testimony given or because of official papers or records furnished the Congress or any Congressional Committee, and Section 302 would make it a misdemeanor in any case not covered by Section 301 where an officer of the United States takes reprisal against any witness who furnishes information or documents to the Congress, Congressional Committees or Subcommittees thereof, the Chairman or members of Committees or Subcommittees, or the head of any committee staff; or who initiates, approves, advises, or conspires to bring about a reprisal. We note that the exception for classified information or unconfirmed derogatory information in Section 301 is not included in Section 302. The purpose of this legislation is understood but the Department of Defense is concerned with its impingement on the responsibility of the Executive Branch. Moreover, the provision that demotion, suspension, dismissal, or retirement of any such witness within a year shall be prima facie evidence that it was a reprisal against the witness, and the proposed criminal penalties would have undesirable effects on discipline within the Department of Defense. This provision appears unnecessary and undesirable and should be deleted.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Charlie, will you come forward?

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. I have a very brief statement, which I will read.

My assistant has copies, which I guess he has given out or he is giving them out at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your giving me this opportunity to appear before the committee in support of legislation to fill recognized gaps in our internal security laws.

As you know last December the Supreme Court declared an important section of the Subversive Activities Control Act unconstitutional. The Court told us that we could not make it unlawful that a member of a Communist organization be employed in a defense facility. This decision-U.S. against Robel-brought to the public's attention the urgent new need for effective legislation to combat subversives in our defense plants, and 13 members of the House Armed Services Committee joined me in introducing H.R. 15018 on February 1, 1968, to do just this. I am happy to know that so many other Members have also expressed their concern over the need for effective legislation in this field by the introduction of similar legislation.

Under my bill the Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to designate certain industrial plants or facilities "defense facilities,” and the employees of such a faciliity will be required to sign a statement that they know the facility is so designated. The President is then authorized to institute such measures or regulations as may be necessary to bar from employment in such facilities any person concerning whom there is reasonable grounds to believe that he is disposed and has the opportunity by reason of his employment to engage in sabotage, espionage, or other subversive acts against his employer, and therefore against the United States.

The legislation would authorize reasonable inquiries directed to an individual regarding his affiliations, membership, beliefs, or activities, which are relevant to determine whether there are reasonable and I stress reasonable-grounds to believe that he may engage in sabotage, espionage, or other subversive acts as an employee in the defense facility. Before a person could be deprived of employment he would be notified of the reasons for the action proposed against him and given a reasonable opportunity to present information in his behalf and defend himself against such action.

This bill would also give the President authority to seek a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining order, or other order against the management of defense facilities in accordance with the act to prevent the employment of a person found to be disposed toward and having the opportunity to engage in sabotage, espionage, or other subversive acts against his employer.

I believe this legislation meets the test of "fairness" as applied by the Supreme Court. This bill does not infringe upon full freedom of association, yet it provides that important protection our defense facilities need against those who would seek to disrupt or impair the productive capabilities and military effectiveness of our country by sabotage, espionage, and other subversion.

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that my bill does not contain the word "Communist" in it, nor does it refer to "Communist-front organizations." Reasonable inquiry into the affiliations of the employee would be permitted, and I assume and would expect that one of the purposes for any such inquiry would be to ascertain whether the employee was a Communist or had affiliations with Communists. I do not believe, however, that in view of the Court decisions it would be wise for the Congress to list any specific associations or affiliations by statute which would raise the presumption that the employee would engage in sabotage, espionage, or other subversive acts.

I want to make it clear that I feel the objective of Communists in this country is the overthrow of our democratic institutions with the substitution of a totalitarian, communistic society. I have no doubt in my mind that any Communist who would work in a defense facility would engage in sabotage, espionage, or other subversive activities.

It has been asserted that all the Robel decision said was that we could not make it unlawful for a Communist to work in defense plants. The Court in the Robel case was telling us not only what has been specifically designated here today, but it also seems that they are telling us that we cannot require the firing of a person simply because of his association or affiliation with Communists. The Court asserts that this would violate freedom of association.

It is for these reasons that I recommend that any legislation reported out by this committee in this area not contain language referring to "Communists" or "Communist-front" organizations, but instead set up procedures by which Communists and their kind can be weeded out—with due process-when there is reasonable grounds to believe that they have subversive tendencies.

Recently I came across a lecture by Justice Hugo Black, who, as you may know, held with the majority in Robel. In so many words the Justice told the Columbia University Law School audience in March that he feels that once the Supreme Court gets a case in which the constitutional issue is ripe they, the Supreme Court, will declare the statute establishing the Subversive Activities Control Board unconstitutional. Justice Black asserts that the Board "is allowed... to curtail the exercise the First Amendment rights of speech, assembly and association." I believe we must, as Members of Congress, give careful consideration to those remarks and use every means at our disposal to avoid in new legislation unnecessary constitutional issues relating to freedom of speech and association. This is not to say that we should give up our efforts to curb subversion, but this does mean that we must turn our attention toward procedures embodying principles of due process or fairness which will be upheld by the Court as effective in combating subversion.

