we go a long way if we impress that fact upon the American peoplethat mere presence before an investigative committee is not answering an indictment; and I must confess and I state personally now that public-service organizations of the kind I represent have been remiss in not teaching the American people just what this investigative process is. That is, of course, a personal view. Mr. MORRIS. You think, in other words, many of the evils that are associated with congressional committees proceed from a misunderstanding of their function rather than any improper action? Mr. FERMAN. In that respect, I think the American people should be made to understand that mere presence before a congressional committee means nothing more than that. They should be made to understand the difference between an indictment that is handed down by a grand jury and the presence before a congressional committee. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Ferman, do you have any views with respect to the admissibility of wiretap evidence? Mr. FERMAN. I would be unalterably opposed to wiretap. Mr. FERMAN. And I would like to express a difference in view with my board chairman, whom I hold in tremendous esteem. Mr. Angell emphasized the qualitative nature of wiretap testimony and emphasized that wiretap testimony is usually of a high quality. I don't think it is. As a matter of fact, testimony has been presented before the subcommittee on wiretapping attempting to show that wiretap testimony is the most easily forged type testimony-that is, with the manipulation of tapes and the cutting out of certain language-that it doesn't have quite the probative value that we attribute to it because it can be so easily forged. Senator McCarran discussed that point before the subcommittee and emphasized that quality of wiretap testimony. Mr. MORRIS. I don't know how wiretap evidence could conceivably come before a congressional committee. After all, if it is wiretap evidence, it is done by either the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the various police agencies of the respective States. Mr. FERMAN. I would assume, under section 605 of the Federal Communications Act, it would be illegal, even under the interpretation of the act by the Justice Department, to divulge wiretap testimony to congressional people. Mr. MORRIS. Have you any comment on monitored phone conversations; that is, the admissibility thereof? Mr. FERMAN. Well, I suppose I am an old-fashioned civil libertarian. I hate to see privacy invaded-period. Mr. MORRIS. Do you have any views on your observations of committees operating with only 1 Senator or 1 Congressman present to take testimony? Mr. FERMAN. I think Senator Hennings discussed that the first day of the session, expressed his view and discussed the problems. As I see the problem, viewing committees, I think it is more a problem of getting majority consent to any action. One-man committees don't quite this is a personal view again and not expressing the view of the union-meet or curb the abuse that is so often associated with a one-man committee. My observation has been that when you have several Members of the Congress, Senate or the House, that if the chairman's demeanor is something not to be desired, an undesirable kind of demeanor, that the other Members of the Senate or House will not inject any words of caution or object to the demeanor of the chairman, so that I don't think much will be solved by the mere setting up of a one-man committee. I think the abuse of a one-man committee can be curbed in requiring majority consent or two-thirds consent in certain instances before committee action is taken. Mr. MORRIS. Do you think, Mr. Ferman, that some of the abuse, some of the alleged abuse, proceeds rather from the observations and the statements and the conclusions of an individual member of a committee, either of the Senate or the House, who comments on the testimony as it is being taken, and that comment is misinterpreted as being the conclusion of the whole committee with respect to that particular witness and that particular testimony? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; and that won't be solved by the setting up of or prohibiting of one-man committees. That is the loaded summary type statement or comment. I don't think it will be easily solved by requiring more than one Senator to attend the hearing. Mr. MORRIS. If you got 2 or 3 Senators present or 2 or 3 Congressinen, they may at any time make an observation about the testimony that is going into the record; may they not? