the Congress to exert itself as an independent branch. But obviously in this Congress we don't have the horses and we don't seem to be able to do much about it. So I just don't accept your thesis. I will accept the point that we need more staff but I won't accept this as an excuse for the Congress rubberstamping bills.

Representative PUCINSKI. I don't think that this is a case of rubberstamping nor do I think this is a case of Members not knowing what they are doing. I think we read the legislation, we all read the English language and we pass legislation in the belief that it is going to do one thing. Then we find 2 or 3 years later an agency handing down a regulation and we say, "Where in the world did you get the authority to do this?" And they point to the bill. You say, "Well, that is not what the bill says. We recall passing that legislation and that is not what it provides," and they say, "Well, that is the way we interpret it,” and since you now have a fourth branch of Government, the administrative agencies which have broad powers, this is a dilemma.

Now, if the legislation had been written by a committee in the first instance, these very delicate nuances that are slipped in very often and do not become readily available to the naked eye would be avoided and I think legislation would be more effective.

Cochairman MADDEN. I think we are doing a lot of repetition here.
Dr. Hall?

Representative HALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome our distinguished colleague from Illinois. I apologize for being late and I assure him I am aware of his stated testimony. I can only be regretful that I haven't heard all of the colloquy.

I think the three main points that you have made in your presentation here are statesmanlike. I compliment you for what you are doing. Your basic belief in the coequal powers and prerogatives of the legislative branch does mostly approximate some things that were said in the opening statements of the committee itself which is holding these hearings.

I thank you for your comments about the hearings and I certainly agree with you and your statement about the increased and highly selective professional staff. Like yourself, I believe that the details under any good personnel organization or management control system can be worked out as minutiae if this committee can come up with some recommendation for staffing.

I appreciate furthermore what you have said about the functions of the elected Members of our tripartite Government, be they in the Senate or the House, and I think this committee is concerned with the constitutionally delegated powers and the maintenance thereof of these two separate Houses of the Congress and it has been ofttimes discussed before this committee actually redefining the difference between the elected legislative representatives who represent the people on a near coequal basis of apportionment and the representatives of the State with the power in the former to originate taxes and levies and tariffs in the Ways and Means Committee and Appropriations, and the other body to concur in that unless through lack of germaneness they amend and add thereunto, but primarily as representatives of the States of the Union concur in treaties with a two-thirds majority and advise and consent with the President about his appointments.

And herein is where the legislative has an admixture with the executive branch in some responsibility to the people about these appointed officers from the Cabinet on down.

I think we can't evade that in this committee nor can we emphasize it too often as you did in your colloquy, and I appreciate it.

I wonder if in talking about the fourth branch of the Government, as you have dubbed it, the administrative branch ofttimes referred to as the bureaus and civil-service-saved employees, we are not also constrained to consider that maybe this, too, should change and not go on quite so evenly. I wonder if the ability of any new appointed and confirmed officer in the Cabinet to fire any one of the top three of these stay-ons through thick and thin rather than transfer them to another branch or put them in another position or kick them upstairs or something, it would certainly create a turmoil but I wonder if it wouldn't increase the efficiency of Government and give an occasional new complexion to the Frankenstein that we have built in by tenure at the sacrifice of responsibility.

Would you care to comment on that a little further, and then I have one further question.

Representative PUCINSKI. I should like to remind the distinguished doctor that it was President Hoover-and I don't mind as a good Democrat saying some nice things about President Hoover-it was President Hoover who I believe it was in 1950 or thereaboutswhen he concluded his second Hoover Commission study, speaking now as a citizen and not as the Chairman of the Hoover Commission, recommended at that time-of course, his figures today are totally unrealistic; I am sure they are much higher today-but at that time Mr. Hoover recommended that we ought to take out of civil service in this country the top 2,000 administrators so that when a President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, inherits the reins of government by virtue of his election by the majority of the people in this country, he would have the flexibility to implement his philosophy into this Government.

