
Committees on Appropriations, Educa-
tion and Labor, and Government Opera-
tions.
However, its budget bears no relation
to its legislative productivity. While the
Congress as a whole considered 17,180
measures during both sessions of the 90th
Congress, only 32 bills were referred to
the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee. The average number of measures
referred to each committee of the House,
by contrast, was 1,211. Of these 32 bills
referred to the House Un-American
Committee, 23 were identical or similar
to other bills, leaving it with a real work-
load of nine pieces of legislation. All of
these nine bills properly belonged to the
jurisdiction of other standing commit-
tees of the House.
Only one bill recommended by the
House Un-American Activities Commit-
tee was approved by the 90th Congress.
The lone bill extended the life of the
previously dormant Subversive Activities
Control Board, whose record of achi_eve-
lnerit is, appropriately, comparable to
that of HUAC.
That is the record of the committee
which House Resolution 89 asks be given
new and broader powers of investigation.
One of the sponsors of this resolution,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Icaoan), in a letter to his colleagues
dated February 17, 1967, characterized
the opposition to this resolution as com-
ing from the "radically extreme left,"
which is demonstrated, he says, by the
fact that an article in the Daily World
criticized House Resolution 89.
If anyone had any doubt about how
to vote upon this resolution, it should
have been settled by that letter in which
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICAORn) attempts to equate opposition
to House Resolution 89 with support for
communism. The circulation of the ar-
ticle illustrates the shopworn technique
of guilt by association which HUAC per-
fected over the years. I do not know
whether the letter should be viewed as
the last gasp of the old HUAC or the
first squeal of the new HUAC. However,
whether it is an epitaph or a birth an-
nouncement, it is in character.
Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleagues
had any illusions that the nature of the
committee might improve if the requested
revisions in name and mandate were
approved, I would only ask them to ap-
praise the character of argument made
in that letter. Issues as serious and sensi-
tive as "internal security" require the
utmost concern for due process, and this
committee should not be authorized to
extend its harassing and exposing tactics
into new areas of concern. Far from
meriting the extension on its life it seeks,
it should be eliminated as a standing
committee.
I urge that the previous question be
defeated. Then it will be in order to con-
sider alternatives to House Resolution 89.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. WATSON).
(Mr. WATSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, my con-
tribution to this debate-and I favor
adoption of House Resolution 89-will
be brief and to the point.
On November 12, 1957, Mr. J. Edgar
Hoover, Director of the FBI, wrote a let-
ter to the late Francis E. Walter, then
chairman of the Committee on Un-
American Activities. In this letter he
stated:
Your Committee's role in safeguarding our
freedoms is well known to every patriotic
citizen, and real Americans are not going
to be fooled or misled by efforts to discredit
your vital task.
Two years later, the famed Director
of the FBI, who knows more than any-
one else about subversive operations in
this country and what must be done to
cope with them, wrote in part as follows
to the late Clyde Doyle, who served as a
member of the Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities from 1951 until his death
in 1963:
The American people owe a great debt of
gratitude to the work over the years of con-
gressional investigating committees. These
committees, day after day, secure informa-
tion vitally needed in the consideration of
new legislation. They are indeed indispen-
sable parts of the American legislative
process.
We in the FBI have the highest apprecia-
tion for the contributions rendered by con-
H 969
gressional investigating committees dealing
with Un-American activities. . . .
I feel that both the FBI and congressional
investigating committees, in the field of
internal security, have important roles to
play. We are working for the same goal-
protecting our great Nation from enemies
who seek to destroy us. Our work is not con-
tradictory, but mutually helpful. That is as
it should be.
In 19G0, a fanged American church-
man and patriot, the late Cardinal Spell-
man, sent a telegram to Donald Jackson,
then the ranking Republican on the
Committee on Un-American Activities.
In his telegram he stated:
I respect the fact that Congressman Wal-
ter, you and other members of your com-
rnittee have rendered outstanding service in
exposing Communist activities.
In August 1955, Bernard Baruch, dis-
tinguished elder statesman and adviser
to Presidents, appeared at a House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities hear-
ing on Communist infiltration of the
theater, which was being held in New
York City, to congratulate the committee
members for performing "a very difficult
and very necessary job."
Mr. Baruch told Representative Fran-
cis E. Walter, then chairman of the com-
mittee:
You have a tough task to do and are doing
it well. I have great respect for this Com-
mittee.
It is significant that, for the most part,
these statements were made at times
when, if you believe some of the present-
day as well as past critics of the com-
mittee, the committee itself was engaging
in all kinds of horrible and un-American
practices.
And let's go back many years more
to the days of the Dies committee, the
Special Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities, which has been the subject of
so much vilification by self-appointed
and self-annointed saviors of America.
The American Federation of Labor, at
its 1939 convention held in Cincinnati,
Ohio, formally endorsed the work of the
Dies committee and urged its continua-
tion, Early the following year, when the
House had to decide the issue of whether
or not the Special Committee on Un-
American Activities should be continued.
William Green, president of the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, wrote a letter to
Members of the House in which he made
the following statements:
I cannot conceive of anyone, other than
those who may be exposed through associa-
tion with Communist organizations and
Communist front organizations, objecting to
a thorough investigation into the activities
of subversive groups by a congressional com-
mittee. Those who have no sympathy with
these un-American groups, these subversive
forces within our social order, who are con-
stantly seeking to change our form of gov-
ernment and to promote revolution, can
with perfect propriety give wholehearted
support to the work of the Dies committee.
and to the investigation it has made and
which it can continue to make.
The people of our country are entitled to
know the truth. We of the American Fed-
eration of Labor want them to know the
facts. We want those who are undermining
our form of government and those who are
engaged in subversive activities to be ex-
posed. Ridicule, denunciation, and sarcasm,
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
all directed toward the Dies committee by
those who seek to suppress its activities and
prevent it from carrying on its important
work, can only be looked upon with suspi-
cion.
We cannot permit those who engage in
such tactics to prevent a thorough investiga-
tion and a public exposure of the actions
and of the activities of individuals and
groups who are engaged in un-American ac-
tivities, and who are seeking either directly
or indirectly the overthrow of our Govern-
ment.
The preservation of freedom and democ-
racy is a matter of vital concern to all those
who believe in our form of government. We
can protect ourselves if we know who and
what it is that is undermining and attacking
our governmental structure. Those who are
with us need not fear, those who are against
us ought to be exposed. The Dies committee
is rendering a great public service. It should
be continued until its investigation is com-
pleted.
I could go on. The words of many
other respected and famous Americans
could be quoted in praise of the Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities. But, it is
not necessary to do this. The Members
of this House have always voted over-
whelmingly in support of the committee.
As J. Edgar Hoover wrote, "real Amer-
icans are not going to be fooled or mis-
led" by efforts to discredit the commit-
tee.
It is interesting to note that the presi-
dent of the American Federation of La-
bor, in his letter, made more than one
reference to exposure of the enemies of
this country. On more than one occasion,
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover has stated
that exposure is the best weapon against
communism. All experts on the subject
are agreed on this. One of the most effec-
tive weapons of the Communists has been
their ability to conceal the identity of
their members and agents and also to
keep hidden or secret their numerous
conspiratorial operations, cloaking them
under front organizations. "Exposure,"
which is no more than revelation or dis-
closure, strips them of this weapon.
We are all agreed, of course, that ex-
posure for the sake of exposure alone is
not a function of a congressional com-
mittee, but exposure for legislative pur-
poses-the type the Committee on Un-
American Activities has engaged in-is
specifically a function of the Congress
and all its committees.
Of course, exposure has become in re-
cent years a nasty word in the American
langu e-largely because of a continu-
ing, intensive Communist and leftwing
campaig=n against the Committee on Un-
American Activities, a campaign that has
had the purpose of ending the numerous
valuable exposures of Communist opera-
tions by the committee because they
have done so much damage to the Cum-
mullist Party.
Unfortunately, there is something of a
double standard existing on this question
of exieos"Ire. On February 2 of this year,
file LUa:r)..ington Post featured an inte?-
vies ,ith the distinguished chairman of
the Ilouse, Judiciary Committee, the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. Cel.IER).
The article mentioned the Judiciary
Committee's forthcoming hearings on
usiness conglomerates and it quoted the
=.~r ltlem,?n from New York as saying that
these Beatings "will focus the pitiless
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1969 -
light of publicity" on questionable prac-
tices of large corporations.
There was no Washington Post or New
York Times editorial denunciation of the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee for
his statement that he was going to ex-
pose questionable practices of business
conglomerates and that he intended to
discredit them with the American people
by "the pitiless light of publicity."
But what if the chairman, or a mem-
ber, of the Committee on Un-American
Activities had said that that committee
was going to "focus the pitiless light of
publicity" on Communists and others in
this country who are engaging in traitor-
ous activities and trying to subvert our
Constitution? It is my guess that he
would be denounced from one end of the
country to the other in major editorials
published in many of our so-called best
newspapers.
It should be stressed that the courts
have consistently upheld the type- expo-
sure carried out by the Committee on
Un-American Activities. An effective an-
swer to the exposure charge which is so
often launched against the committee
was presented by Ed Willis, former
chairman of the committee, in a state-
ment which he submitted to the Joint
Committee on the Organization of the
Congress on April 1, 1966. The text of
his statement was as follows:
And what about the charge of "exposure"?