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; but I have seen the worst loaded summaries put into the record by committees that consisted of more than one member, and I can appreciate the feeling of Senators toward the chairman of their own committee and not acting as a gadfly. Perhaps the distinguished gentleman can answer these questions better than I can. Mr. MORRIS. You don't think there is any way, Mr. Ferman, do you, of prohibiting a Senator or Congressman from making any observation on the testimony that has gone into the record, particularly if the testimony is made public? Mr. FERMAN. No; no. That is a matter of demeanor and a matter of conscience, which will not be solved by having more than one Member attend the session. It is possible, of course, that a Member might make his own statement which would counteract the statement of the chairman. Mr. MORRIS. You think that any conclusion Mr. FERMAN. But you have got to offset the possibilities again of, say, a Member of the opposite party making a statement which would counteract the statement of the chairman, with the problem of getting Senators and Representatives to attend committee sessions with their arduous duties and tasks. Mr. MORRIS. You think, then, that individual members of committees should refrain from commenting on the testimony until the whole committee or majority of the committee passes on any conclusion? Mr. FERMAN. Yes; I think that would solve the abuses that most people are desirous to curb when they suggest prohibition of one-man committees. Senator CARLSON. Is that all? Mr. MORRIS. I think so, Senator. Senator CARLSON. We appreciate very much your statement, Mr. Ferman. Mr. FERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator CARLSON. The next and last witness this morning is Mr. Louis J. Cohen of the National Community Relations Advisory Council. Mr. Cohen, do you promise and swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. COHEN. I do, Mr. Chairman. Senator CARLSON. Mr. Cohen, in view of the time, I would appreciate Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, your patience has been singularly taxed. I shall not impose upon it much further. My reaction to your suggestion of cooperation is instantaneous. Senator CARLSON. We appreciate that very much, I assure you. TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. COHEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. COHEN. My name is Louis J. Cohen. I am a member of the New Jersey bar and have been so for some 37 years. I am a former assistant attorney general of the State of New Jersey, and I am chairman of the Civil Liberties Committee of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, which is comprised of 6 national agencies and 32 regional, State, and citywide community councils. Mr. Chairman, this statement is submitted on behalf of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, a coordinating body consisting of the following 6 national Jewish religious and civic organizations and 32 local Jewish community councils: National organizations: American Jewish Congress; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish War Veterans of the United States; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; and United Synagogue of America. Local, State and regional community councils: Jewish Welfare Fund of Akron; Jewish Community Relations Council for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Calif.; Baltimore Jewish Council; Jewish Community Council of Metropolitan Boston; Jewish Community Council, Bridgeport, Conn.; Brooklyn Jewish Community Council; Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Camden County, N. J.; Cincinnati Jewish Community Council; Jewish Community Federation, Cleveland, Ohio; Connecticut Jewish Community Relations Council; Detroit Jewish Community Council; Elizabeth, N. J., Jewish Community Council; Jewish Community Council of Essex County, N. J.; Community Relations Committee of the Hartford, Conn., Jewish Federation; Indiana Jewish Community Relations Council; Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council; Community Relations Bureau of the Jewish Federation and Council of Greater Kansas City; Community Relations Committee of the Los Angeles Jewish Community Council; Milwaukee Jewish Council; Minnesota Jewish Council; New Haven Jewish Community Council; Norfolk Jewish Community Council; Philadelphia Jewish Community Relations Council; Jewish Council Relations Council, Pittsburgh; Jewish Community Council, Rochester; San Diego Jewish Community Relations Council; Jewish Community Relations Council of St. Louis; Southwestern Jewish Community Relations Council; San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council; Jewish Com munity Council, Toledo, Ohio; Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, D. C.; and Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Youngstown, Ohio. As part of a democratic society whose security ultimately depends on the maintenance of a sound and healthy political structure, Jews must share the concern of all groups in America over encroachments upon individual liberties. Democracy is indivisible. No one of its fundamental features can be vitiated or destroyed without imperiling the whole. Neither the Jewish community nor any other segment of our population can afford to be complacent or aloof when confronted with consistent assaults upon individual freedoms. The threat of communism to free institutions everywhere must be faced. A common and fundamental theme of both Judaism and democracy is the concern with the sanctity and dignity of the individual. Our Jewish history and tradition have inspired a devotion to the principle of individual liberty and have rendered us sensitive to any attacks on human freedom. Accordingly, Jewish organizations have consistently opposed communism and repudiated the limitations on freedom which inhere in it and in the methods it employs. The large number of congressional investigations into virtually every aspect of our national life, especially into the acutely sensitive areas of loyalty and internal security, has emphasized anew the problem of reconciling