What happens today is that, when the President takes over the reins of government, in too many instances he inherits people who are wedded to a different philosophy, and, by virtue of their civil service status, he is stuck with them.

So I think that the gentleman makes an excellent point. Democracy would be much more vigorous in my judgment if when a Presidentwhen the people of this country decide that they want a President of this philosophy or that philosophy, if that President would then have a greater opportunity to implement his philosophy and not be saddled by previous philosophies, and I think the gentleman makes an excellent point.

Representative HALL. This puts a tremendous problem on one elected individual but, after all, that is what our President represents and whether it is the 2,000 top officials or 1 percent of those in civil service, or as I said, the top 3 in any one branch, I think those figures are closely approximate.

Representative PUCINSKI. The only danger there, the criticism of that has been that this would invite a return to the old spoils system, but my feeling is that when an American attains the position of President of the United States, for the most part within the limitations of

human frailties, I think he makes his appointments on the basis of qualifications, dedication, singleness of purpose, and contribution to Government.

There are exceptions, I am sure, and either party will pick this man or that man for various other reasons, but for the most part, I think when a man becomes President, he rises above the level of just raw politics.

Representative HALL. A few years ago I doubt if I could have brought myself to agree with such a statement, but the longer I am here and see the actual workings of the Congress related to other Government agencies, the surer I am that this is true and I would go one step further. I am not sure but that we have made a mistake at all levels, whether it be municipal, county, State, or Federal, in withdrawing, call it patronage if you will, the spoils system, if you must, but withdrawing the rights of the majority in the interests of bipartisanship, or, worse, nonpartisanship.

Perhaps under the political system under which we find ourselves, this is necessary.

Now, let me turn to one other question on page 6. The gentleman stated that he would like to conclude with the further suggestion that all public information be had on amendments submitted to a committee in executive session, and so forth, and that the rollcall votes be known.

This is a good and a novel idea. I believe it is the first time that any of our many welcome and erudite and esteemed witnesses have exactly suggested that. But we have had many suggestions that there be fewer executive sessions, if any at all; that, after all, we are conducting the public's business, and there have been even more representations that we should have open hearings and make them open to the press and televise even committee hearings.

As you know, this joint committee has been open and televised. We are about the Nation's business and anything we say is for the record. Would the gentleman go along with a recommendation in view of his statement here that maybe in the House we open up at least selected sessions to the television viewing or radio listening of the people around the world and that you extend this further into committees?

Representative PUCINSKI. I would have absolutely no objection. I would welcome it. There has been criticism that this would create a lot of problems I think that the Members of Congress are capable of conducting themselves in a dignified manner. I think that the more people see about their government, the stronger is that government. There is no question in my mind that we started a revolution in this country, among other reasons, in protest against star chamber sessions and I have always opposed them.

1 oppose them now. I would think that you give strength to democ racy when you let the people participate in that democracy to the fullest extent, observing the actions of the highest legislative body in this country, the House of Representatives and the Senate, in my judg ment is just another way of showing Americans what it is all about and giving them a better understanding of themselves.

I believe we have strengthened Government in the last two decades by the very fact that our Presidents have held open press conferences. Now, with the advent of television, Presidents are televising their press conferences. It gives Americans a greater insight into the complex

nature of their Government and makes them appreciate the fact that in this complexity they are assured of the greatest degree of freedom as individuals. So I would certainly agree with the gentleman.

Representative HALL. I thank the gentleman.

Cochairman MADDEN. Thank you, Congressman Pucinski. And let me say this in closing, that a lot has been said, not only here but in the newspapers and other places, about rubberstamp Congress. I think that the statements about rubberstamps could be reversed because the executive departments have been following what I have been advocating for 20 years. I think the executive department is really following the Congress because

Representative PUCINSKI. I agree.

Cochairman MADDEN (continuing). Because the people spoke and all the executive departments can do is follow the judgment of the people.

Representative PUCINSKI. I certainly agree with the distinguished chairman, especially when we see more and more votes in this Congress going through at 390 and 400 to 2 and 3. I would be inclined to think that maybe we have got a rubberstamp President instead of a rubberstamp Congress.

