Page images
PDF
EPUB

HEARINGS RELATING TO H.R. 15626, H.R. 15649, H.R. 16613, H.R. 16757, H.R. 15018, H.R. 15092, H.R. 15229, H.R. 15272, H.R. 15336, AND H.R. 15828, AMENDING THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950 Part 1

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1968

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES,

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m. in Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. William M. Tuck presiding.

(Subcommittee members: Representatives Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, chairman; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; John C. Culver, of Iowa; John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio; and Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina.)

Subcommittee members present: Representatives Tuck and Watson. Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; Chester D. Smith, general counsel; and Alfred M. Nittle, counsel.

Mr. Tuck. The committee will please come to order. We are fortunate to have with us this morning the distinguished gentleman from California, Representative Bob Wilson, and we will be glad to have a statement from him at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CALIFORNIA

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Governor. This room has a lot of happy memories for me. I served on the Armed Services Committee for 14 years, meeting in this room, and I must say the chairman, most of that time, was our former distinguished colleague, Carl Vinson, and he probably is equal to you only in courtesy and genuine friendship.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. Tuck. Thank you very much.

Mr. WILSON. It is significant that the bill that I want to discuss deals with the military and problems of the armed services. Many of us have been quite concerned over the Supreme Court's decisions in recent years which tend to overemphasize the rights of criminals and Communists.

94-756-68-pt. 1-9

1437

The U.S. v. Robel decision last December creates a serious threat to our national security by striking down section 5(a)(1) (D) of the 1950 Subversive Activities Control Act.

This important section prohibited the employment in a designated defense facility of any member of a Communist-action organization under final order to register in accordance with other sections of the 1950 Act.

In view of our continuing commitment to Vietnam and the tremendous amount of defense material needed to supply our troops there, the Court's decision is exceedingly ill timed. Carefully planned sabotage in any number of our major defense facilities could have a drastic effect on our output of urgently needed war supplies.

In reviewing the Court's decision, it appears that the crucial point in question is not the individual's membership in the Communist Party, but rather whether he was an active member whose employment would threaten the security of the specific defense facility.

Denying an individual employment in a defense facility, if he were a member of a subversive organization without knowledge of its subversive purposes, would be a violation of the first amendment freedom of association according to the Supreme Court.

Quiet frankly I find the Court's reasoning in this case incredible. The Communist Party since its inception has been dedicated to world Communist domination, using whatever means are necessary and most expedient. I find it difficult to believe that a member of this organization could be so naively unaware of its subversive intent.

Without seeming paranoic about the dangers of communism, we need to bear in mind its basic purposes here and abroad and to act accordingly to protect our national security.

For this reason, particularly in view of the Vietnam war, the Congress must act soon to clarify and revise the 1950 statute to assure that there are effective means to bar the employment of Communists in defense plants.

H.R. 15018 sets down specific procedures for designating a plant as a defense facility by the Secretary of Defense. The President is then authorized to institute such measures and to issue necessary regulations to bar from employment in a designated defense facility any person about whom there are reasonable grounds to believe he would be likely to engage in sabotage, espionage, or other subversive actions. against the plant.

In accordance with this provision, the President may authorize inquiries regarding the nature of an individual's affiliations and activities to determine if there are reasonable grounds to consider him a probable subversive.

Frequently such individuals refuse to answer any inquiry of this sort, and therefore failure to respond may be considered adequate cause for debarment.

However, anyone so barred must be furnished the reasons for the action taken against him and be allowed an opportunity to defend himself, in a hearing if so desired. The bill outlines specifically the procedures to be followed and allows the individual involved adequate opportunity to demonstrate that his employment in no way threatens the welfare and security of the designated defense facility.

A number of bills have been introduced dealing with this same problem and I am hopeful that workable legislation can be reported

to the House to protect both the constitutional rights of the individual, in accordance with the Robel decision, and the security needs of our defense industries as well.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this committee for scheduling rapid consideration of these bills and appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of H.R. 15018. Mr. Tuck. Thank you, sir. We appreciate very much your coming over here and giving the committee the benefit of your views. Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tuck. I agree with you that the decision is a very unfortunate one. I hope that it-that the bill, or at least one of the bills now under consideration, may contain a provision that will enable us to revise the standard set by the Supreme Court in the opinion.

I would like to ask you this question, whether or not you have given any thought and consideration to the powers of the Congress to include a provision in this legislation, and in all other legislation, or a general provision in the law, making it so that no act of Congress and no provision of any of the State constitutions can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, unless at least seven members of the Court concur.

I understand, and I think everyone does, that the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, but the question in my mind is, does not the Congress have the power to determine the number of votes by which that is done?

Do you have any thoughts on that subject?

Mr. WILSON. I should think that this would be one means of seeing that we are getting majority decisions by the Supreme Court. I understand that some of the decisions are obviously the work of the minority and, I believe, are ill timed.

Speaking to this bill, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of defense plants in my district and I have spoken with the presidents of these firms, and they are genuinely concerned about their lack of control of employment of individuals that they would just prefer not to have in their plants, from a security standpoint.

And I honestly believe that the mere existence of a bill of this type. would be beneficial, that many of the problems that they now have on security clearances would disappear with passage of this bill.

