raised in a concurring opinion that the power delegated to the Secretary of Defense to determine what constituted a "defense facility" was "so indefinite as to be meaningless."

In a defense facility, what position can intelligently be passed off as nonsensitive? The janitor who cleans off desks and disposes of debris, waste paper, and trash which may well contain telltale evidence to an outside security agent? A restaurant employee who, in moments of idle relaxation by employees, may be in a position to overhear invaluable loose talk.

No-in a defense facility all positions of employment are sensitive when it comes to barring known and sympathetic agents of alien philosophies and governments determined to destroy the Government of the United States.

H.R. 15626 will remedy these legal hurdles. It has been so drawn to require not only proof that an organization is Communist, Fascist, totalitarian, or subversive, but that a member of such an organization has actual notice of its designation and that he has actual notice that a defense facility has been so designated. The measure takes no action to limit a person's "right of association," which, after all, is but judge-made law nowhere to be found in the first amendment.

Furthermore, H.R. 15626 clearly and explicitly defines congressional intent in relation to the power of the Secretary of Defense to designate defense facilities. He is given the power and directed by this measure to so designate any facility which may reasonably be said to affect national security-and the language of this portion of the bill is so precise as to present no ambiguity to misconstrue our intent.

Likewise the standards set forth for the exclusion of subversives from employment in defense facilities are clearly defined. Very plainly established are the standards to be applied in denying employment, but at the same time procedures are provided for the safeguarding of constitutional liberties.

This bill authorizes the establishment of security clearance programs to protect our vital defense facilities against sabotage or espionage by subversive elements. It also protects classified information relating to the national defense by authorizing an industrial security clearance program. And it provides for the administration and enforcement of these programs through a strong but fair system of investigation, hearing, and reviews.

Employment in positions which vitally affect the national security of our country-the vast majority-is not a right. It is a privilege, and the United States Government is entitled to-indeed, must have-the authority to set certain reasonable standards for employment. The measure proposed by H.R. 15626 does nothing to infringe on constitutional liberties; it merely prescribes reasonable standards for the protection of this Nation's defense posture. We cannot-indeed, we must not-compromise our ability to protect ourselves from the dangers of subversion by inimical forces.

I urge your committee to report favorably as a pledge of faith in the future of America.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Speedy Long arrived yet?

Here he is.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPEEDY 0. LONG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM LOUISIANA

Mr. LONG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to see you.

You were here when I expounded my ideas about freedom of association and the Justice Department's doings or nondoings. I think you were here.

Mr. LONG. I was here.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would comment on that.

Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am happy to be here with you this morning in support of this proposed legislation and the bill, H.R. 15626, which several Members of the Congress have cosponsored or introduced with the distinguished chair

man of this committee, and on which I am proud to associate my name as one of the cosponsors of this legislation. And, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the views expressed by you in regard to the position taken by the Supreme Court in this matter of freedom of association.

Of course, as you so ably put it, there is a lot that the courts seem to stretch in reference to our Constitution and I am going to touch on some of that in my prepared statement.

I have a prepared statement which I would like to read at this time, if I may, to the committee, which expresses my views and sentiments in regard to this matter.

I will furnish to the committee at a later time today copies of this statement, which was prepared rather hastily, and I did not have the opportunity to prepare copies to bring with me this morning, but which I will present at a later time today.

Now I will proceed to give my prepared statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Surely.

Mr. LONG. As I pointed out, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before and to testify before this great committee on the purposes and provisions of H.R. 15626, as I stated, a bill which I am honored to cosponsor with your distinguished chairman, and my fellow Louisianian, and with other Members of the House of Representatives.

It would obviously be a duplication for me to undertake an involved discussion of the five-fold purpose of H.R. 15626. I do not doubt that Chairman Willis and members of the committee have a detailed and extensive knowledge of this bill, amending the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

Perhaps I should indicate at this point that the apparent implicit intent of this bill to set right flagrant injustices in several decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court with relation to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 is, in my view, a positive step in reclaiming the powers and responsibilities which Congress has lost to judicial usurpation. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that while we can answer the objections voiced by the Supreme Court in the Robel case with respect to prohibiting members of Communist-action groups from working in defense facilities with H.R. 15626, the time will soon come when the Congress must exercise its constitutional power to veto decisions of the Supreme Court which alter our democratic institutions and imperil the lives of our people. The Congress will be forced to act simply because the Supreme Court will continue its mad grab for power until they are forced to go to the people for a truly democratic mandate.