Cochairman MADDEN. In other words, the people are finally speaking; isn't that correct.

Representative PUCINSKI. That is correct.

Cochairman MADDEN. Thank you, Congressman Pucinski.

Now we have Mrs. Donna Allen, Washington representative of the National Committee To Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee.

You may proceed. You have a statement?

Mrs. ALLEN. Yes.

Cochairman MADDEN. You may proceed in any way you desire. Read your statement or talk from your statement and then after you complete your statement, if the members have any questions, they can ask them.

Mrs. ALLEN. Yes. If I run out of time, there are a couple of paragraphs on the next to the last page I could omit.

Cochairman MADDEN. OK. You proceed in your own way.

Mrs. ALLEN. Otherwise I will watch the time.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DONNA ALLEN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH THE HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE

Mrs. ALLEN. I am Mrs. Donna Allen, Washington representative of the National Committee To Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee, an organization of Americans deeply disturbed about the inroads into freedom that the Un-American Activities Committee has made. Although this testimony relates to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, I wish to state at the outset that we are deeply concerned that no congressional committee, House or Senate, violate the rights of individual Americans to believe as they wish, to express themselves freely, and to assemble peaceably in furtherance of their beliefs, as is guaranteed to all Americans. We are therefore as much opposed to the violations of these constitutional freedoms en

gaged in by the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is the unconstitutionality of any congressional inquiry into beliefs that so troubles us.

The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress has been authorized in Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 to recommend improvements in the organization and operation of the Congress in four ways, and I quote from the resolution:

First, strengthening the Congress; second, simplifying its operations; third, improving its relationship with other branches of the United States Government; and, fourth, enabling it better to meet its responsibilities under the Constitution. We respectfully propose that the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities will improve the organization and operation of Congress within these four areas.

First is your interest in measures that will strengthen the Congress. This House committee has brought disgrace to the Congress in the eyes of the world that looks to us for an example of freedom and also in the eyes of many Americans-particularly those in the intellectual community, who deal in ideas and who know the importance of the free flow of ideas in a democracy. Our Founding Fathers knew well the necessity of protecting that freedom, and wrote it into what became the first amendment to the Constitution.

It weakens the Congress to have one of its committees a storm center of criticism, evoking widespread condemnation of its activities, its procedures, its intent, and the resulting and inevitable effect. An embarrassed Congress has revised the committee's procedures many times. But its procedures remain the major bases for complaint against this committee, including abuse of witnesses and even physical mistreatment of counsel as occurred in the committee's most recent hearing. How many times have Congressmen and Senators wished in private that this committee would not do some of the things it does? Who can be proud of the public protest that each new hearing

occasions?

The Congress is weakened when newspapers as prominent as the New York Times and Washington Post editorially call for its abolition. After the hearing in Chicago a few months ago, three Chicago daily newspapers severely criticized this House committee.

The Congress is weakened when so distinguished a person as Albert E. Jenner, Jr., senior counsel of the Warren Commission, past president of the Illinois bar, and prominent Republican, said in summarizing his objections to the Chicago hearings where he represented Dr. Jeremiah Stamler and Mrs. Yolanda Hall:

The hearings held before the House Un-American Activities Committee in Chicago on May 25–27, 1965, were the very antithesis of the kind of proceedings required by our law to meet minimum standards of fairness and due process of law. All of these rights were denied to these subpenaed: the right to have a specific charge lodged, to a hearing before an impartial tribunal, conducted in a dignified manner and without an atmosphere of hostility, with the right, through counsel, to make objections, to cross-examine witnesses, and to see documentary evidence, without prejudicial conduct or comment by opposing counsel or by the judge, and without adverse comment in case a witness claims his right not to respond to questions.

Good or bad, guilty or innocent, citizens are entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. The worst of us should not be held up to public scorn under the guise of finding facts on which to base legislation.

It is particularly disturbing to contemplate that these proceedings are carried on under the auspices of the Federal Government.