is it is imperative that the Congress of the United States or some agency of the Government take some steps that are necessary to keep these subversive elements out of our defense program. Mr. GREEN. Yes, we concur completely, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tuck. I have here a letter in the nature of a memo from the agency which will be made a part of our record. (The letter from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation follows:) Hon. EDWIN E. WILLIS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Chairman, Committee on Un-American Activities, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on 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." The proposed bill would amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 by changing the definition of "facility", by changing the provision relating to employment of members of Communist organizations, by changing the provisions relating to the designation of defense facilities, by adding a new section 5A to the Act relating generally to measures and procedures designed to protect and safeguard defense facilities and classified information including requirements for inquiries, investigations, proceeding and hearings to determine the fitness and qualifications for employment in or access to a defense facility or access to classified information, by changing the definition of “affiliate", and by changing the requirements for publication of final orders of the Subversive Activities Control Board. Additionally, the bill would also amend the Act of June 15, 1917, (50 U.S.C. 191) by adding provisions to section 1 of title II of that Act which would specifically authorize a program to deny, revoke or suspend access to vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities making the procedures, standards, provisions, and regulations authorized by the proposed new section 5A apply to such program to the extent deemed applicable by the President. A new paragraph would also be added to the section dealing with jurisdiction of courts to issue restraining orders and temporary or permanent injunctions and requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies in matters dealing with the denial, suspension, or revocation of employment on or access to vessels, harbors, ports and waterfront facilities. With respect to the provisions contained in section 1 of H.R. 15626 dealing with defense facilities and the procedures of the proposed section 5A, the activities of this Department have not resulted in any accumulation of knowledge or expertise which would permit a meaningful comment. Accordingly, the Department would defer to the views of the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice with regard to these provisions of the bill. The amendments proposed to be made to the Espionage Act would directly affect the activities of the Coast Guard in connection with its merchant vessel personnel screening program. On January 16, 1968, the Supreme Court held in Schneider v. Smith, that although the present Act authorized keeping the Merchant Marine free of saboteurs, it did not provide express authority for the personnel screening program which had been employed for some time by the Coast Guard. The Court indicated that the Act speaks only in terms of actions and not in terms of ideas, beliefs, reading habits, or social, educational, or political associations. Since this was so, a screening program involving inquiry into the latter areas was not authorized by the Act. The amendments proposed in section 2 of H.R. 15626 appear to cure the deficiency found by the Supreme Court in Schneider and would furnish an adequate statutory basis for continuing the personnel screening program. The Coast Guard in the operation of the screening program in the recent past, has followed procedures paralleling those found in the proposed new section 5A of the Subversive Activities Control Act. As a result, there would be no great difficulty in accommodating the procedures of the program to those found in the proposal. In order to make clear that the provision amending the Espionage Act would apply to all vessels in the United States ports regardless of flag it is recommended that the "to such vessels", at line 23, page 23, of H.R. 15626 be changed to read "to vessels, foreign and domestic,”. Subject to the foregoing comments, the Department of Transportation would have no objection to the enactment of H.R. 15626. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report for consideration of the Committee. Sincerely yours, /s/ John L. Sweeney Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Mr. CULVER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tuck. We thank you very much indeed and we do have appreciation of your cooperation in supporting this proposal. Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TUCK. Our next witness is Mr. Stanley J. Tracy. We are delighted to have you appear before our committee. Mr. Tracy is the former Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is an outstanding American. STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. TRACY, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Mr. TRACY. Thank you, sir. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the provisions of H.R. 15626, a bill to amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 and to authorize the Federal Government to deny employment in defense facilities to certain individuals and to protect classified information released to United States industry. I was for 20 years at the headquarters of the FBI, retiring as an assistant director in 1954. I was associate counsel of the Commission on Government Security which studied the Coast Guard program. The Commission made recommendations in 1957 that there be a legislative basis for a Coast Guard program which is one of the provisions of this bill. I would like to comment on the bill itself. The proposed amendment of section 5(b) is particularly important and pertinent to a sound security program. Authorizing and directing the Secretary of Defense to designate defense facilities in the manner provided, yet permitting both management and labor to voice opposition to such dsignation if either wishes to do so, is very sound procedure. Management, labor, and Government should be full partners in every defense facility operation. With reference to the wording of the bill, I suggest that subsection 5(b) (6) be amended by inserting the words "or indirectly" in line 15 on page 3 so that it will read: "*** or other act of subversion would directly, or indirectly, impair the military effectiveness of the United States ***" In making this suggestion I have in mind that there could be instances where direct impairment might not be subject of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The proposed requirement that each employee or applicant for employment be required to sign a statement that he knows that such facility has been so designated as a defense facility is particularly good that is page 4 of the bill. May I suggest that this provision would be strengthened if it were required that such signing be witnessed by a representative of management who must also sign with a statement that he made certain that the employee or applicant fully understood the term "defense facility." Many applicants and employees have a language or other barrier to a complete understanding of Federal defense procedures, problems, and need. The proposed new section to be inserted after section 5-page 4 of the bill-is a much-needed provision as it makes the legislative intent very clear as to the authority being given to the President. This is the section entitled "Protection of Defense Facilities and Classified Information." With reference to subsection (5) on page 8 of the bill, it is suggested that the word "known" be inserted in line 10, so as to read: "establishing or continuing sympathetic association with a known saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist ****" The Supreme Court has reversed a number of cases on the ground that a statute is vague in its wording. It is suggested that subsection (3) on page 12 of the bill be amended by deleting in lines 16, 17, and 18, the words: "the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any Federal agency." As a subordinate bureau, the FBI does not make such determinations, nor does any other Federal agency, other than the Department of Justice itself. It might be well to add the words "or found to be such by a committee of the Congress or a Federal court." In the event the Congress authorizes by legislation a central security agency, such an agency might be given such authority in addition to the Attorney General. It is also suggested the subsection (6) on page 13 of the bill be amended by deleting the words "at common law," in line 18. Or, substitute the words "in fact" for the words "at common law." The State of Louisiana, for example, inherited its legal system from the civil law of continental Europe rather than from the common law. It is suggested that subsection (1) on page 17 of the bill, lines 21-25, and page 18, lines 1-5, be amended to read: In cases where the President, or his designee, at any time personally determines that the procedures authorized by other subsections of this section cannot be employed with respect to any individual consistently with the national security, the President may authorize his designee to determine the facts and deny, suspend, or revoke such individual's employment in or access to any defense facility engaged in classified military projects or access to classified information released to any facility if the facts in his opinion so justify. An appeal on the record may be made to the President whose decision shall be final. If an appeal were denied in such an instance, I personally feel that the Federal appellate courts, and especially the Supreme Court, would hold that due process had been denied. The provision that no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding on the complaint of any person except after exhaustion of the administrative remedies is a splendid goal, but I would like to see a further provision to the effect that decisions of the Federal circuit courts of appeal shall be final. Surely, one appellate review is sufficient, and the Congress has the authority to set such a limitation. The President bears the responsibility for the Because it is my belief that Congress with this bill is merely reaffirming the position set out in the Internal Security Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. 781 et seq., it may be helpful at this point to take a minute to review the declared purposes of that act. Without laboring over each provision, it seems fair to say that with the act Congress, aware of the situation of the world, aware of the capabilities of our enemies, aware of the length to which enemies might go in an attempt to destroy our institutions, and aware of the value to our enemies of certain of our information, outlined in this act a program for combating internal subversion. Of concern to our discussion today was part of the program with which Congress intended to exclude from employment in defense facilities those persons found to be members of a Communist-action organization. Such persons, the act provided, were subject to criminal penalties if they remained in designated employment. Also of interest to us today was the idea expressed, though the act did not speak in specific terms with regard to this matter, that those awarding contracts of a sensitive nature be able to screen those employees likely to have dealings with classified material. And thirdly, of concern to us today was that measure adopted in the same year as the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Magnuson Act, 50 U.S.C. 191 et seq., which had as its purpose the prevention of sabotage of our port facilities. Though that act did not specifically adopt procedures for the screening of employees, it is my understanding that the Congress clearly had this in mind when it adopted this piece of legislation. In other words, this bill asks the Congress to do nothing new. It does request the Congress to sharpen the technical language found objectionable by the Supreme Court to retain the overall objectives envisioned in the 1950 acts. This being our objective, let us review the Court's objections to the earlier provisions and our proposals to overcome these objections. Apparently not excluding the possibility that some narrowly drawn legislation aimed at keeping "from sensitive positions in defense facilities those who would use their positions to disrupt the Nation's production facilities," the Supreme Court in United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967), held that the present statute swept too widely, catching in its net not only those persons for which the bill was designed, but also persons in nonsensitive positions who were only passive members of such organizations. Our bill would limit the definition of defense facility in order to limit the inclusion to only those actually in sensitive employment. In addition, our bill would require in criminal proceedings that the prosecution show that the defendant was a member of such an organization knowing that it was designated as subversive and knowing that the employment was designated a defense facility. The Supreme Court, in Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) did not challenge the Congress' right to adopt or delegate some form of screening for persons in national defense industry; it merely found that the Department of Defense lacked the necessary authority to operate as they were doing. Our measure would merely give the President the authority with the safeguard that the person involved be allowed the broadest privilege of confrontation and cross-examination consistent with the national interest. Similarly, with regard to the screening provisions in the Magnuson Act, to protect our vital ports, the Supreme Court in Schneider v. Smith on January 16, 1968, found that while Congress had granted broad authority to the President to assure the safety of our port facilities, it had not authorized the screening methods here applied. Our bill, then, adds the necessary authorization. While the world has changed greatly since 1950, the need to protect our institutions, in particular our defense operations, from internal subversion and sabotage has not changed. For this reason, I urge your serious consideration of this measure. The CHAIRMAN. This closes our witness list for today, and the committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Wednesday, May 1, 1968, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 2, 1968.) 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 THURSDAY, MAY 2, 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 recess, at 10 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, Culver, Ashbrook, 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. The Chair is happy to announce that the very distinguished Representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia is here, Congressman Abbitt. Mr. Abbitt, we will be very pleased to hear from you. Mr. Abbitt has been a Member of the Congress of the United States since 1948. He is most widely known and highly regarded throughout the State of Virginia. Mr. Abbitt has a statement he would like to make on one of the bills that is now pending. STATEMENT OF HON. W. M. ABBITT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA Mr. ABBITT. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before this illustrious committee. It is a great pleasure indeed. I will take just a minute of your time. I just want to say that I am so proud of the efforts of this committee in trying to salvage the Subversive Activities Control Board and to save it for the American people. 94-756-68-pt. 1-10 1453 |