be made only by the head of the Department based upon his personal review of the case.

I believe subsection (1) of proposed section 5A should be changed to empower the head of a Department, rather than the President, to personally make the determinations required by the subsection when, in the interests of national security, employment or access is to be summarily denied. A Department head must personally make these determinations now pursuant to section 9 of Executive Order No. 10865, and I see no reason why this procedure should be altered.

Section 2 of the bill, in amending the Magnuson Act, appears to provide the type of authorization found lacking by the Supreme Court in the case of Schneider v. Smith in striking down the then Merchant Seamen's screening program conducted by the Coast Guard. Of course, to the extent that amended section 5A would be incorporated into this program we would reiterate our previous comments on that part of the bill.

Mr. Tuck. We thank you very much for coming here today and for your statement. You have made some very pertinent suggestions. I know our able counsel will be glad to discuss these proposals with you with a view to incorporating as many of them as may be practical.

I may say that the distinguished chairman of this committee, Representative Willis, who unfortunately could not be here with us today, is as concerned as are some other members of the committee, including myself, about the failure of the Justice Department to proceed in these cases.

We just do not understand why they have not.

Mr. Yeagley, I want the record to show that close to 4 months have already passed since the enactment of P.L. 90-237, approved by the President of the United States on January 2, 1968.

By its terms, that law imposes a positive duty upon the Attorney General to initiate proceedings before the SACB for the identification and determination of Communist organizations and members of Communist-action organizations.

In adopting P.L. 90-237, it was undoubtedly the intent and expectation of the Congress that this law would be duly-and, I might add, vigorously enforced.

It is clear from official pronouncements emanating from responsible sources, including the Department of Justice, that there is reason to believe that there are a number of organizations against which the Attorney General may proceed as required by the provisions of the act.

It also appears clear that there presently exist within the United States in excess of 10,000 members of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party-an organization which in 1961, following a decision of the United States Supreme Court, was finally determined to be a Communist-action organization.

Nevertheless, and despite the law and the evidence, not one single proceeding has been instituted by the Attorney General under the act. While we recognize that proceedings against organizations may require some greater degree of preparation, the proceedings against individuals for determination of membership in the Communist Party

1 "Security of Vessels and Waterfront Facilities," Mar. 1, 1967. See appendix, part 2, pp. 1739-1806.

are proceedings which, it seems to me, present one simple issue and thus are almost wholly devoid of any complexity.

In view of the serious threat to our national security and the obstruction to the orderly operation of our free institutions presented by Communists and Communist organizations at home and abroad, the Congress and the people of the United States are justifiably concerned when any delinquencies appear in the enforcement of laws designed to control Communist operations.

Increasing incidents of public disorder of a most serious character to which Communist organizations have materially contributed, as the evidence shows, together with an apparent indisposition on the part of certain officials of Government to deal with them vigorously and effectively, has resulted in widespread public anxiety.

Surely this public concern, reflected by the Congress, should be recognized by the Attorney General.

We can sit here till doomsday, struggling to improve our laws and to legislate, but laws will be but as a tinkling cymbal and a reproach if they are not enforced.

You in the executive branch have the duty to enforce the law.

I hope that the people will make themselves heard on this subject. The people of America are greatly concerned at this time as never before.

The fact is that these undoubtedly vicious groups are touring the country disrupting Government offices and throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of Government. Unless it is stopped by the present Government of the United States, we will have nothing more than the hollow shell of an organization.

I am not accusing the Attorney General as the only one being guilty. The Congress and the executive departments are equally guilty. But I say it is a serious situation. The people of this country look to Congress, they look to us to protect them, and their little helpless children that are playing innocently around the firesides of this Nation are looking to us to protect them.

I think something has to be done and I think it is up to the Attorney General and the Justice Department to show the people we intend to drive these Communists out and put them out of business.

I may say also the concern of the chairman of this committee, who is not here today, is of such importance that I have reason to believe that he will call on the Attorney General rather promptly to let this committee know, as we have a right to know as an arm of the Congress of the United States and one that presented this bill to the Congress, what you expect to do.

I hope that you won't consider anything I have said personally. You made a fine witness.

I am a member of the Judiciary Committee of the Congress. I have had occasion to meet the Attorney General before and since he entered into that office and I have known his very distinguished father for many years.

It is nothing personal. I am a member of the Virginia Democratic Party, and I love my country and I believe the overwhelming majority of the people of this country believe it and I believe they are determined to let the folks know now that we are not going to stand for any of this softness any longer.

94-756-68-pt. 1-12

The idea of bringing all these people in here, these worthless people, to trample all over the Nation's Capital who will cost millions of dollars in expenses to clean up after them-who is going to water those mules and feed them?

I am a country boy. I know mules have to be cleaned and fed. I think the time has come when we must give consideration to these matters and stop these people.

Now I want to say another thing: I hope I am not "speechifying" too long. I come from a State where I was chief executive of that State for a time, where the precious and immortal Virginia Bill of Rights was rendered, the principal provisions of which were incorporated into the Constitution of the United States and then into the constitutions for the other States of the American union.

I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in freedom of assembly and I believe people have a right to petition their Government, but they don't have their own right of way. They have no such rights to exercise that power of assembly and powers to petition if by doing so they trample upon the rights of other people.