Mr. Tuck. It seems to me, as one member of this committee, that many actions by the Supreme Court of the United States since Mr. Warren became the Chief Justice are opening up the floodgates to harmful, malicious forces, out to destroy this country, including the Communists, the executive department, and the Supreme Court; and unless something is done, there won't be any Constitution left, or anything else. And I am in favor of taking whatever action may be necessary to curb this Court and to stay its hand and stop it from rendering these foolish decisions that are destroying everything that we hold dear in America, for which our men surrendered their lives and spilled their blood on the battlefields of the world.

Mr. WILSON. Well I think Congress has been at fault in giving up its prerogatives which it has under the Constitution, not only to the judiciary, but to the executive branch as well.

We have quite a problem in the Armed Services Committee with the Defense Department dictating, making legislative decisions, and

certainly the judiciary and the Supreme Court have been making legislative decisions that are really the prerogative of Congress. And I would certainly support any move to try to clarify just how much authority the Supreme Court has over the Congress and, likewise, how much authority the executive has over the Congress.

I think it has been the fault of Congress in the past, in many instances, that we have just let both the courts and the executive run

over us.

Mr. TUCK. Yes. I certainly agree with you and I am a strong adherent to the view that it is in the highest public interest to have three separate, equal, and coordinate branches of the Government. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has usurped the powers that are delegated to the Congress, in many instances, and also some of the powers delegated to the executive.

Mr. WILSON. Well, this minor piece of legislation-and it is relatively minor-I think it could very well lead the way in indicating that the Congress goes around a Supreme Court decision and finds a means, legislatively, to achieve our end, and I think it is important that we do these things.

Mr. TUCK. Well we certainly thank you very much and we are delighted to have had the privilege of inviting you back to your old home, this fine meeting room here.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you.

Mr. Tuck. And the Committee on Un-American Activities is glad to have you. We hope that your new quarters are even better, if possible.

Mr. WILSON. No, I think this is a much better room than we have. Thank you.

Mr. TUCK. Now we have another distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, my neighbor and colleague, the Honorable David N. Henderson, of North Carolina.

You may proceed, Mr. Henderson.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID N. HENDERSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a little strange to address you that way. We know you and love you as a Governor of our neighboring State of Virginia.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here in support of H.R. 15626, Mr. Chairman, and have a very brief statement in support, if I may.

I want to make my position clear. My constituency in the Third Congressional District of North Carolina is not composed primarily of experts in the field of constitutional law. Nor is it composed of liberal law professors, politically appointed judges, or sophisticated theorists.

My constituents are ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying citizens who love their country, who support it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and who cannot understand why we cannot or should not prohibit by law a member of the Communist Party of the United States from being employed in work directly related to the military defense of our Nation.

Mr. TUCK. Now right at that point, I don't like to disagree with the distinguished Supreme Court of the United States. Maybe they might be right about the right of association. You may have the right to associate with anyone, but if you do associate with someone who is bad, why then it seems to me that you have the right not to associate with them.

Mr. HENDERSON. I certainly agree, Mr. Chairman.

I might also say at this point that I am sure that I would not have to convince the chairman, who visits eastern North Carolina as often as you do, about the sentiments of my people, but, for the record, I am delighted to have made the statement I did.

Mr. TUCK. Yes, I may say at that point that I am well acquainted with the territory represented by the gentleman from North Carolina and well acquainted with many of its citizens, a great number of whom have made themselves distinguished in the field of government, industry, and in the cultural world. It is a very beautiful, picturesque, and serene section of our country. And whenever I have the privilege of visiting that port of North Carolina, I come back with a renewed appreciation of our great country, and particularly the Old North State.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am certain that the argument will continue to be advanced that we are attempting to exercise "thought control" to suppress freedom of thought, and all sorts of similar contentions.

It seems to me that somewhere, sometime, we must face the fundamental question, "How long are we going to permit avowed enemies of our constitutional form of government to advocate its violent overthrow?" At the present time, not only have we failed to attach any criminal penalties to membership in the Communist Party, but by permitting known Communists to be gainfully employed by defense contractors, we are literally feeding the hand which bites us.

Mr. Chairman, of course I recognize the long interest of you and other members of this committee, your very fine staff, in the pursuit of the objective that I have in mind.

Now in the case of United States v. Robel, decided December 11, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 were unconstitutional when applied in such a manner as to deny employment to Robel, a known member of the Communist Party of the United States, at the Todd Shipyards Corporation in Seattle, Washington, which had been designated by the Secretary of Defense as a "defense facility" as that term is defined in the act.

Among other points mentioned by the Court was the fact that the Subversive Activities Control Act was too broad; that it did not establish meaningful standards for the designation of defense facilities by the Secretary of Defense, or provide specific authority for the Secretary of Defense to establish personnel screening facilities, including the regulation of the privileges of confrontation and crossexamination.

Frankly I cannot escape the conclusion that the Court in this case, as in so many others in a similar vein, was engaging in judicial nit. picking of the nth degree, but I hope that in H.R. 15626 we have effectively provided for these nits to be eliminated.

« PreviousContinue »