In democratic societies, legislatures have an
informing or educational function which is
an integral part of, and basic to, their law-
making function, Woodrow Wilson, a recog-
nized authority on political science and con-
stitutional law, who taught at Princeton
University before his election to the Presi-
dency of the United States, believed that
the informing function of Congress was even
more important than its lawmaking func-
tion. In his book, "Congressional Govern-
ment," he wrote:
" * * * even more important than legisla-
tion is the instruction and guidance in po-
litical affairs which the people might receive
from a body which kept all national concerns
suffused in a broad daylight of discussion
* * *. The informing function of Congress
should be preferred even to its legislative
function."
All congressional committees, through their
hearings and reports, perform an informing
function, educating the American people
about the major problems confronting the
Nation and the means, legislative or other-
wise, which might be used to solve them.
The important role this function plays in
strengthening and preserving a democratic
society is not open to question.
Curiously, however, when this committee
carries out its informing function, certain
people immediately accuse it of "exposure."
But this is no more than a smear word for
a legitimate and necessary congressional
duty. "Exposure" is disclosure, revelation,
informing the people about what they must
know to govern themselves intelligently and
preserve the Government which they have
created for their own protection.
Supreme Court and court of appeals dcci-
sions upholding the rights of Congress to
compel disclosure of Communist organiza-
tions and the activities and identities of
individual Communists both by legislation
ard investigation were quoted in my reply to
the last allegation (No. 3).
Last year the Supreme Court p;_tip Opted
the value of dis:_losure or "exposure" bear-
ings by all governur.ental agencies i-.~ a de-
cision upholding the right of the Federal
Communications Commission to hold a pub-
lic rather than closed hearing on a lusstter
of public interest. The Court noted:
"The Commission observed that, in addi-
tion to stimulating the flow of information,
public hearings serve to inform those seg-
ments of the public primarily affected by the
agency's regulatory policies and those likely
to be affected by subsequent administrative
or legislative action of the factual basis for
any action ultimately taken-a practical in-
ducement to public acceptance of the results
of the investigation. Also implicit in the
Commission's discourse is a recognition that
publicity tends to stimulate the flow of in-
formation and public preferences which may
significantly influence administrative and
legislative views as to the necessity and char-
acter of prospective action. The Commission
further pointed out that public disclosure
is necessary to the execution of its duty
under section 4(k) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 48 Stat. 1068, 47
U.S.C. section 154(k) (1958 ed.), to make
annual reports to Congress. Significantly, this
investigation was specifically authorized by
Congress so that Congress might `draw upon
the facts which are obtained.' " (FCC v.
Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279.)
A very telling statement on the role in-
forming, revelation and disclosure (or "ex-
posure") play in handling problems in a
democratic society was made by President
Truman's Committee on Civil Rights:
"The principle of disclosure is, we believe,
the appropriate way to deal with those who
would subvert our democracy by revolution
or by encouraging disunity and destroying
the civil rights of some groups * * *.
"Congress has already made use of the
principle of disclosure in both the economic
and political spheres. The Securities and Ex-
change Commission, the Federal Trade Com-
mission and the Pure Food and Drug Ad-
ministration make available to the public
information about sponsors of economic
wares. In the political realm, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Post Office
Department, the Clerk of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and the Secretary of the Sen-
ate-all of these under various statutes-
are required to collect information about
those who attempt to influence public opin-
ion. Thousands of statements disclosing
ownership and control of newspapers using
the second-class mailing privilege are filed
annually with the Post Office Department.
Hundreds of statements disclosing the own-
ership and control of radio stations are filed
with the Federal Communications Commis-
sion. Hundreds of lobbyists are now required
to disclose their efforts to influence Congress
under the Congressional Reorganization Act.
In 1938, Congress found it necessary to pass
the Foreign Agents Registration Act which
forced certain citizens and aliens alike to
register with the Department of Justice the
facts about their sponsorship and activities.
The effectiveness of these efforts has varied.
We believe, however, that they have been
sufficently successful to warrant their fur-
ther extension to all of those who attempt
to influence public opinion.
"The ultimate responsibility for counter-
ing totalitarians of all kinds rests, as al-
ways, with the mass of good, democratic
Americans, their organizations and their
leaders. The Federal Government ought to
provide a source of reference * * * where pri-
vate citizens and groups may find accurate
information about the activities, sponsor-
ship and background of those who are active
in the marketplace of public opinion." (Re-
port of the President's Committee on Civil
Rights, 1947, pp. a2, 53.)
Laws are essential to any well ordered so-
ciety. But in a ds?.n.ocratic society, laws are
not enough. Alone, they rarely eliminate any
problem. An informed public is needed to
supplerient, by public discussion, debate
and action, the sanctions imposed by law
on the enemies of society.
For those Americans and they number in
the millions-who want "accurate infornia-
t. on about the activities, sponsorship and
b__ isg,oulad" of the subverters of freedom
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
and democracy who are "active in the mar- "Committees of Congress must function in
ketplace of public opinion," the House Com- a world of realities. What might have been
mittee on Un-American Activities has pro- classified decades ago as private opinion of no
vided a reliable "source of reference" for 28 concern to Congress, takes on a different con-
years, notation in the light of world events whose
In doing so, it has helped preserve the impact Congress may not disregard. The
democratic process and prevent its corrup- global Communist apparatus is neither a
tion and debasement by those who, with study group nor a debating society. It is an
totalitarian ends in mind, give only lip serv- engine of destruction. Cunningly fashioned,
ice to the principles of democratic society, its component parts are artfully disguised
The court decisions referred to by the
distinguished past chairman of this com-
mittee when he said he quoted them in
reply to another allegation about the
committee are as follows:
U.S. Supreme Court, the Communist
Party case, 1961:
"Where the mask of anonymity which an
organization's members wear serves the
double purpose of protecting them from pop-
ular prejudice and of enabling them to cover
over a foreign-directed conspiracy, infiltrate
into other groups, and enlist the support of
persons who would not, if the truth were re-
vealed, lend their support, it would be a dis-
tortion of the first amendment to hold that
it prohibits Congress from removing the
mask." (367 U.S. 1.)
Justice Douglas, for the dissenting
minority-except Justice Black-in the
above case:
The Bill of Rights was designed to give
fullest play to the exchange and dissemina-
tion of ideas that touch the politics, culture,
and other aspects of our life. When an or-
ganization is used by a foreign power to make
advances here, questions of security are raised
beyond the ken of disputation and debate
between the people resident here. Espionage,
business activities, formation of cells for sub-
version, as well as the exercise of first amend-
ment rights, are then uesd to pry open our
society and make intrusion of a foreign power
easy. These machinations of a foreign power
add additional elements to free speech just
as marching up and down adds something
to picketing that goes beyond free speech.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia, Barsky against the United
States, 1948:
"The prime functions of governments, in
the American concept, is to preserve and
protect the rights of the people. The Con-
gress is part of the Government thus estab-
lished for this purpose.
"This existing machinery of Government
has power to inquire into potential threats
to itself, not alone for the selfish reason of
self-protection, but for the basic reason that
having been established by the people as an
instrumentality for the protection of the
rights of people, it has an obligation to its
creators to preserve itself. * * * We think
that inquiry into threats to the existing form
of Government by extra-constitutional
process of change is a power of Congress
under its prime obligation to protect for the
people that machinery of which it is a
part * * .
"if Congress has power to inquire into the
subjects of communism and the Communist
Party, it has power to identify the individuals
who believe in comunism and those who be-
long to the party.
"* * * it would be sheer folly as a matter
of governmental policy to refrain from in-
quiry into potential threats to its existence
when disguise carries advantage. It is no
answer to its challenge to say that the beliefs
and associations of its members or suspected
members are 'private,' and thus beyond the
scope of legitimate inquiry by Congress.
"* * * we believe that Congress * * *
has a legitimate function to perform in this
field-that of informing itself and the public
of the nature and extent of Communist
penetration into our free institutions.',
("Rules of Procedure for Senate Investigat-
ing Committees," Report of the Committee
on Rules and Administration, 84th Cong., 1st
sess., Senate Rept. No .2, pp. 9, 10.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman
from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, in view of
the statement made by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. RYAN) I ask unani-
mous consent to put the letter that I
circulated to the Members in the RECORD
at this point.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing deroga-
tory at all in that letter. I did not and
do not mean it to be derogatory. I stand
behind each and every word that is
stated in the letter. Further, let me point
out to the gentleman from New York City
that even if the House Committee on Un-
American Activities had twice the bad
name that he thinks it has and if the
gentleman from New York City was 10
times more adamantly opposed to the
committee than he is, I would still offer
this resolution for the reasons I men-
tioned on the floor of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to insert the letter in the RECORD at this
point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MILLS). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
There was no objection.
The letter is as follows:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., February 17, 1969.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: Scheduled on the Calen-
dar for consideration tomorrow is House
Resolution 89, to clarify the mandate of the
House Committee on Un-American Activities
under the name of a new committee-the
Committee on Internal Security. I am joined
in the resolution by the ranking minority
member, Mr. John Ashbrook and Mr. Del
Clawson. H. Res. 89 is identical to H. Res.
148 which I introduced in the 90th Congress
and which was reported favorably to the
House by the Rules Committee last year, but
was not considered during the rush of ad-
journment. It has again been considered by
the Rules Committee which has original
jurisdiction and reported favorably in the
same form.