I think we should make it clear in the legislative history of this legislation that we expect anyone found to have Communist affiliations or associations to be given the closest possible scrutiny, and I would assume that any Communist leanings would immediately raise a flag, a "red flag" in front of the investigators as to the possible disposition of that person toward subversive activities.

I hope what I have said has been helpful to the committee in consideration of this legislation and I want to thank you again for this

opportunity to appear before you. I appreciate your kindness in letting me testify, and thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are so glad to have you.

Mr. BENNETT. I am glad to be here. Unless there are any questions, I will leave.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you in the room when I drew a distinction between freedom of association under the first amendment and the practical application of that?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes; I thought your words were very well taken, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well certainly it is an old adage that one rotten apple at least can contaminate or taint all the apples that are touched. Isn't that true?

Mr. BENNETT. It is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Now certainly it is, and I am not talking about the Constitution, I am talking about practical life. I would doubt that very few parents in viewing the heyday of prohibition would have been proud to see there their son's associations with the racketeers of the day, would they?

I don't suppose so. So there is this kind of distinction in practical life of freedom of association and in the technical aspect of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless if you say too much about it, it appears they are going to knock it out; does it not?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes; the practical problem of this committee is to draft a piece of legislation which will meet the criteria of the Court. The CHAIRMAN. I am having the Defense Department counsel to consult and I want to do everything I can to draft a bill and to come out with a piece of legislation that will comport and follow the decision so that even the Supreme Court can't knock it out.

Mr. BENNETT. Well, most of the bills that have been introduced— all of them, subsequent to the one which I introduced, contain the phrase "Communist and Communist-front organizations," and in my opinion, it is asking trouble with the Court by putting that in the bill. Therefore I suggest that it be out.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be kept in mind, in going over the bill with a fine-tooth comb.

Mr. BENNETT. Because from what the Court said, it looks as if that might doom your bill to oblivion, by being declared unconstitutional. Of course we want an effective piece of legislation. We want something that is useful.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, surely.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. By the way, talking about an effective piece of legislation, last year this committee reported out, and the Congress passed and the President signed, a bill having to do with the Subversive Activities Control Board.

The Senate provided in its version that the act would die unless the Attorney General filed proceedings to keep the Board alive within a year.

In conference between the Senate and House, in which we participated, or members of this committee participated, it was provided further that the Attorney General should report to Congress twice during the year.

94-756-68-pt. 1———7

The first report is due by June 30 of this year, to tell us what the devil he is doing with the Board; is he bringing cases? Now as far as I know, no case has been brought under that bill, reported out by the committee, passed by Congress, and signed by the President.

Now I understand that the Justice Department is going to testify on this bill Wednesday. I understand at long last, amen, that the Justice Department is going to give its blessing or at least won't have serious objections to this bill. And if they do, I want to give them my great thanks for at long last agreeing with this committee that we do bring up, at least now and then, a product that they can agree with. Mr. BENNETT. The committee does a good job. God bless you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Members think so, because they report out our bills by a majority of 10 to 1, or 20 to 1, but some of the departments refuse to believe it, and some people and newspapers don't believe it.

Thank you very much.

STATEMENTS OF REPRESENTATIVES EDWIN W. EDWARDS, OF LOUISIANA; WALTER S. BARING, OF NEVADA; WILLIAM G. BRAY, OF INDIANA; HERVEY G. MACHEN, OF MARYLAND; DON FUQUA, OF FLORIDA; E. S. JOHNNY WALKER, OF NEW MEXICO; AND CHARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN, OF MICHIGAN; AND FRANCIS W. STOVER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS; JOHN W. MAHAN, CHAIRMAN, SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD; AND DANIEL J. O'CONNOR, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICANISM COMMISSION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

The CHAIRMAN. Several statements have been received by the committee and will be inserted after Mr. Bennett's testimony.

Mr. SMITH. A statement of Honorable Edwin W. Edwards, the United States Representative of Louisiana; a statement of Honorable Walter S. Baring, the United States Representative from Nevada; a statement of Honorable William G. Bray, a United States Representative from Indiana; a statement of Honorable Hervey G. Machen, a United States Representative from Maryland; a statement of Honorable Don Fuqua, a United States Representative from Florida; a statement of Honorable E. S. Johnny Walker, a United States Representative from New Mexico; a statement of Francis W. Stover, director, National Legislative Service, VFW.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that for or against?

Mr. SMITH. For.

A letter of April 23, 1968, from Honorable John W. Mahan, Chairman, Subversive Activities Control Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he for or against?

Mr. SMITH. He is partially each way.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SMITH. On H.R. 15828 a letter dated April 26, 1968, from Honorable John W. Mahan, Chairman, Subversive Activities Control Board, expressing views on H.R. 15626.

The CHAIRMAN. Favorable views, right?