So, I think some method should be devised to stop them. For my part, I am willing to vote for any constitutional law that will do so. I have talked undoubtedly too long.

I thank you very much.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions.

I certainly concur in the feeling of the chairman that American citizens other than those in these demonstrations have some rights. And I hope sooner or later the Government will recognize those rights and try to protect them.

Of course, that is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. I don't know when Chairman Willis might ask the Attorney General to appear before the committee, and of course the Attorney General is a busy man.

Would it be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, if we asked Mr. Yeagley to inquire of the Attorney General as to what his specific plans are in reference to instituting proceedings before the SACB and the timetable that he anticipated? Would that be inappropriate to do, ask Mr. Yeagley to get that information and supply it to the committee? Mr. Tuck. Will you do that, Mr. Yeagley?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would.

I might suggest that the chairman contact the Attorney General himself. I believe they have a good relationship, but if he would rather not I would be glad to.

Also, I know the law provides that the Attorney General must report in writing to the Congress, so I know he has no hesitancy in reporting on what his decisions are. However, I am not sure certain decisions have been made yet.

Mr. WATSON. As you stated earlier you can appreciate that time is of the essence, and I am sure this committee would like to know. If necessary, I will so move we inquire of the Attorney General and get in writing his intentions concerning the filing of any petitions before the SACB because I think it is essential.

Mr. Tuck. I understand the situation and the failure so to do operates to negate or abrogate an act of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. WATSON. It is totally within his authority, and I believe Mr. Yeagley will agree, to bring petitions. The Board itself cannot initiate petitions, and rightly so, because they are supposed to adjudicate them, but certainly the Attorney General is the one who holds the key to it.

If nothing is done for 8 more months, we can readily anticipate that this Board will go out of existence, and we all agree and Congress has so mandated that exposure of these groups and these people are

essential to the national welfare.

That is the law of the land.

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would reiterate that Mr. Clark has said more than once he intends to enforce this law. I know he intends to review the material we have given him to determine whether or not he thinks good cases are made, whether or not he thinks in conjunction with the FBI that the informants we would have to use can be spared and determine what the ultimate result would be. This I don't think he has done yet.

I might add, in view of some of the comments here, I can assure the committee every lawyer I have ever had work for me in the security division has always had the desire and intent to enforce the law. They have all done the best job they know how and they have done it with the best spirit conceivable and they have been an excellent group of lawyers to work with.

Mr. WATSON. Of course, Mr. Yeagley, you can understand our anxiety. I would not withhold any from you. Everyone is aware of the fact that this bill signed by the President amending the Internal Security Act was opposed by the Department of Justice. When we couple that opposition with the inaction, then I think some people might draw erroneous conclusions. I want to give you and the Attorney General the right to refute those erroneous conclusions that may be drawn.

Mr. CULVER. Does your testimony represent the position of the Attorney General, consolidated Justice Department view, or merely the views of the internal security section of the Department?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would not pretend to say when I answer questions here that I am speaking for Ramsey Clark, nor that I know of his every thought.

On the other hand, he had no hesitation at all in sending me up here as his representative to testify.

He did not have the time to study these bills. He had some familiarity with them. He had no time to go over our proposed statement.

Mr. CULVER. Then it does represent the view of the United States Department, as headed by the Attorney General of the United States, on this bill?

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would say the statement represents the views of the Department of Justice. I think I have used some of my personal opinions in answering questions.

Mr. CULVER. It seems to me generally in the recommendations you have made regarding the correction of the present potential problem areas that you detect in the legislation before us, you consistently refer to existing administrative authority under which you now operate the Government security program.

On page 1 you specifically state there is not a compelling need for such legislation in view of the satisfactory operation of the present industrial personnel security program under Executive Order 10865.

On page 4 you say although a screening program places a much heavier administrative burden on the Government than the Robel case criminal statute, it can be more narrowly drawn and therefore would have a better chance of withstanding constitutional ties.

In short, my question then is: Do I correctly understand you to say that you think there is existing adequate authority in this particular area to properly fulfill the responsibilities to maintain the internal security interests of the United States in this area?

Mr. YEAGLEY. That is a good question. Courts have not specifically answered that. In overthrowing previous programs and laws and actions of executive branches, the Court, as you know, I am sure, has said it was doing so because of the denial of confrontation or because some other infringement of a person's rights had not been authorized by Executive order or statute.

It did not say that it would necessarily approve the denial of such rights by Executive order.

In the Shoultz case, they refused to recognize such denials authorized by a Department of Defense directive under an Executive order.

Mr. TUCK. That was just the second bell. I want you to propound any questions you wish but we are going to have to either recess or adjourn.

If your questions are of such a nature that you want him to come back here at a later date

Mr. CULVER. I would like to respectfully suggest if at all possible we arrange a time when Mr. Yeagley and Mr. Liebling could come back.

Mr. Tuck. I would suggest we recess the committee to be recalled upon the order of the chairman which may be next week or some other time and not try to fix a date now.

Mr. YEAGLEY. I would like to be the innocent bystander, but I can discuss it with you in a couple of minutes.

Mr. Tuck. The committee will now stand in recess to meet again upon the call of the chairman of the committee.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Thursday, May 2, 1968, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)