Interestingly enough, opposition to the
or security until danger was clear and change has been centered in both extremes
present. * * * How, except upon inquiry, of the political spectrum. No doubt, you have
would the Congress know whether the danger received mail from champions of the House
is clear and present? There is a vast di fjer- Committee on Un-American Activities urg-
ence between the necessities for inquiry and ing you to oppose this so-called liberal at-
the necessities for action." (167 F. 2d 241, tempt to abolish HCUA. Presently, most of
246.) [Emphasis added.] the opposition appears to coma from the
radically extreme Left as evidenced by the
U.S. Senate, Committee on Rules and enclosed article from the Communist Daily
Administration, 1954: World, the successor of the Communist Daily
Worker. They apparently wish to retain
HCUA with the hope of winning crippling
law suits in the courts and eventually its
abolition, leaving no committee of the House
to function in the field of communist sub-
versive activities.
H. Res. 89 spells out in more clear and
precise, legal language what constitutes sub-
versive activities and gives the committee
the usual legislative jurisdiction and the in-
vestigatory powers that have been exercised
by the Committee on Un-American Activ-
ities.
I realize there are some members of the
House (few in number, I believe) who would
abolish the HCUA outright and transfer its
jurisdiction to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary. This could be done, but I seriously
question whether our venerable Chairman,
Mr. Celler, could possibly find time for his
committee to perform these additional
duties in view of the burdensome duties
already imposed upon the Judiciary Com-
mittee by the rules. In this respect, may I
say that it is the intent of H. Res. 89 to give
the Committee on Internal Security only the
authority that has traditionally been exer-
cised by the present Committe on Un-Amer-
ican Activities. I assure you, as I did the
members of the Committee on Rules, that it
is not intended to infringe and does not
infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Because the mandate of HCUA is ad-
mittedly vague on its face resulting in vary-
ing interpretations of its present jurisdic-
tion, there seems to be some confusion sur-
rounding my statement that H. Res. 89 gives
the Committee on Internal Security only
the authority possessed by the HCUA. I be-
lieve that the language of H. Res. 89 is suf-
ficiently clear, but if you have any questions
about the reach of the resolution, please feel
free to give me a ring.
I hope you will see it proper to vote for the
previous question and the adoption of the
resolution when presented this week. The
resolution is very much needed in order that
a committee of the House can make an ef-
fective contribution to the internal security
of the Nation.
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD H. ICHORD,
Chairman, House Committee
on Un-American Activities.
[From the Daily World, Sept. 18, 1968]
BILL WOULD ADD POWER TO HUAC
WASHINGTON, September 17.-A dangerous
resolution to re-name and thus perhaps to
deodorize the House Un-American Activities
Committee is before the House.
The bi-partisan measure, known as House
Resolution 148, would give the inquisitorial
body the less offensive name of Committee on
Internal Security. It is sponsored by Reps.
Richard Ichord (D.-Mo.) and Del Clawson
(R.-Calif..).
The resolution would substitute for the
current description of HUAC's duties more
sophisticated language permitting the same-
if not more serious-violations of First
Amendment rights which HUAC has been
committing for years.
The proposed new wording of HUAC's
mandate is specifically designed by the spon-
sors of the resolution to "preserve the full
jurisdiction and powers" of the investigatory
body.
The Emergency Civil Liberies Committee
has urged all those concerned for civil liber-
ties to write or wire their Congressman now
to oppose passage of H.R. 148, and urge com-
plete abolition of HUAC.
Mr. WATSON. May I say, Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the position of the chairman
and his determination to be fair with all
Members.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
As I recall the letter that he circular-
ized, it simply stated that the Communist
Daily World or Worker back in Septem-
ber opposed this very same resolution.
71,7hy are some of the opponents so upset
shout letting folks know that the Com-
munists oppose this resolution. It is a
rather simple proposition; I welcome
1cir opposition and because of that fact
airy support of H.R. 89 is all the stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to revise and extend my remarks and
I hope we will overwhelmingly vote up
the previous question and pass this
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. COLMER).
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. PODELL).
Mr. PODELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out at this point that should
the motion to order the previous ques-
tion be defeated, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Loa ENSTEIN) and I shall
introduce an amendment to the present
resolution which would abolish the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities com-
pletely.
The text of the amendment is at the
conclusion of my statement.
Mr. Speaker, since the Committee on
Un-American Activities was given per-
manent status by this body on January
3, 1945, its checkered history has been
an anathema to every true advocate of
American jurisprudence.
The Dies committee, as it was then
known, recommended dismissal of ap-
proximately 3,800 Government employees
on grounds of disloyalty to their coun-
try. After a careful Department of Jus-
tice investigation only 36-or less than 1
percent of those denounced-were found
to warrant dismissal. The some 3,764
unjustly accused have for the most part
lived under a cloud of suspicion to this
day. While some have been fortunate
enough to have had the opportunity to
vindicate themselves beyond a scintilla of
doubt, others less fortunate have died
or are living under the long shadow of
the Dies committee.
Through the years the committee, in
more or less fi.agi:ant fashion, has re-
tained its shotgun aapproach to un-Amer-
ican attitudes and has besmirched the
lives of many citizens without due proc-
ess of right of apr:eal to higher author-
ity. Being outside our judicial system
the committee intrinsically lacks the fun-
darrental safeguards of human rights
built into that system from our magis-
trate courts to the Supreme Court. Fur-
thermore, the committee serves no pur-
pose which cannot be better served by
our judiciary and executive branches
and in ways which are entirely consistent
with our constitutional heritage.
We have grown too mature as a na-
tion and a society to need such an organ
of government. We have become to well
able to cope with internal security
threats to require such activities on the
part of a House committee.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1909
Further extension of its perogatives
is a travesty upon this House and a
shameful waste of Federal money, par-
ticularly in these times.
Mr. Speaker, the test of any govern-
ment of free men is its ability to place
internal challenge in perspective. Either
a society is viable, commanding the re-
spect of its citizens, or it loses their
loyalty and must become a police state
in order to maintain itself.
I believe we are a successful pluralis-
tic society, standing firm upon the prin-
ciple of participatory democracy. This
House and its very essence are testimony
to the vibrancy of our heritage and its
meaningfulness to most Americans
through our history. There is no need to
rely upon such a broken crutch as the
Un-American Activities Committee to
keep America strong, safe, or free.
Thomas Jefferson placed his faith in
the people and their institutions. In a
time when institutions are under fire
and the people seeking light, let us show
the strength and freedom of this insti-
tution by abolishing this committee.
These words are uttered without malice.
Nor are they designed to cast any asper-
sion upon any Member of this body.
Rather they are a reaffirmation of my
faith in our system and this institution.
Let us act to strengthen our institu-
tion, rather than allow such a shadow to
continue to blot out the light that must
come from this place to all our people.
Mr. Speaker, this committee, by any
other name, would smell as it has these
many years. I call today, therefore, for
its abolition as a committee of the House
of Representatives by amendment to
House Resolution 89, as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 89, as
reported, offered by Mr. PODELL: strike
out all after the resolving clause and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
That clause L(s) of rule X and clause
19 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives are repealed, and all refer-
ences to the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities contained in any other provision of
the Rules of the House of Representatives
are hereby deleted."
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. ECICHARDT).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-
tleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. ECKHARDT. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time to ask
one question of the author of the reso-
lution. On page 2, line 1.6, item (3) in
its original form provided: "all other
questions, in relation thereto that would
aid Congress in any necessary remedial
legislation."
In part the language added was "or
any committee of the House," after the
word "Congress." That would indicate
to me, at least on the face of it, that
the committee would have authority to
investigate hatters that other commit-
tees v ould have authority to initiate leg-
islation on. I hope that that is not the
intent. I hope that the langauge intends
to be the same thing as provided in the
original item (3) and there is no iriten-
tion to enlarge the authority of the com-
mittee so as to give investigatory au-
thority in areas where other committees
have substitute authority.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ECKHARDT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. ICHORD. There is no intention
whatsoever to enlarge the jurisdiction of
the present House Committee on Un-
American Activities. I would point out to
the gentleman that a great deal of the
difficulty lies in the ambiguous language
of "the House Un-American Activities
Committee."
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Mississippi.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, this is the
same old fight that we have been going
through here since 1938 when the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities was
set up as a Select or Special Committee,
and before it became a permanent com-
mittee by action of the House in 1945.
There has been a constant fight made
against the continuation of the com-
mittee.
For the life of me, I cannot under-
stand how those who object to the pas-
sage of the resolution can explain their
opposition other than upon one basis,
and that is they are opposed to the con-
cept of the committee itself.
I have heard a great deal said here
today about voting down the previous
question so that amendments can be of-
fered. I have heard no one say, until
the very last minute when I yielded to
the gentleman from New York, just what
amendment they expected to offer if the
previous question was voted down.
Finally, the gentleman from New York
let us know. They would offer an amend-
ment to abolish the committee-the same
thing they have been trying to do since
1938.
The distinguished gentleman from New
York (Mr. CELLER) the able gentleman
from New York (Mr. CELLER) the astute
gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER)
and the friendly gentleman and my good
friend from New York (Mr. CELLER)
says the resolution intrudes on the jur-
isdiction of his committee.
