statements. Rebuttal testimony should be released simultaneously with publication of such material.

The practice of condemning individuals or organizations without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves is a serious abuse on the part of a congressional committee, particularly in releasing testimony given in executive session, in offering such testimony at public hearings or in releasing reports not based on any hearings. There are areas which are in particular need of regulation, for such practices, if allowed to continue unchecked, will destroy public confidence in all legislative investigations.

5. Persons or organizations against whom charges are made in public hearings should be afforded an opportunity to present their side of the case publicly as soon as possible after the making of the charge and in circumstances as public as those in which the charge was made. This opportunity should include the right to cross-examine witnesses for a reasonable time.

It is not sufficient to allow persons or organizations exposed to the glare of modern publicity media merely to file with a committee an affidavit containing their side of the case. To insure elementary fairness and a balanced presentation on both sides of a case, they should be given limited but reasonable facilities to testify before the committee and to cross-examine their accusers. It is no answer to reply that investigating committees are not courts or lack time to play fair. If they lack time to allow an adequate defense to be presented, they should not be permitted to make accusations.

6. Material in the files of an investigating committee, not previously released by the committee in the form of an official report, should be kept confidential and made available only to Federal investigative and intelligence agencies and State prosecution agencies for their official purposes.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities has compiled dossiers on at least a half-million American citizens. These dossiers are not balanced evaluations of a person's career but mere compilations of undigested material deemed derogatory, as the Bishop Oxnam hearing demonstrated. These dossiers, never authorized by Congress, have in the past been made available indiscriminately although they are able to ruin a person's career or blast his reputation. Such material should be confidential, as are similar materials in the files of the FBI, and should be similarly restricted.

7. Committee members or employees should not issue any public evaluation of a person under investigation until the inquiry relating to such person has been completed and a committee report thereon adopted.

The principle that this is a government of laws and not men requires that least that no person should be held up to public scorn by the offhand comments of a single committee member or staff employee. No public interest is lost or jeopardized by a requirement that no person be stigmatized except by the committee investigating him, and then only after it has completed its investigation and has heard his side of the case.

8. No hearings of a legislative investigating committee should be photographed, televised, broadcast, or recorded for radio over a witness' objection.

It is indeed anomalous that in our courtrooms where parties are protected by counsel and judges, radio, television, and cameras are forbidden but in congressional hearing rooms public exhibitions are often staged. Such exploitation should be forbidden whenever the witness objects, because of the tendency to distract, confuse, and often frighten a witness and because of the inevitable sensationalism that results, preventing a calm, decorous, and fair account of what is happening.

9. Investigating committees should be empowered to invoke the aid of the courts in compelling answers to questions. Constitutional objections and questions of privilege raised by a witness should be tested through summary judicial procedures rather than by defense in criminal prosecutions.

A witness who refuses to answer a pertinent question put to him by a congressional committee thereby commits a misdemeanor and may be jailed for 1 year. Moreover, a witness who refuses to answer does so at his peril, even if he is acting in good faith and on the advice of competent counsel and although he may have reasonable grounds upon which to refuse. This criminal sanction is not only too drastic and inflexible but also is cumbersome and long drawn out.

A congressional committee, like any administrative agency possessing the power to compel testimony, should be able to resort to the courts to compel answers in lieu of criminal prosecution that does not result in answers. Such judicial procedures should also provide a forum to test questions of privilege raised by a witness. Privileges or dilatory objections can be dealt with summarily by the courts.

10. The Rules Committee of each House of Congress should be empowered to receive and investigate complaints of abuses of congressional investigating committees and to report its findings and recommendations to the Congress.

To provide some way of enforcing these rules of procedure, complaints to the Rules Committee of each House should be authorized. These committees may in appropriate cases recommend to the full House censure of committee or committee members and, where abuses are more flagrant, even more drastic sanctions. The mere existence of such a remedy will induce fair procedures by investigating committees and promote public confidence in a power so important to the effective functioning of the Congress.

I have nothing further to say, Mr. Chairman. I concur with many of the pronouncements and utterances made by those who have gone before me.

I think some of the guiding principles which we set forth in our statement have to some extent been covered by all of the other witnesses, and I want to express to you my appreciation of the opportunity of coming here before you. I realize the hour is late and it would avail me very little if I said anything more.

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Cohen, I just want to say this: This committee is indebted to you and many other good people in this country who are concerned about this problem and very helpful to us in bringing us this information, and we do thank you so kindly.

Mr. COHEN. I feel my mission has been fulfilled if I observe nothing more than the remarkable patience you have observed in listening to these people.