competing public interests. The proper exercise of the legislative function assumes that the legislature will be empowered to acquire information necessary to the intelligent and effective formulation of legislative recommendations. Indeed there is a legitimate need for wide public knowledge about the conduct of government and the administration of public office. Congressional committee investigations in the past unquestionably have made notable contributions leading to the enactment of significant legislation and the detection of corruption in government. Public concern over the conduct of current investigations does not stem from hostility to legislative investigating committees as such but from the absence of controls over committee activities and from the excesses which some committee members have, therefore, been free to indulge in. The need for Congress to be informed cannot justify or excuse abandoning the fair hearings that Americans traditionally have thought inseparable from any just system of laws. Recent events have underscored the importance of insuring that witnesses or other persons affected by proceedings before investigating committees will not be unjustly accused or degraded, and that they will not be forced to a public avowal and justification of wholly irrelevant private beliefs, and that all persons summoned to testify will receive opportunity for full and fair explanation of any acts called into question. We pride ourselves on having created a government of laws rather than of men. The legislative investigating committee, because it functions without statutory restraints, remains the outstanding exception to this general principle. It enables irresponsible individuals without check by a regulatory standard to exercise profound, often disastrous, influence over the lives of others. It denies those who have been pilloried any basis for defense or appeal. We believe that the advantages of congressional investigations can be retained and yet made compatible with individual liberties if we introduce in this area the orderly processes that characterize our other legal institutions. We do not undertake any detailed analysis of the measures pending before your committee, nor do we undertake to frame suggested legislation. We are concerned, rather, with putting before you some principles that we believe should govern the conduct of legislative investigating committees. Adoption of these principles by Congress will, we believe, insure fairness to the individual witness or person affected by the conduct of the hearing. They will aid the committees in discovering the facts involved in the inquiry and will strengthen and bolster public confidence in legislative investigations. We believe that Congress should enact a code of fair procedures binding upon its investigating committees based upon the following principles: 1. Congressional investigations should be limited in scope to those matters in which Congress may legislate or exercise any other power specifically granted by the Constitution. The obtaining of evidence for use in criminal prosecutions or educating the public at best should be a byproduct but never the primary purpose of a congressional investigation. The congressional power to investigate is not specifically stated in the Constitution. It is an implied one sanctioned by the courts to make effective the other powers of Congress. Lacking a general power to investigate, Congress can only conduct inquiries to gather information for legislative purposes and to check on the administration and enforcement of law and the economy and efficiency of government. A congressional committee therefore must not function as a grand jury. Nor should it exercise its powers for the purpose of exposing individuals or holding them up to public scorn. 2. One-man investigating committees should be prohibited. All phases of an investigation, including the authorization of subsidiary inquiries, the hiring of staff, the scheduling of hearings, the subpenaing of witnesses, and the releasing of public statements and reports, should represent the considered judgment of the majority of the committee. Sworn testimony should be taken only in the presence of at least two members of a committee. When Congress authorizes a committee to conduct an investigation, it contemplates that all important decisions in its course will be taken after due deliberation by all members of the committee. A committee should not delegate its powers to one of its members and a committee chairman should not usurp the powers of other committee members. Full committee deliberation prevents abuse of power, arbitrary or capricious action, and partisan exploitation of a committee's function. It is particularly important that a witness who runs the risk of criminal prosecution for contempt of a committee that lacks the procedural safeguards afforded in other proceedings should not be compelled to testify before only one committee member. 3. To insure full deliberation, all members of investigating committees should receive due notice of meetings and other committee action. Adequate provision should be made for minority reports. 4. Material reflecting adversely upon persons living or dead should not be made public before an opportunity has been afforded such persons or their representatives to refute derogatory or defamatory |