I have been here almost as long as
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
CELLER) has, and I am sorry my friend
is not here now, because I do not want
to say anything in his absence that I
wooxid not say in his presence, but I have
never known the gentleman from 1NTety
York (Mv. CELLER) to get excited about
nsbversioon or anything else in that field.
There is no conflict of jurisdiction
here. This committee which the opposi-
tion would destroy, looks into subversive-
nz_-s, This committee discovers and in-
vestigates the subversive agents that are
operating throughout the country in an
effort to destroy the Republic.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman from Missies ppi has
expired.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the
gentieman from Mississippi 2 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-
tleman from Mississippi is recognized for
2 additional minutes.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
-February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA)
for yielding me 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this committee makes its
recommendations, and the Judiciary
Committee is in a position to make its
own recommendations. They can bring
in any legislation they see fit within their
jurisdiction.
This committee serves a good purpose.
It is difficult, I repeat, to understand
why the very people who have been op-
posing this legislation all of these years
would not want the language clarified,
when they have been hollering to high
heaven in the past that it was too vague
and too cloudy in its definition.
I have stated in the well of this House
since 1945 that I was more apprehen-
sive-and I repeat it here today-about
what is going to happen to this glorious
young' Republic of ours from within than
I am about what is going to happen to
it from without. I am more concerned
about communism in this country than
I em about a Communist invasion from
without.
Today these people are working among
and with the young minds of this coun-
try, in the colleges and in the universi-
ties and even in the high schools. We
need some watchdog, some committee to
keep them under observation.
I hope this House will say by an over-
whelming vote that they have confidence
in this committee and that they have
confidence in its able new young chair-
man, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
ICHORD). I can assure you that the ob-
jectives of the committee are in good
hands under his leadership. DICK ICHORD
is not only an able man-he is honest,
conscientious, and dedicated. I predict he
will do a good job as its chairman and
will reflect honor and credit on the com-
mittee and the Congress.
Mr. MILLS. The time of the gentle-
man from Mississippi has expired.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from California (Mr. DEL
CLAWSON) for a unanimous-consent re-
quest.
(Mr. DEL CLAWSON asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker dur-
ing the last Congress, and again this year,
I have joined with my esteemed colleague
from Missouri, the present chairman of
the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, RICHARD IciORD, in the
sponsorship of legislation which I believe
will heighten the effectiveness of the
House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities. The fact that the committee is
not popular in certain areas of American
political thought is being cited as both a
reason for continuing the committee and
a reason for discontinuing it, or curtail-
ing its powers, depending upon the point
of view of the many authorities who are
ooiways ready to dictate to the House of
representatives how the troublesome
problems of subversion and organized
anarchy should properly be treated.
But I would like to emphasize the very
real need to have a standing committee
of the House with a continuing mandate
in this field, and to remove obstacles to
effective committee functioning. By per-
petuating and strengthening the com-
mittee the House will serve notice that
the Members of this body are aware of
the continuing nature of the subversive
forces in U.S. society, well organized
either in fomenting disturbances or in
turning turbulent events to their own
destructive purposes. Vigilance in the
face of this acknowledged activity is no
more than prudent. It is but the execu-
tion of our obligation as members of the
leei_slative branch of this Government to
insure that the forces which attack our
system are exposed to public view, so that
effective remedies may be sought under
the law to guard the internal security of
this Nation.
It would be comforting if there were
any discernible lessening of pressure, if
there were reason to believe that the
fanatic enemies of U.S. constitutional
government had given up the fight. But
they are to be observed on every college
campus, Clothed in righteous indignation
over the prevalent disruptive issue, or
donning the martyr's hair shirt as they
are carted off to jail from the flag burn-
ing or the protest against the aspect of
US. policy which seems to provide the
most vulnerable target for invective at
the moment. We are denied that comfort
at this point in history. Accordingly, I
urge my colleagues in the House to vote
for the previous question and support
the resolution on final passage.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, the inescapable problem with
the I-louse Un-American Activities Com-
mittee is that it is basically an un-
American instrument of government. No
name change or hollow public relations
attempt to spruce up its image can alter
the fact that HUAC has not and cannot,
in the future, under any name, function
effectively in the democratic system.
Nor can a name change alter the fact
that the business of internal security is
the business of the House Judiciary Com-
mittee. HUAC is, therefore, a useless as
well as a harmful appendage to the body
politic.
No name change or public relations
work will alter the harmful effects that
now befall a, citizen who has the misfor-
tune to be called before HUAC, or change
what my distinguished colleague from
New York, Representative WILLIAM F.
RYAN, labeled as the "vagueness and
arbitrariness under which HUAC's activi-
ties are carried out."
The name change suggested today still
fails to come to grips with the overriding
questions of interference with civil liber-
tes that has been the hallmark of HUAC.
Since no one has seriously challenged
the ability of the Judiciary Committee to
protect the internal security of the
United States, there can be no quarrel
with a resolution that would confirm the
committee's jurisdiction.
Such a move would not only be correct
within the framework of the Constitu-
tion and in the eyes of the citizens of
this country, it would also be an act of
economy. HUAC has already spent $6
million in public funds since 1945 with
little or nothing to show for it.
Transferring HUAC's responsibilities
to Judiciary might also improve the
actual protection of internal security.
HUAC's record of nine successful con-
tempt citations in 23 years is not a record
that would be difficult to improve upon.
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I address
myself to the question of the desirability
of voting against the previous question
on House Resolution 89.
It is my understanding that the defeat
of the previous question is the only avail-
able method of permitting possible
amendment of the resolution and secur-
ing the necessary e:=.tended discussion of
the mandate, juris=diction, and organiza-
tion of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities or some successor
committee or subcommittee to be
charged with the duty of investigating
problems of internal security including
the activities of persons or organizations
seeking to overthrow our institutions of
government by unlawful means or who
seek to otherwise give aid and comfort
to foreign enemies.
Certainly any fairminded person would
concede that the limit of 1 hour of
debate permitted prior to the vote on
the previous question is an inadequate
time to consider a question of the im-
portance presented by House Resolution
89. I urge a "no" vote on the previous
question not only to permit the fullest
consideration of House Resolution 89 in
its present form but also to permit pos-
sible alternatives to its proposed orga-
nization and mandate.
The author of House Resolution 89,
the present chairman of HUAC, the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri,
(Mr. ICHORD) quite reasonably seeks to
alter the present charter of HUAC which
he described as "extremely vague and
ambiguous" when he introduced a resolu-
tion similar to House Resolution 89 in
1967. If this quotation expresses his pres-
ent attitude he is echoing the lead of the
U.S. Supreme Court in two landmark
cases.
In Watkins against United States, de-
cided in 1957 the court was considering
the validity of House rule XI, authoriz-
ing the House Un-American Activities
Committee and defining its purposes and
authority. The majority opinion stated:
It would be difficult to imagine a less ex-
plicit authorizing resolution.... An exces-
sively broad charter, like that of the HUAC,
places the courts in an untenable position
if they are to strike a balance between the
public need for a particular interrogation
and the right of citizens to carry on their
affairs free from unnecessary governmental
interference.
On this ground the court set aside a
contempt of Congress citation.
In the succeeding case of Barenblatt
against United States, decided in 1959,
the Court upheld a similar contempt ci-
tation in a partial retreat from the Wat-
kins case on the basis that the long
history of rule XI flushed out the vague-
ness of the rule itself. At the same time
the majority opinion again restated its
objection to the vagueness of the charter-
ing rule.
Whatever the conflict of results in the
Watkins and Barenblatt cases it must be
conceded that the Supreme Court in both
cases described the present charter of
HUAC as vague, nonexplicit, and exces-
si,ely broad and this conclusion is ap-
parently concurred in by the author of
House Resolution 89.
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, ? 1969 -
It is apparent that we are confronted nocent acts which would be vulnerable legislate-the areas of the powers enu-
with a major issue which goes far beyond to such investigation. I believe this to be merated in article I, section 8. And this
the insubstantial issue of mere change an unnecessary threatening of basic free- means that Congress cannot investigate
of a committee name. Certainly we need doms. in areas in which it is forbidden to legis-
more than 1 hour of discussion under The criticisms of this committee were late-and it is forbidden by the first
rules which limit the recognition privi- not leveled primarily at its name, nor did amendment to make any law abridging
lege to the chairman of a committee they call for an increase in the scope the rights of speech and peaceful as-
which is seeking to reform itself, of its powers. This resolution, with its sembly. Hence, there is absolutely no
The author of the resolution should vague language and dangerous infringe- way to avoid the conclusion that the
welcome extended debate and the assist- ment on civil liberties, can only serve to present mandate of the committee, which
ance of members of the Judiciary Com- increase the already warranted criticism authorizes it to investigate the dissemi-
mittee and other qualified lawyers on the of the House Un-American Activities nation of ideas and the expression of
floor in securing the best possible lan- Committee and to further confuse its thought, violates the first amendment.
guage of reform and the best possible jurisdiction with that of the Judiciary We have been told by supporters of
organization for reform. Committee. House Resolution 89 that a primary pur-
I support the right of Congress to I will vote against House Resolution pose of the new mandate is to make it
oversee the problem of internal security 89. This resolution compounds rather clear that the committee has no power
and challenges to that security from than solves the problems of the House "to investigate and suppress ideas and
abroad. My earnest desire is to create a Un-American Activities Committee. I thoughts," and that it is limited to in-
vehicle in the House which will accom- have felt for some time that the respon- vestigate "activities" aimed at subver-
plish that function in the best possible sibilities now held by this committee sion.