Senator CARLSON. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at this point? We have a statement submitted by the Federal Bar Association, which the association requests be made a part of the record.

Senator CARLSON. Without objection it will be made a part of the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF BETTIN STALLING, PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I am presenting this statement to your subcommittee in my capacity as president of the Federal Bar Association, a professional association of attorneys who are members of the Federal judiciary and the Congress, attorneys who are employed by the Federal Government, and attorneys who have in the past, served in one of these capacities. One of the principal objects and purposes of the Federal Bar Association is to advance the science of jurisprudence. I welcome the opportunity of presenting this statement to the subcommittee since the present work of the committee in studying the rules to be adopted by the United States Senate governing investigations by its committees is in complete accord with the aims of our association to achieve an improved jurisprudence in all matters relating to the activities of the Federal Government.

In anticipation that the Congress would, at some time, desire to review the rules of procedure in connection with its investigative function, and with the sole desire of assisting in arriving at an improved procedure, this association has already taken action which it is hoped will be of assistance to the subcommittee making the study. The association publishes, quarterly, the Federal Bar Journal, which is received by all of its members, and is found in the law libraries maintained by our universities, by Federal agencies, and by many private practitioners.

In order to provide background and perspective of investigative procedures for use by the subcommittee and Members of the Senate specifically, and by the legal profession generally, some months ago our association began to plan for an objective review of the legal questions which any committee making this study would encounter. A collection of papers dealing with the legal aspects of these questions and forming a symposium on congressional hearings and investigations was collected from authoritative sources. This symposium was published in the January-March 1954 and in the April-June 1954 issues of the Federal Bar Journal, volume XIV, No. 1, and volume XIV, No. 2, respectively.

It may be noted that the studies were so voluminous that it required two issues of the Federal Bar Journal to make all of them available.

It is our belief that these studies will be of great assistance to the members and staff of this subcommittee in its work. I should make it clear to this subcommittee that the views expressed by the writers of these papers are their own and not necessarily those of the association or of its individual members. We do believe, however, that background material and perspective of these problems can be obtained from this somewhat monumental and authoritative work. The association does not recommend that the committee should adopt any particular views of the writers, although it may be, of course, that members of the committee will concur with some of the recommendations and conclusions of some of the individual writers.

Due to the short period of time preceding these hearings, it was not possible to conduct any survey of the opinions of the members of the Federal Bar Association. The adoption of the rules governing committees of the United States Senate is, of course, essentially the function and duty of the Senate itself, and likewise the studies made by this committee should be the basis for the specific provisions of any rule.

As regards specific rules it is our view that the most that should be done by our association, and this we are most anxious to do, is to indicate to this subcommittee the subjects or specific problems which the Federal Bar Association, through its executive committee, recommends should be studied by the subcommittee, with the adoption of appropriate rules left to the committee as it may determine.

Therefore, without recommending any specific rule or the position that this committee should take with respect to any particular rule, it is our recommendation that the subcommittee study the following fields in connection with the

proposed rules, with a view of adopting appropriate rules in each general area: 1. The right of a witness under investigation to be accompanied by counsel of his own choice.

2. Under what circumstances may a witness who is subject to inquiry have and exercise the right of cross-examination of the complaining witness.

3. Under what circumstances may evidence or testimony be examined and publicized which is hearsay, from anonymous sources, irrelevant, or otherwise not of probative value.

4. Under what circumstances do common law privileges obtain, such as communications between an attorney and his client, a physician and his patient, a minister and his parishioner.

5. Under what circumstances must a witness who is to be a subject of investigation be apprised in advance of the matter of the attack and the subject matter of the interrogation.

6. By what arrangements may persons, organizations, and agencies subjected to attack be availed the opportunity of immediate answers and defense to the end that publication of the charges may include countervailing replication.

7. What checks can be formulated against unreasonable searches and seizures by the blanket subpena duces tecum and the like.

8. Under what circumstances may testimony adverse to others be required to be given under oath.

9. By what method may inquiries be curbed which go irrelevantly into personal and private affairs.

10. Under what arrangements can radio, television, and news facilities be employed so as not to be unfair to witnesses.

11. Under what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate to "leak" or summarize to the press testimony taken in executive session.

12. By what arrangement can there be correlated the basic constitutional privilege of the legislature to inquire into management of the executive branch and the compatible right and duty of the executive branch to withhold secret information pertaining to defense, foreign affairs, and other matters of high policy.

13. The basic right of any person who is or has been subject to attack to appear, be heard in his defense, and file an answer in writing for attachment to the record of the proceedings.

14. Under what circumstances and under what arrangement may a witness who has been subject to serious derogation require the committee to recall a reasonable number of witnesses on his behalf but at public expense.