While we consider this bill, we should take special note, I think, of the appeals of certain defeatist segments of modern American society which tempt the Congress with the easy but illusory path of inaction now open as a result of the Robel, Greene, Shoultz, and other decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. We are called upon to accept blindly these decisions, the theories of less than nine men who by the nature of their callings are insulated from the people and the mainstream of American political philosophy. We are asked to accept these nit pickings as the final word on the Nation's ability and propensity to protect itself from internal subversion. Indeed, it would be the path of least resistance, and few could successfully gainsay such inaction. Congress

could excuse such a course, if it chose to abdicate its responsibility for the policies and statutes which govern this Nation.

This bill, H.R. 15626, authored by Chairman Willis and other members of this committee and cosponsored by a score of other Representatives, is a courageous decision to follow the path of duty. It is a clear answer to the temptors that the Congress shall assert its constitutional and democratic mandate to overturn ill-advised and subversive decisions of the Supreme Court.

It will establish once again the will of the people as the law of the land, as expressed through their elected representatives, asserting the supremacy of representative democracy over judicial oligarchy.

Moreover, this bill will give the executive branch the strength to defend the Nation from the misguided, the inept, the criminal, and the subversive, whose machinations threaten the security of the American people.

The U.S. Constitution sets forth the rights and liberties of the American people: freedom of speech and religion; freedom to associate with others for political, business, and cultural purposes; freedom to follow the dictates of conscience. The Constitution also provides for the protection of American citizens in these rights and liberties from domestic and foreign violence. I think one of the most important implicit provisions of the American Constitution is that which protects the people in their freedom from ideology. The freedoms of speech and assembly and of religion are implicit freedoms from ideology, because they assure the individuals of their right to accept or reject any body of thought or of theory or of faith.

H.R. 15626, in my opinion, successfully differentiates between political activity, which is protected by the Constitution, and ideological activity, which is condemned and proscribed by the Constitution.

Any body of thought, theory, or action which operates to subvert all dissenting thought, theory, or action and seeks to destroy any freedom of dissent is an ideology. Such ideologies are therefore foreign to the basic concepts of American democracy and should not be allowed to prosper upon the subversion of American security. It is clear, I think, that communism, fascism, and all the isms from the darker quarters of the political spectrum are not political in nature in the sense that our American political parties and activities are political. It is equally clear that these foreign isms are ideological and dictatorial in nature and are consequently implicitly proscribed by the American Constitution, our body of laws, and all our traditions.

It is my sincere belief that these amendments set forth in H.R. 15626 in reality constitute simple enabling legislation to carry out the implicit provisions of the American Constitution, which provide for the preservation of democratic government and the protection of the freedoms of the American people as set forth explicitly in the Constitution.

Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution gives explicit instructions governing the amending process and, in my view, implicitly denies all other processes of amending it, either private, judicial, legislative, or executive, either peacefully or violently.

When the U.S. Supreme Court amends the Constitution by judicial interpretation, it is as guilty of subversion as the Communist or the Nazi who advocates and conspires to overthrow the Government by

force. And in the retrospect, we might observe that judicial subversion has been far more successful. If we carry the concept of judicial interpretation to its extreme but logical conclusion, we arrive at government by oligarchy, which is as repugnant to the American Constitution as are communism, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy, anarchy, and all the other ideological forms of tyranny.

It is time now for the Congress to assert itself to set right the present imbalance between the three branches of government. H.R. 15626 is a perfect vehicle for beginning this action, for it is sorely needed for America's protection and it addresses itself to the Congress for redress. Therefore, we are presented with a dual reason for favorably reporting and enacting this legislation, and I submit that the price of inaction today will be the gradual but certain decomposition of the responsibilities of the Congress and the freedoms of our people tomorrow, through the dictatorship of ideology, the most savage and ignoble form of totalitarianism. We have the moral and practical responsibility to take positive action on this measure, H.R. 15626, as quickly as possible, and I respectfully urge your approval and passage by the Congress.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I think it is past due, the Congress is past due in asserting itself to set right the present imbalance between the three branches of our Government and this bill is a perfect vehicle for beginning this action, for it is sorely needed for American protection and it addresses itself to the Congress for

redress.