manner. would more appropriately belong under I should like to ask how it is possible
Mr. HELSTOSKI. Mr. Speaker, today the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary to investigate activities without investi-
the House is called upon to vote on House Committee, and no name can change or gating thoughts and ideas. Every human
Resolution 89 which would do more than alter that fact. I will support the amend- activity is formed by the purpose it
just change the name of the Committee ment by the Honorable JOHN C. CULVER, serves. Hence, the proposed mandate of
on Un-American Activities. It would also if it reaches a vote, to consolidate all in- the committee authorizes it to investigate
broaden its jurisdiction. ternal security functions within the the "objectives" of organizations and
In the face of growing opposition to Committee on the Judiciary. groups. But objectives and purposes are
the House Un-American Activities Com- Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, the new expressed by ideas. And so we are im-
mittee, I believe this resolution is merely name and differently written mandate mediately invading the sacred area of
an attempt to quell criticism of the com- for the House Committee on Un-Ameri- first amendment rights.
mittee by giving the impression that Con- can Activities proposed in House Resolu- The new mandate, moreover, gives the
gress has given it a different authoriza- tion 89 remove none of the reasons why committee power to investigate the
tion to carry on its investigations. Rather I and many other Members oppose con- "character" of organizations and groups.
than proposing effective and genuine re- tinuation of an investigating committee But how else does any group acquire a
form in the work of this committee, in of this kind. We urge that this resolution character except by the objectives or
reality, this resolution attempts to im- be decisively rejected. purposes which its members have in
prove the committee's public relations What are the reasons which make us mind? And so the proposed mandate
image. oppose continuation of the Un-American confers as much power as the present
However, the Objections leveled at the Activities Committee or of the Internal mandate to do violence to freedom of
House Un-American Activities Commit- Security Committee? The two most com- thought and speech and assembly.
tee cannot be erased by changing the pelling reasons are the first and fifth Let us not be so naive as to accept the
committee's name to that of the Com- amendments to our Constitution. This distinction which has been proposed be-
mittee on Internal Security. And, surely, committee has most flagrantly violated tween activities on the one hand and the
the vague broadening of the committee's the first and fifth amendments. And this propagation of ideas on the other. Any
authority will only serve to increase the committee, with whatever name, would group which seeks to change the present
growing number of voices in opposition. surely continue to do so because of the political or social order must necessarily
It is this new description of the juris- very nature of its investigations. undertake to do so by enlisting as wide-
diction of the House Un-American Activ- Let none of us be deceived by the dif- spread support as possible. It is impos-
ities Committee which causes me most ferently worded mandate in House Reso- sible to bring about political or social
concern. We should certainly do our ut- lution 89. change without widespread support. And
most to protect the internal security of Under its present mandate, the com- how else can any group enlist widespread
our country. However, care must also be mittee is authorized to investigate "the support except by seeking to change
taken so that, in our efforts to insure extent, character, and objects of un- people's minds-except by bringing peo-
our internal security, we legislate no American propaganda activities in the ple to see things in a new perspective?
more broadly than required, and also in- United States." Propaganda means dis- So the Un-American Activities Commit-
sure against unnecessary threatening of semination of ideas and the expression tee or the Internal Security Committee
our basic freedoms. The reconciling of of thought. And so the committee was must inevitably focus its investigations
these freedoms with internal security is authorized to investigate the dissemina- on the expression of thought and the
a very exacting task. I do not believe that tion of ideas and the expression of dissemination of ideas if it undertakes to
House Resolution 89 accomplishes this thought. investigate the activities of groups and
reconciliation. Rather, it broadens the organizations to discover the purposes or
mandate of a committee whose jurisdic- The first amendment says that: objectives of those activities.
tion is already questionable, both with Congress shall make no law . . . abridging The committee's investigations violate
regard to constitutionality and usurping the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the the fifth amendment as well as the first.
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and The fifth amendment guarantees that no
of another committee's responsibilities. to petition the Government for a redress of
House Resolution 89 authorizes inves- grievances. person shall "be deprived of life, liberty,
tigation by the House Un-American Ac- or property, without due process of law."
tivities Committee with respect to activ- In Watkins v. the United States (354 People who have suffered community
ities involving "violence, treachery, es- U.S. 178 (1957) ), in which the Supreme rejection and ostracism and loss of jobs
pionage, sabotage, insurrection, or any Court reversed a contempt conviction because they were compelled to appear
unlawful means." The committee's au- arising from one of the committee's in- before the committee have surely been
thority is additionally extended to in- vestigations, Chief Justice Warren, deprived of liberty and property without
v.estigate groups and organizations as speaking for the Court, defined the in- due process of law. And by inflicting such
well as propoganda. Once an organiza- vestigative power of Congress. He said: penalties on individuals, the committee
tion falls within the classification of No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be has usurped the duties of prosecutor-an
those organizations to be investigated, all related to and in furtherance of a legitimate executive function-and of judge and
activities, both innocent and threatening task of the Congress. jury-judicial functions.
may be investigated. Speech, assembly, This means that Congress can investi- The Supreme Court said in the Wat-
and thought are undoubtedly those in- gate in all the areas in which it can kins case:
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Abuses of the investigative process may
imperceptibly lead to abridgement of pro-
tected freedoms. The mere summoning of a
witness and compelling him to testify, against
his will, about his beliefs, expressions or as-
sociations is a measure of governmental in-
terference. And when those forced revelations
concern matters that are unorthodox, unpop-
ular, or even hateful to the general public,
the reaction in the life of the witness may be
disastrous.
We all know the circus atmosphere
that too often surrounds the hearings
held by this committee. In my own city
of Chicago, for instance, hearings were
held a few years ago by this committee
which were referred to by many of our
outstanding citizens as "star-chamber
proceedings."
Msgr. George C. Higgins, Director of
the Social Action Department of the U.S.
Catholic Conference, in the Chicago
archdiocesan newspaper New World, re-
ferred to the committee as useless and
one which despotically denied the rights
of American citizens. Its procedure, he
wrote, is one "by which friendly wit-
nesses are allowed to defame others
without being subjected to cross-exami-
nation and by which those defamed are
then subpenaed and required to answer
Committee questions but are not allowed
to testify in their own behalf or to have
others testify for them." We know, too,
that witnesses are sometimes paid to
come before the committee, and I think
it highly irregular that they be paid a
sum of money for making an appearance.
I am as interested as any of my col-
leagues in routing the Reds, and in fact,
led the cleanup in 1947 on the Illinois
State Industrial Union Council in Chi-
cago when five of six places on the exe-
cutive board of the central CIO body,
representing 275,000 Illinois workers,
went to avowed anti-Communists.
I cannot, however, agree in good con-
science with the unfair tactics employed
by the House Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities. It is highly questionable
whether the committee serves any seri-
ous purpose other than exposure.
Therefore, when the first session of
the 90th Congress convened in January
of 1967, and again when the first ses-
sion of the 91st Congress convened last
month, I introduced legislation, along
with many of my colleagues, calling for
the discontinuance of the House Com-
mitte on Un-American Activities and the
transfer of its duties and responsibilities
to the House Judiciary Committee. I be-
lieve this is the most advisable course
of action to follow and look forward to
the day when a majority in the House
will agree with me.
It is inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that the
committee, acting under its new name
and new mandate, would continue to
bring about the punishiment of individ-
uals without due process of law, thus
violating the fifth amendment, and
would continue to curtail our first
amendment freedoms of speech and
press.
Congress must certainly establish the
legal basis for protecting our form of
government from violent overthrow by
means of espionage, sabotage, and other
overt acts. All such legislation is prop-
erly within the jurisdiction of the Ju-
diciary Committee, and my resolution,
House Resolution 20, would amend House
rule XI, clause 12, by adding explicitly
to the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction
"sabotage and other overt acts affecting
internal security."
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the House
abolish this committee which outrages
the Bill of Rights and violates the sepa-
ration of powers. A new name and a dif-
ferently worded mandate will not change
the character of this committee. They
may change the name, but the game is
the same.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, the
resolution being considered today is to
rename the House Committee on Un-
American Activities and reword its man-
date. This resolution was reported by the
House Rules Committee and now comes
before us for consideration. This resolu-
tion not alone seeks a change of name but
also authorizes the committee to make
investigations, which broadens it man-
date. Though a difficult task, the Con-
gress must protect the internal security
of the United States on one hand while
assuring the rights and liberties of the
individual on the other. I fear the House
Un-American Activities Committee has
accomplished very little, if indeed any-
thing at all, in protecting the internal se-
curity of the Nation. However, in pursu-
ing its investigations in the past, the
committee has been lacking demonstra-
bly in assuring the individual his rights.
This contradicts not only the word and
spirit of the Constitution, but the very
tenents upon which this Nation was
founded.
The Supreme Court has stated that the
"right of government to maintain its ex-
istence and self-preservation is the most
pervasive aspect of sovereignty." I am
certain, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one
in this Chamber who would dispute this
contention. It is a direct result of the Na-
tion's security, both internal and exter-
nal, that we are in fact able to enjoy our
constitutional rights.
