Thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that, as a member of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, as well as chairman of the Manpower and Civil Service Subcommittee, I feel strongly that the right to Federal employment should be controlled by the laws and regulations, laws of Congress and regulations that would be adopted by the executive pursuant thereto.

I would like to assure you and the members of the committee that if, in your deliberations, you feel that there is legislation that could support you in your effort that might be introduced in the area of civil service employment, I would be delighted to have such advice and will certainly sponsor any legislation that your very distinguished Un-American Activities Committee feels would be of assistance to close every possible door with regards to the employment of avowed enemies of our country in the employment of our own Government. Mr. Tuck. Well, we thank you very much for the information you brought us in your very me and most effective statement, and I certainly am one who takes the older view that employment in the Federal Government is a privilege, and not a right, and that the Government has the authority to set up standards.

Mr. HENDERSON. Not only in the employment in the first instance, but the right to continue in employment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TUCK. That has always been my view, too, and I am opposed to some of the recent executive orders, having to deal with people and groups. And I take the position that it is a great privilege to work for the Government at any level.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by saying that I am very appreciative of the difficult technical problem of drafting legislation in an area as controversial and as difficult as this area is and I am delighted with what I think is a fine piece of staff work. And I certainly would like to commend the staff, through you, for the assistance that they gave to the sponsors of this legislation.

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. TUCK. Thank you very much.

(At this point Mr. Willis entered the hearing room.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for appearing. We appreciate it.

We have our colleague, my personal friend from Louisiana, Congressman John R. Rarick, of the Sixth Congressional District. Welcome. I will tell you what you can do, if that is your preference.

You can either file the statement at this point and let it go in the record, or you can speak from it. But I think if you could file it and summarize it, it would be easier for us to follow.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. RARICK, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM LOUISIANA

Mr. RARICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a very short statement. The CHAIRMAN. All right. The statement will be printed as a part of the record. And John, proceed and summarize it, please.

Mr. RARICK. All right, sir.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am proud to join with my distinguished colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 15626, a bill to amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. This commit

tee is duty bound to report favorably on this measure; the Congress must approve it; our Nation must have its protection. These are perilous times. We must do all in our power to assure our people that America has an invincible shield against the constant assaults of the Communist conspiracy. Our people look to us in Congress for this protection, sir.

Twice within the last 3 months, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted improvidently to strike down the legal protection we so diligently sought to establish. This Court, which seems intent upon jeopardizing America's ability to protect herself from the Communist threat from within, struck down a vital provision of the Subversive Activities Control Act. This same Court, seemingly intent to destroy the security of our national defense program, has not only repudiated the word of Congress, but also the President of the United States' power to protect defense facilities from infiltration by subversive elements. The members of the Court ask to be given specific instructions of congressional intent in these matters and this legislation proposes to do just that.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say this, John. That I agree with you on your criticism of the Court. What the Court said in that case, the Robel case, was that this bill, the present Internal Security Act of 1950, of which I was the author of the latest amendment, overreached itself and was too vague in a definition of what constitutes employment in the national defense, national defense facilities, so I tried, and my staff tried, the best we could, to be specific in order to comport, if humanly possible, with that decision.

I hope that we have done the job and that even the Supreme Court will find this new version to be satisfactory. At least we did the best we could.

Now let me say this. Last year this committee reported out, the Congress passed, and on January 2 of this year the President signed another amendment of mine to the Internal Security Act of 1950.

That amendment would breathe new life into and sustain the life of the Subversive Activities Control Board. The Senate added a provision to the House bill that unless the Attorney General filed proceedings citing Communist outfits before the Board within a year, the bill would die.

In conference with this committee and the Senators, we made a report, and in the conference report we said that the Attorney General would have within that year to report twice to Congress what he was doing. Thus far he has done zero, goose egg. Nothing. Do you agree that he is delinquent?