I urge its approval, and pray that it passes the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are long, long overdue, and I think it appalls me the attitude that some segments of the American people have decided to take in regard to pampering, pampering and leaning toward and favoring people who set out to destroy, completely destroy and emasculate this great Nation of ours, and I want again to say that I am happy to have had the opportunity to appear here and address myself to this serious, most serious problem facing this great Nation of ours.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I assure you we are grateful for your appearance and your contribution, Mr. Long.

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be our colleague, the Honorable Thomas Abernethy from Mississippi.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, A U.S. REPRE SENTATIVE FROM MISSISSIPPI

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate and welcome the opportunity to come before you today in support of the bill now under consideration, H.R. 15626.

I have a statement which I will submit for the record.

(Mr. Abernethy's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I appreciate and welcome the opportunity to come before you today in support of the bill now under consideration, H.R. 15626, a bill "to amend the Subversive

Activities Control Act of 1950 to authorize the Federal Government to deny employment in defense facilities to certain individuals, to protect classified information released to United States industry, and for other purposes."

Permit me to express my most sincere regard for my friend and colleague, Chairman Edwin Willis, and for all members of this committee. By your vigilance and stalwart efforts in the interest of our national security, you are faithfully executing a difficult duty which the House of Representatives has confided to you. With you, I congratulate my friend from my own State, Chairman Eastland and his colleagues, who conduct the counterpart of your duties in the Senate of the United States. Senator Eastland's bill, the Internal Security Act of 1968, moves in the same direction as this bill we consider today-protection of the security of the United States.

I have the pleasure to be one of the 25 cosponsors of this proposed legislation, introduced by the distinguished chairman of this committee. This bill is directed to the protection of the national security in very vital and sensitive areas.

Among its purposes, the bill would restore vitality to section 5(a)(1) (D) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which made it unlawful for members of Communist-action organizations to engage in employment in defense facilities. That section was held invalid by the Supreme Court in United States v. Robel, decided December 11, 1967, on the ground of "overbreadth," and hence "an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of association protected by the First Amendment." In the Robel case the Supreme Court pointed out that "precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms." A prominent characteristic of this bill, H.R. 15626, is its "precision of regulation." In the reasonableness and explicitness of its terms, I believe the bill fully remedies the objections found by the Court in the provisions of the act.

To me it is inconceivable that the protections accorded to individuals under our Constitution should reach so far that our Government is left impotent to protect itself against serious injury or destruction. Of what avail will be the freedoms expounded in the Constitution if indeed that Government which gives reality to their existence is itself weakened or destroyed?

In addition to provisions which would give congressional sanction to security programs relating to defense facilities and to the release of classified information, the bill would also give express congressional authorization for measures establishing a personnel security clearance program for access to vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities under the Magnuson Act. These provisions are likewise of great importance for they remedy a serious deficiency pointed up in the Supreme Court's decision of January 16 of this year, in the case of Schneider v. Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard.

I know I need not remind you that this is no time to let down our guard-in any particular-bearing on our national security. Your committee, I know, has produced substantial evidence on the record respecting the subtle but dangerous subversive influence at work within our country in these troubled times.

I commend your committee for its efforts, and I thank you for this opportunity to appear on behalf of this bill. The bill, H.R. 15626, is an effective and important proposal to fill a serious gap in our defenses against the incursions of determined and ruthless enemies who would destroy our Government and our society. I express the hope that the bill will promptly be enacted into law and will be vigorously enforced.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

The CHAIRMAN. At this point, I direct that the statement of Congressman Dante B. Fascell, Congressman from Florida, be inserted in the record.

(Mr. Fascell's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 15626

Mr. Chairman:

As it was my pleasure to join in the sponsorship of this bill, it is now my pleasure to more specifically detail the reasons for my action.