Yet, when the security of our Nation is
not directly threatened, an individuals
rights should not be violated. When they
are violated, we are confronted with
nothing but a mockery of everything
this House truly stands for.
When the mere service of a subpena
brands an individual guilty of certain
un-American activities, whether he is in-
nocent or guilty, it is time for a change.
A subpena from the House Committee
on Un-American Activities-or if
changed, the newly named Internal Se-
curity Committee-automatically sur-
rounds the individual with a stigma of
guilt, especially when it is accompanied
by a notice in the press stating that the
individual is to be investigated for alleged
subversion or various forms of treachery.
These, Mr. Speaker, are my basic objec-
tions to the continuance of the com-
mittee.
I respectfully submit that this proposal
would accomplish nothing new except
that it would establish a new facade,
changing the outward appearance of the
committee and extending its powers, as
aforesaid. I further submit that the man-
date and function of the committee be
first realistically and clearly defined, and
then transferred to the Judiciary Com-
mittee. If this is done, the internal se-
curity of the country would still be pro-
tected while the constitutional rights of
the individual would not be infringed
upon.
A subpena issued by the Judiciary
Committee would not carry with it the
same dark shadow of guilt that is asso-
ciated with a subpena and subsequent
appearance before the House Un-Ameri-
can Activities Committee or the Internal
Security Committee. This pillorization in
the press compounds what already is a
gross travesty of our great legal heritage.
The Congress should never forget that
this great country was founded to pro-
tect the dignity and integrity of the in-
dividual citizen; and when his rights and
liberties are violated, then the very foun-
dation of this Nation is undermined. It
is this consideration, above all else, that
causes me to advocate the abolition of the
Committee on Un-American Activities
and the transfer of its functions to the
Judiciary Committee whose capability,
experience, and dedication, not only to
the preservation of the security of this
Nation, but also to the preservation of
our constitutional rights and liberties,
is beyond question.
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, the
House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities has, for many years, performed a
valuable and useful function. Since its
creation, our Nation has been faced with
many internal enemies. These have in-
cluded the pro-Nazi German American
Bund, the Communist Party, and other
organizations which have advocated the
overthrow of our Government and the
destruction of our freedom.
The investigations conducted by this
committee has resulted in legislation de-
signed to protect our society from those
who would destroy it. Beyond this, the
many valuable studies published under
the auspices of this committee have
helped to inform the American people
of the true nature of the enemies we
have faced.
From its inception, the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities has
been the butt of stubborn opposition.
This opposition has, of course, come pri-
marily from those who were engaged in
the kinds of subversive activities which
were the responsibility of the committee
to investigate.
The resolution being considered by the
House today is to clarify the mandate of
the committee, and to give it a new
name. House Resolution 89 spells out in
precise legal language what constitutes
"subversive activities," and gives the
committee the usual jurisdiction and in-
vestigatory powers that have been exer-
cised by the Committee on Un-American
Activities. The new name would be the
"llor?se Committee on Internal Secu-
'I'h':s resolution has been proposed in
the interest of strengthening a commit-
tee which is vital to the maintenance of
our democratic form of government. The
radical left has been violently opposed
to this change. The Communist Daily
World, in its September 18, 1968, issue,
stated:
The proposed new wording of HUAC's man-
date is specifically designed by the sponsors
of the resolution to "preserve the full juris-
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18,'1969
diction and powers" of the investigatory question since I feel the critics of the The Court continued:
body. committee ought to be given an opportu- But broad as is this power of inquiry, it
It is because they want to see the com- nity to more thoroughly express their is not unlimited. There is no general author-
mitee abolished or, at the very least, views and offer substitute motions. The ity to expose the private affairs of individuals
weakened, that the Communists have op- outcome of this battle is clear. Only the without justification in terms of the func-
posed liberal faction of the House, a tions of the Congress. No inquiry is an end
posed this change. in itself; it must be related to, and in fur-
There is increasing violence in our small group indeed, is seeking to wipe therance of, a legitimate task of the Con-
country. Our cities have been vic- out this essential committee. But, I do gress. Investigations conducted solely for the
timized by riots, and our campuses feel despite my strong support of the personal aggrandizement of the investigators
are in a virtual state of siege. Ex- committee that its critics should have an or to "punish" those investigated are inde-
amples of such violence have been opportunity to more thoroughly express fensible.
numerous. In recent days, the presi- their dissent. Everyone is well aware that this opin-
dent of Swarthmore College died of a Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Speaker, Rep- ion was delivered in reversing the con-
heart attack after being locked in his resentative RICHARD Icxoao of my neigh- viction of Mr. Watkins for contempt of
office by militant black students. New boring district, the Eighth District of Congress because of his refusal to an-
York Times editor James Reston was Missouri, having been named chairman swer questions directed to him by the
forced off the stage at New York Uni- of the committee under consideration has House Committee on Un-American Ac-
versity. Brandeis University was closed stated his desire to redefine its jurisdic- tivities. These questions had to do with
down, and campus buildings have been tion and conduct its operations to the alleged membership of certain per-
bombed at Berkeley and at Stanford. achieve a fairer, less sensational, and sons in organizations considered subver-
There is much material worthy of con- more businesslike performance. With this sive. Watkins declined to affirm or deny
gressional investigation in these events, in mind he offered House Resolution 89. membership of any person whom he did
particularly the question of who is fi- There are those who argue that this res- not know as a member at the time of
nancing these radical student move- olution would not or could not accom- the inquiry. He declined, in other words,
ments. plish the desired result. If they are cor- to identify persons as past members on
Rarely before has the need for an ef- rect the House will have the opportunity the grounds that:
fective House committee to investigate to so judge and render such judgment I do not believe that such questions are
such violence been so great. The changes when the committee's future is again con- relevant to the work of this committee nor
included in this bill would strengthen the sidered as it periodically is. In the mean- do I believe that this committee has the
committee, and for this reason I support time it is my view that Mr. ICHORD, the right to undertake the public exposure of
them. new chairman's initiative deserves the persons because of their past activities.
The changes will also make certain benefit of the doubt, and he has the that the rights of all witnesses are safe- chance to chart a new, a better under- The It was Court not agreed after th r. World Watkins.
War II
guarded and that due process will always stood, and a more generally acceptable that the not until for which the
Activities
be observed. In a society such as ours, course for the committee. Committee kind of inquiry inquiry means are ends in themselves. All com- Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I think Committee tee on Un-American which
ts
et noted in common-
mittees must be clearly controlled and it essential that the House vote on the gain. As the notoriety became
must operate by the rules. But Congress proposal sponsored by the gentleman pl ce
must also have the information it needs from Iowa (Mr. CULVER) to place the ac-
a
tivities of the present Committee on This new phase of legislative inquiry in-
broad-scale intrusion into the lives
to legislate, and this is particularly true
in the area of internal security. The pro- Un-American Activities under the ju valved
ris- and affairs of private citizens. It brought
posed changes involved in this bill would diction of the House Committee on the before the courts novel questions of the ap-
make certain that both of these elements Judiciary. propriate limits of congressional inquiry.
are preserved and protected. This is not a new idea; it has been effect, it raised the serious question
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, House advocated several times in the past. In
of the legitimate scope t the inquiry without
ainquiry without
Resolution 89 does clarify the mandate Without intending any disrespect for the of the the of
of the House Committee on Un-Ameri- present chairman of the committee, I do trespassing o
spaing o as guaranteed rights and n in the Be
can Activities. I believe that the estab- feel that this proposal has greater merit
lishment of a new committee and name, than the resolution of the chairman to of Rights.
change the name of the committee. That Regrettably, the Committee on Un-
the Commtee a and st op. An on objective Internal Seeview, of is does not go far enough, in my estimation; American Activities has been guilty in-
sound ea demon- review n nor do his proposed reforms go far numerable times of overstepping the le-
in-
strat that e Resolution the89 clearly in more enough. I am encouraged that the com- gitimate boundaries of congressional in-
precise language new committee mittee will no longer be investigating quiry. It has exposed for exposure's sake.
precise legal legislative jurriwillsdiction and related n and reted ?propaganda," that is, speech in all its It has invaded the rights of free speech.
proper investigatory Its past record in this It has laid itself open to disruptive,
iMy I cat , Mr. S. area stands as a shabby testament to chaotic, and embarrassing hearings by
May state, o Speaker, I do not it- abuse of the investigation prerogative. calling witnesses and attempting to com-
tie , thus the House are Judiciary Commit- But the stigma attached to this commit- pel from them testimony which the com-
can a give makes it imperative that the House be mittee knew full well would precipitate
he,eaviea whose than members normal are workload,
ce done with it and that its functions be recalcitrance, anger, and demonstration.
this matter the attention and persistence transferred to the Committee on the Too often its policy has been one of de-
a which r of teed. Inv on the the major- that Judiciary. liberate provocation for the purposes of
number the use members s the moClearly, Congress has the right of in- gaining publicity. Too seldom has
legit-
tee its
are side rithe House Judiciary Commit- vestigation. This was forthrightly ac- policy been designed to further the legit-
mcritical of the Un-American House Core- knowledged in Watkins v. United States, imate ends of congressional inquiry. No
mittee hardly b expected to facilitate they 354 U.S. at 187 (1957), when the Supreme better proof of these observations exists
operations hardly be new subcommittee to ate tr Court stated: than in a comparison of its legislative
opereir full ations of a new committeee jurisdiction under we start with several basic premises on record with its record for issuance of
their which there is general agreement. The power contempt resolutions. Only six pieces of
Therefore, I feel that the resolution is of the Congress to conduct investigations is legislation reported by the committee
a practical one and that the new Coin- inherent in the legislative process. That have become the law of the land. On the
mittee on Internal Security will make a power is broad. It encompasses inquiries other hand, it has handed out more than
sound, constructive contribution to the concerning the administration of existing 160 contempt citations since 1945.
internal security of our country, which laws as well as proposed or possibly needed The history of the committee does not
continues to be beset by activities fit statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our merit its continuance. Moreover, the
nanced and stimulated by various Com- social, economic or political system for the charter establishing the committee is
purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy loosely worded and permits the widest
munist sources. them. It comprehends probes into depart-
However, as a matter of legislative merits of the Federal Government to expose latitude for abuse. In Watkins-at
procedure, I did not vote for the previous corruption, inefficiency or waste. 197- the Court stated:
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
An investigation Is subject to the com-
mand that the Congress shall make no law
abridging freedom of speech or press or as-
sembly.