Mr. RARICK. I most certainly do. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well he is to testify-not he, but someone from the Justice Department. I was telling them this morning I was all ready for them, but it is going to be tomorrow, and I am going to be in Louisiana, but I am going to tell them that-by the way, I am going to be perfectly frank with you and with the Department, I am going to put my cards entirely on the table.

I am a very tolerant, maybe sometimes too tolerant a man, but I am not going to bail him out. They tell me that the Appropriations Committee will be keeping a careful watch on them when they come for their appropriations, and give them the living devil for not doing the

duty imposed upon them by the act to file proceedings against the Communists before that Board.

So I am sorry I won't be here tomorrow, but I hope and I know that my colleagues on both my right and left will carry the ball.

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, I almost shudder to contemplate what you have said, because it would indicate the Attorney General of the United States might be deliberately attempting to sabotage the efforts of this committee and the Congress to safeguard our people from the communistic movement, which is certainly gaining ground in our country.

Anybody can respect a man who does the best he can with what he has, but when a man takes no action and then says he does not feel the court will back him up, he is the judge and the jury.

The CHAIRMAN. Well let me tell you, I remember as if it were yesterday, one member, Mr. Yates, took me to task, year before last, or last year, when we debated the SACB amendment. He said, well that is all right, that is all right, but what about the Justice Department? Will they back you up?

I read on the floor of the House a letter by the Attorney General, in which he said that, within constitutional limits, if we passed the bill he would cite these Communists. And then I was brought to task by Mr. Culver of this committee, saying that the letter was meaningless. Maybe it was meaningless, and I was too dumb to see through it myself. I don't know. But you remember that, when I read it.

Mr. WATSON. I remember it specifically; yes.

Mr. RARICK. Well, perhaps this committee had better start investigating the Attorney General's office and see what is wrong over there. The man is bound to be an attorney. He is obligated to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution for the people of this country.

I had heard the testimony of the previous witness, and in examining the eminent body's final decree, they went out of their way to talk about the equities of nonsensitive, so-called, employment.

This man Robel was what, a machine operator? He had been so working for years and apparently, knowingly, to the people at the head of the factory, he had been in such a position, and I would like to leave this committee with this thought.

When it comes down to protecting the lives of our boys in combat and to maintaining peace of mind and security right here in our own country, the heartland, what in a defense facility is a nonsensitive job? A janitor? Sweep-up man who goes around to the waste baskets or sweeps shavings up? This is very definitely a sensitive position. The CHAIRMAN. I expressed this just yesterday.

Of course, I understand that the Supreme Court held void the particular provision of the Internal Security Act which we seek to correct, on the ground that it violated the freedom-of-association clause of the first amendment.

I said, well, I don't; I believe very firmly in the establishment of religion provisions and the right of worship, and I'm not trying to promote a religious doctrine here. It is a fact, however, that I happen to be a Catholic, and I think after all, now that is a pretty old institution.

I said when he was teaching catechism, on freedom of association, the priest used to tell us, tell me who your company is, and I will tell you what you are.

And I said I seem to recollect that in my first-grade primer it said. that one rotten apple in a barrel might infest the others, at least the apples coming in contact with it, so I think this freedom-of-association business is just stretched just a little bit too far sometimes.

I don't want to chastise the Supreme Court. There is freedom of association in this country. There should be. I don't think there is any question about that. But I doubt that a father would be proud, during the prohibition days, as I said yesterday, that a son would associate with Al Capone or I doubt that a father, to be perfectly frank-we are all of age around here-I doubt that a mother would be proud of her daughter's association with a slut, a woman of the street. I would doubt that. But however, constitutionally, I can appreciate the liberty of association, but I think sometimes they push that doctrine just a little bit too far for me. What about you ?

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I am wondering if we can expect the Supreme Court to give that same freedom of association to this open housing bill that just passed, by declaring unconstitutional any of the regimented attempts or programs to racially break down neighborhood patterns.

Certainly such laws would destroy freedom of association, because a man could not dipose of his own property to people of his choosing or his neighbors' liking. I wonder what they will do with that?