15. Under what circumstances, if any, may there publicly be delegated to a single member of the committee or to counsel or other member of the staff (a) the right to hold hearings, (b) the right to summon witnesses or subpena records, and (c) the announcement or publication of the substance of the testimony taken or the results of the inquiry.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. We have also, Mr. Chairman, a statement submitted by Mr. Ralph E. Becker of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

Senator CARLSON. If there is no objection it will be made a part of the record.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF RALPH E. BECKER, MEMBER OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Ralph E. Becker. I am an attorney with offices at 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW., and a member of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

On July 28, 1953, I appeared before a special subcommittee of the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives. My purpose then was to discuss the highlights of a report prepared by a special committee of the District of Columbia Bar Association recommending 11 rules of procedure for congressional hearings. My purpose today is essentially the same.

The report and the rules are before you now as part of the statement of Mr. Charles B. Murray, the president of our association. We feel that it crystallizes the thinking of many people, including Members of Congress, who believe that it is vital to establish and adhere to certain minimum standards for the conduct of congressional hearings.

Early last fall, the special committee of the District of Columbia Bar Association, under the chairmanship of Mr. F. Gloyd Awalt, in cooperation with the officers of the Federal Bar Association and the editors of the Federal Bar Journal, undertook a thorough study of the problems inherent in the conduct of congressional hearings. The result of this close cooperation and integrated effort is a symposium recently published in volume XIV, parts 1 and 2, of the Federal Bar Journal.

My experience with this symposium-I was chairman of the special committee of the Federal Bar Association on congressional hearings and investigations-has convinced me more than ever of the merit of the proposed District of Columbia Bar Association rules.

I propose, therefore, to discuss the highlights of these rules with you. May I, first, however, commend the members of this subcommittee on the forthright way in which you have recognized the importance of this problem. In my own contribution to the symposium I pointed to the emphasis "which the leadership of Congress has itself placed on the reform of congressional investigative procedures." (14 Federal Bar Journal 7, 12 (1954).)

In a prophetic vein, I then stated that "These efforts by prominent legislators augur well for sensible and decisive action in the near future. And the evidence indicates a wholesome bipartisan approach to the problem." (Id. at 13). These hearings are doing a great deal to enhance my reputation as a prophet, and I am duly grateful to you.

The issue involved is one that affects all citizens. It is a question of applying fundamentals, including the principle of fair play. Applying fair play, congressional hearings can be made far more effective than at present.

Lawyers, as men who live by rules of law, most of which are set forth with particularity and definiteness, have been concerned over the fact that in matters of congressional investigations there is no uniform, specific set of rules, nor is there any uniform code of procedure applicable to committee hearings.

The rules of the District of Columbia Bar Association are, I believe, well designed to permit Congress to investigate effectively, and at the same time protect the constitutional rights of the witness. I will refer briefly to only a few of these rules in order to illustrate this contention.

Under section 2 of our rules, we have outlined the right to counsel as well as the method of participation by counsel.

We have been particularly concerned that in such matters as examination, cross-examination, scope of testimony, right or duty to testify, and similar problems, which are the particular field of lawyers, we as a group have been excluded from congressional hearings. It is most important that in hearings out of which can grow contempt or perjury proceedings, and in which a man may find himself in prison for years, and perhaps ruined for life, he should have the right to counsel.

(a) It is provided that counsel may advise a witness of his constitutional and other rights.

(b) He may make objections to questions and procedures and submit legal memoranda.

(c) Within reasonable limits fixed by the committee, and where such questions are relevant to the inquiry, counsel may examine witnesses who testify with respect to his client.

I wish to dwell on this point for a moment, since it seems to have caused some concern to many Members of Congress. Congress is justly afraid that certain counsel may needlessly impede the activities of committees by extensive crossexamination designed to hamper and hinder an investigation. We considered this problem particularly in view of the lengthy cross-examination which has been carried on in various courts where communistic activities has been one of the subjects involved. We are fully aware of the fact that reprehensible conduct by a lawyer is possible and must be guarded against. We are opposed to these tactics. Where cross-examination is concerned, it is the most dangerous area for abuse.

Cross-examination is not an absolute right. For example, our rule 5 provides for cross-examination of a witness when illegal conduct has been imputed to any person, provided a majority of the committee approves.

As a further safeguard, we have provided that counsel for a witness shall conduct himself in a proper manner. His failure to do so will subject him to disciplinary measures, including removal.

We believe that the right to cross-examination is essential, but we have provided that the committee itself can fix the reasonable limits within which crossexamination can be conducted. Questions asked on cross-examination must be