Under its charter, the committee has
violated that injunction.
The Court announced in Watkins-at
201-202:
It is the responsibility of the Congress,
in the first instance, to insure that com-
pulsory process is used only in furtherance
of a legislative purpose. That requires that
the instructions to an investigating com-
mittee spell out that group's jurisdictions
and purpose with sufficient particularity.
And, in commenting on the charter of
the committee, the Court said:
It would be difficult to imagine a less ex-
plicit authorizing resolution.
In the face of all this, it seems clear
to rile that the House would be well ad-
vised to adopt the proposal of the gen-
tlemen from Iowa (Mr. CULVER). As he
pointed out himself on February 6 of
this year, his resolution responds to the
criticism of the Court and guarantees
that abuse of the investigating preroga-
tive of Congress will not occur in the
future during investigations of pur-
ported subversive activity.
It does this by clearly defining what
the new subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee may probe in its investiga-
tions; that is:
The Committee is authorized to investi-
gate for legislative purpose those activities
of groups or organizations which involve
espionage, sabotage, insurrection, force or
other coercive acts when such activities
attempt to alter or overthrow the lawful
authority of the Government of the United
States.
It could be stated no more clearly than
that.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I feel that
the past record of the Committee on
Un-American Activities does not justify
its further existence as an independent
body. The jurisdiction of a committee
of this House investigating subversive
activity must be narrowly drawn and
must strike a sensible balance between
the necessity of security and the precious
rights of our citizens. The Culver res-
olution does this and we ought to have
the opportunity to vote upon it. Ac-
cordingly, I urge defeat of the previous
question and adoption of an amendment
embodying the proposal of the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. CULVER). If the previous
question succeeds, I will vote against the
resolution seeking a change in the com-
mittee's name and extension of its man-
date.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to House Resolution 89, a res-
olution to change the name and amend
the mandate of the present Committee
on Un-American Activities.
There has been a general recognition
that the present mandate and proce-
dures of the Committee on Un-American
Activities require reform. In fact, the
present chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Icnosn),
has forthrightly expressed this view.
Thus the need for reform is clear. The
question is whether the new mandate
contained in this resolution is that
needed reform. It is my view that this
resolution does not provide that reform.
Accordingly, I will oppose it.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Icrroan), and legal experts, including the
staff of the Legislative Reference Service
of the Library of Congress, have given
their opinion that there is nothing that
the old committee could have done under
the old mandate that the new committee
will not be able to do under the new
mandate. The language of the new man-
date is far from clear. The specific
enumeration of subjects to be investi-
gated overlaps the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary, as the
chairman of that committee has so ably
indicated.
For these reasons I have concluded
that the new mandate is not the needed
reform measure.
Moreover, I have for several years in-
troduced legislation to abolish the pres-
ent Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties and transfer its legitimate functions
to the Judiciary Committee. It is my un-
derstanding that if this resolution is de-
feated an effort will be made to accom-
plish this abolition and transfer. For this
additional reason I will oppose the
resolution.
At this point, however, I want to make
it clear that I strongly support the right
of Congress and the House of Repre-
sentatives to investigate matters per-
taining to the internal security of the
United States. I see this not only as a
matter of right but of obligation.
I am equally concerned and convinced
that the constitutional rights of all wit-
nesses appearing before committees of
the Congress must be scrupulously pro-
tected. It is clear that they have not al-
ways been so protected in the past.
In my judgment both obligations could
be better met if the Committee on Un-
American Activities were to be dissolved
and the function of investigating in the
area of internal security be assumed by
the Committee on the Judiciary, as it is
in the Senate.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I am for reform,
and this resolution does not provide
reform.
This resolution will change the name
and the face of the Committee on Un-
American Activities, but the body would
remain the same. My objections are to
the body, to the substance, to the uncon-
scionable ways in which the committee
has conducted certain of its past pro-
ceedings. In the past, the committee
has conducted inquisitorial proceedings,
needlessly pilloried witnesses, and has
contributed nothing to the legislative
process which could not have been sup-
plied by orderly, objective, and civilized
proceedings before the Judiciary Com-
mittee.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution.
Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Speaker, I shall
vote against the previous question so that
amendments can be offered to House
Resolution 89 to change the name of the
Un-American Activities to the Commit-
tee on Internal Security. First, let Pre say
that I do not believe a change in the
name of the committee will change its
activities or improve committee proce-
dures.
I will support the amendment to re-
move jurisdiction of the activities of the
Un-American Activities Committee to
the Judiciary Committee. I am one of the
sponsors of this proposal,
Mr. Speaker, I am of the belief that
the Un-American Activities Committee
serves no useful legislative purpose. The
committee's past record of performance
is evidence of this. Any investigation of
"un-American propaganda" should focus
on activities protected by the Bill of
Rights-those of speech, assembly, and
thought. The committee has been con-
sistently criticized for the manner in
which it has conducted hearings.
The Judiciary Committee is composed
of attorneys and the Judiciary Commit-
tee's jurisdiction extends to the protec-
tion of constitutional rights of the in-
dividual. It is my earnest and sincere be-
lief the Judiciary Committee can meet
the responsibilities of maintaining a
proper balance between the protection of
individual rights and the conduct of con-
gressional hearings on legislation relat-
ing to the internal security of the United
States.
Mr. SCHWVENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in opposition to the passage of this meas-
ure. Let me make it quite clear from the
beginning that I do feel there are some
valid areas of operation for a committee
such as the House Un-American Activi-
ties Committee. And, indeed, some areas
of the committee's work in the past may
have had some value. However, on bal-
ance, the value of the committee cer-
tainly is questionable. There has been far
too much of the "big brother" flavor
about the committee's operations. In this
era of ever-decreasing personal freedom,
too often activities of the committee have
been costly in terms of personal freedom,
and have adversely affected the lives and
reputations of the people being investi-
gated by it.
It is my position that any legitimate
functions of this committee can be more
adequately and properly carried out by
a subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee. By transferring the legiti-
mate functions to such a subcommittee,
we would be placing this important but
delicate assignment with a committee
which is noted for handling its affairs
with full regard for due process of law.
Further, the transfer would give added
prestige to legislation arising in this area.
All too often, the present committee has
been inclined to give short shrift to the
basic rights of those persons under in-
vestigation.
Let us put this whole matter back in
proper perspective, and under proper
supervision, by transferring such of the
functions as may be valid to a subcom-
mittee of the House Judiciary Commit-
tee.
Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. Speak-
er, the Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities should be abolished. It should not
be replaced. I firmly support the trans-
fer of whatever valid and relevant legis-
lative functions are now held by that
committee to the Committee on the Ju-
diciary.
In the 31 years since the first Special
Committee on Un-American Activities
was established, no other congressional
committee has contributed so little of
substantive value, yet created as much
controversy. Of course, had the com-
mittee stayed only within its initial
mandate-that of investigating "Un-
American propaganda"-I believe it
would have faded away long ago. But,
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE February 18, 1969
ever the years, that mandate mysteri-
ously has expanded into today's current
monolith which more resembled a quasi-
judicial operation than it does a con-
titut~,d legislative body.
M argue ent is not with the concept
dealing with subversion. I quarrel with
-, moans of dealing with that danger,
not the end. And, in doing so, I believe
that th objectives outlined under the
r? ?s.tc of the proposed Internal Secu-
rity Committee already exist well with-
in the traditional mandate of the Ju-
d_ciar Committee.
\Ve ,nust not be dec,, ved. The motion
before the House today is not merely
one of changing the name of a commit-
tee. Passage of House Resolution 89
creates an entirely new committee-a
committee with overly broad and quite
vague powers, powers which would seri-
ously: endanger our given rights of speech
and association. Indeed, were House
Resolution 89 approved, such action
would be interpreted as a justification of
all the previous infringements upon civil
liberties perpetrated by the Un-Ameri-
can Activities Committee.
My own position is also strongly based
on strict procedural grounds. Formation
of an Internal Security Committee
would cause major conflicts and jurisdic-
tional, disputes between that committee
and the Judiciary Committee. I support
the opinion of the respected chairman
of the Judiciary Committee that "ag-
grandizement of jurisdiction customarily
exercised by the Committee on the Ju-
diciary is a matter of critical concern."