Mr. Tuck. Freedom of association also includes the freedom not to associate, doesn't it?

Mr. RARICK. Yes, it should. I think what the chairman said, Mr. Tuck, if a man wants to associate with Al Capone, let him associate, but I think that people who deal with him, especially if there is danger involved, should know who he is dealing with. Certainly so where there is a threat to the security of our Nation, I think this is the responsibility that we have.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, frankly I have withheld expressing the views I have just expressed, as chairman of this committee, because somebody is going to chastise me. I know that probably in tomorrow's press, some way, and I want to make it clear and repeat that I will keep my mouth shut, as a matter of law.

As a lawyer of 42 years of experience and as a man who taught law 10 years, I agree with the principle of the liberty of association or nonassociation as a matter of law. But as a matter of philosophy and practice in everyday life, I think that the doctrine is more pragmati» in life than it becomes in technical law, and I think they push it too far as a matter of law.

Mr. RARICK. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, especially when it comes to employment in defense facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course you are absolutely right.

Mr. RARICK. Federal employment is a privilege. It is not a guaranteed right.

Unless they have completely rewritten the Constitution and all theories of legal precedent, the sovereign is the sovereign and if we work for the sovereign, we can expect that we should have some curtailment of what otherwise might be rights or protections and privileges.

I even think that a clerk in the lunch room of a defense facility is a sensitive employment because people going in and getting a cup of coffee and relaxing for a minute are liable to make some comment, and certainly any foreign power or group out to advocate the overthrow of our country would gain intelligence with people in these positions.

I question this was the basis on which the Supreme Court ruled, but they talked about these things. They had to, I guess

The CHAIRMAN. Well anyway I do hope that we have corrected this bill, and we have tried to, even the Supreme Court would say that from now on, at least, it will be nonlawful to employ people in national defense occupations that are specifically defined in this bill, and no question about it.

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, if I may leave my short statement here. I think that you gentlemen are well apprised of the situation we face, and the need that must flow from this committee, and I for one will support the legislation, vote for it, and do everything in my power to help you in getting this bill passed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. We need more like you.

Mr. RARICK. I think this bill is necessary as a pledge of faith to the future of America itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you very much.

Mr. RARICK. It is a pleasure to be here this morning, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Mr. Rarick's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15626 BY HON. JOHN R. RARICK

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am proud to join with my many distinguished colleagues in cosponsoring H.R. 15626, a bill to amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. This committee is duty bound to report favorably on this measure; the Congress must approve it; our Nation must have its protection. These are perilous times. We must do all in our power to assure our people that America has an invincible shield against the constant assaults of the Communist conspiracy. Our people look to us in Congress for this protection.

Twice within the last 3 months, the U.S. Supreme Court has attempted improvidently to strike down the legal protection we so diligently sought to establish. This Court, which seems intent upon jeopardizing America's ability to protect herself from the Communist threat from within, struck down a vital provision of the Subversive Activities Control Act. This same Court, seemingly intent to destroy the security of our national defense program, has not only repudiated the word of Congress, but also the President of the United States' power to protect defense facilities from infiltration by subversive elements. The members of that Court ask to be given specific instructions of congressional intent in these matters and this legislation proposes to do just that.

Last December, in United States v. Robel, the Court invalidated section 5(a) (1) (D) of the Subversive Activities Control Act. This provision very simply stated that when a Communist-action organization has been ordered by the Subversive Activities Control Board to register, it shall be unlawful for any member of such an organization to be employed in any United States defense facility. Robel, an admitted Communist, continued to work in a Seattle shipyard, in the knowledge that the yard has been designated by the Secretary of Defense as a defense facility. The Communist Party had been ordered by the Subversive Activities Control Board to register, and the registration order had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court, however, upheld Robel's position and struck down the relevant provision of the act for the weak reasoning that it "contains the fatal defect of overbreadth because it seeks to bar employment both for association which may be proscribed and for association which may not be proscribed consistently with First Amendment rights." Moreover, objection was