Yet, despite this deep concern by the
senior Member of the House, the process
which brings House Resolution 89 before
this Chamber today has ignored other
meaningful and significant proposals re-
lating to other possible changes in the
Un-American Activities Committee.
As a cosponsor of House Resolution
134, which calls for abolishing the Un-
American Activities Committee and
transferring its jurisdiction to the Ju-
diciary Committee, I am disturbed that
no major attention at all was given by
the Rules Committee to that proposal-
or any other than House Resolution 89.
Nor am I pleased with the rule which
permits no amendment to House Reso-
lution 89 unless the previous question
can be defeated.
I view today's debate over the future
of the Un-American Activities Commit-
tee as a crucial point in the direction of
the 91st Congress. Adoption of House
Resolution 89, and creation of an In-
ternal Security Committee, will forever
serve as a stigma attached to the repu-
tation of this Congress.
There can be no argument that sub-
version of the United States should be
quickly halted. But I question whether
gross trespassing on basic civil liberties
of American citizens, in the name of
routing subversion, is not an equal dan-
ger to our most dear principles of democ-
racy and justice.
.dir. MOORHEA D. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in opposition to House Resolution 89. I
intend to vote against the motion which
would cut off debate and prevent the
offering of amendments. I intend to vote
in favor of the amendment to be offered
by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. CUL-
vEx) to consolidate all internal security
functions within the Committee on the
Judiciary.
I must oppose the attempt to change
the name of the Committee on Un-Amer-
ican Activities to the House Internal
Security Committee.
If I could be sure that with the switch
in names Congress would also get a new
committee in the sense that the ques-
tionable behavior of HUAC would give
way to a more intelligent, less zealous
and damaging investigation of internal
security threats, I would support a name
change.
But I am familiar enough with the du-
bious achievements of this committee to
harbor little hope of an about face. And
a turnabout is sorely needed, in light of
the many past indiscretions committed
by this group in their investigations-
the overriding function of which serves
more to garner publicity than to realize
any substantive good for the country.
HUAC has abused its investigative
mandate, totally rejecting any legislative
role, and carried on forays against any
number of citizens and groups involved
in the legitimate pursuit of their civil
liberties. Intelligent, rational inquiry is
one thing, harrassment for publicity sake
is quite another. And it is the latter that
has become HUAC's forte.
Certainly it is important for any de-
mocracy-including the United States-
to guard against internal subversion
which resorts to unlawful techniques in-
tended to circumvent and destroy the
will of the majority.
In the executive branch of our gov-
ernment this function is carried on pri-
marily by the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation.
In the legislative branch-in the other
body-this function is carried on by the
Internal Security Subcommittee of the
Judiciary Committee.
Neither of these institutions has
caused the abridgment to freedom that
the Committee on Un-American Activ-
ities have dealt the many subjects of
their investigations.
Why is this?
I submit that it is because both insti-
tutions are subdivisions-important sub-
divisions-but nevertheless subdivisions
of a larger institution whose primary ob-
jective is justice.
This means justice equally for the
minority who want to exercise their con-
stitutional rights of free speech and as-
sembly, and justice for the majority who
do not want to have their rights taken
away.
The FBI is a subdivision of the Justice
Department.
The Senate Internal Security Commit-
tee is a subdivision of the Judiciary
Committee.
As subdivisions, their zeal for protect-
ing the majority is tempered by the in-
terest of their parent organization in
protecting the minority.
In our House Committee on Un-Amer-
ican Activities we have no such temper-
ing influence.
The mandate of HUAC from the
House is to protect the majority from
the minority and there is no built-in
balance which to protect the rights of
minorities.
Making HUAC a subcommittee of the
House Judiciary Committee would create
such a balance wheel.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to vote no on the previous
question motion so that we all may vote
on the Culver amendment to transfer the
jurisdiction of the Un-American Activi-
ties Committee to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, dur-
ing today's debate on House Resolution
148, it was announced that had the par-
lian:entary situation permitted, I would
have joined the gentleman from New
York, Congressman PODELL, in moving to
abolish the House Un-American Activ-
ities Committee.
My position stems from belief in the
principal that the protection of first
amendment freedoms is basic to our
Constitution. Beyond the questionable
constitutionality of investing Congress
with powers of investigation into speech,
association and ideas, there is the addi-
tional danger inherent in the vagueness
of the committee's mandate. As the gen-
tleman from Iowa, Congressman CULVER,
a former member of HUAC, remarked:
Innocent activities are most often those
of speech, association and belief . ;the
HUAC mandate leaves to much room for sub-
jective and highly political judgments in an
area purposefully left free by the first amend
ment for seemingly unrespectable ideas.
The activities of the committee since
its inception have further underscored
the wisdom of adhering to this principle.
The courts have upheld only 9 of the 133
contempt citations issued by the com-
mittee. Furthermore, the committee has
often seemed not to understand-or at
least not to accept-the constittuional
distinction between advocacy and action,
possibly because the jurisdiction over ac-
tivities legitimately subject to congres-
sional investigation resided in another
standing committee of the House. The
dean of the House, the gentleman from
New York, Congressman CELLER, whose
constitutional expertise has earned him
great distinction as chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, put this point very
clearly:
Traditional practice and custom also indi-
cates that the Committee on the Judiciary,
established in 1813, historically has exercised
legislative jurisdiction over bills dealing with
crime, espionage, sedition and penalties.
Not only is the existence of such a
committee questionable under the Con-
stitution, and legislatively unproductive,
but the cost of maintaining it has added
to the already excessive burdens of the
taxpayers. The committee has main-
tained an average staff of 46, at a cost
of more than $6 million, and has pro-
duced only five pieces of legislation since
1945. Contrast this record with the Ways
and Means Committee which, operating
with half as large a staff, as consistently
considered a full 20 percent of the legis-
lative output in each session of Congress.
It seems reasonable to conclude that
a committee whose legitimate functions
are encompassed by the mandate of an-
other committee, whose activities have
not brought credit to Congress, whose
Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
 Approved For Release 2001/08/28 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000200040001-1
February 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
inquiries have resulted in damage to a
substantial number of citizens and whose
cost to the taxpayer has been excessive,
should, after 20 years of such unsuccess-
ful experimentation, be discontinued.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time, and I yield
11 ack the balance of my time.
COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the resolution.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, on that I
tiernand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 202, nays 123, not voting 46,
as follows:
[Roll No. 16]
YEAS-262
Abbitt
Eshleman
Minshall
Abernethy
Lvins, Tenn.
Mize
Adair
Fallon
Mizell
Albert
Fascell
Mollohan
Alexander
Findley
Monagan
Anderson,
Fish
Montgomery
Tenn.
Fisher
Morton
Andrews, Ala.
Flood
Natcher
Andrews,
Flowers
Nelsen
N. Bak.
Ford, Gerald R.
O'Konski
Arends
Foreman
Olsen
Ashbrook
Four twin
Passman
Aspinail
Frey
Patman
Ayres
Fulton, Pa.
Polly
Baring
Fulton, Tenn.
Pepper
Bates
Fuqua
P,r kins
Battin
Galifianakis
Pettis
Beall, Md.
Garnlatz
Philbin
Belcher
Gibbons
Pickle
Bennett
Goodling
Pirnie
Berry
Griffin
PC it- o
Betts
Griffiths
Puff
Bevill
Gross
Pollock
Biester
Grover
Preyer, N.C.
Blackburn
Gubser
Price, Tex.
Blanton
Hale,
Pryor, Ark.
Boggs
Hall
Purcell
Bow
Hamilton
Quie
Bray
Hammer-
Q_ulien
Brinkley
schmidt
Railsback
Brock
Hanley
Randall
Broomfield
Hansen, Idaho
Rarick
Brotzman
Haasha
Reid, Ill.
Brown, Mich,
Harvey
Reifel
Brown, Ohio
Hastings
Rhodes
Broyhill, N.C.
Hibert
Rivers
Broyhill, Va.
Henderson
Roberts
Buchanan
Hogan
Robison
Burke, Fla.
Hosmer
Rogers, Colo.
Burleson, Tex.
Hull
Rogers, Fla.
Burlison, Mo.
Hun gate
Rooney, Pa.
Bush
Hunt
Roth
Byrnes, Wis.
Hutchinson
Ruppe
Cabell
Ichord
Ruth
Caffery
Jarman
Satterfield
Camp
Johnson, Pa.
Saylor
Carter
Jonas
Schadeberg
Cederherg
Jones, N.C.
Scherle
Chamberlain
Kazen
Schneebeli
Chappell
Kee
Scott
Clancy
Keith
Sebelius
Clark
King
Shipley
Clausen,
Kleppe
i1,es
Don H.
Kyl
Sisk
Clawson, Del
Kyros
Skubitz
Cleveland
Landrum
Slack
Collier
Langen
Smith, N.Y.
Collins
Latta
Snyder
Colmer
Lennon
Springer
Conable
Lipscomb
Stanton
Corbett
Lloyd
Steed
Coughlin
McClory
Steiger, Ariz.
Cowger
McClure
Steiger, Wis.
Cramer
McCulloch
Stephens
Cun r. Ingham
McDade
Stratton
Daniel, Va.
McDonald,
Stuckey
Daniels, N.J.
Mich.
Symington
Davis, Wis.
McEwen
Taft
de la Garza
McKneally
Talcott
Denn