TESTIMONY OF ADIN M. DOWNER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. DOWNER. Mr. Chairman, I am the counsel to the national legislative service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. I am appearing here this afternoon pursuant to resolutions that our organization adopted in national convention in Milwaukee, Wis., last August, in which they supported the congressional investigating committees.

This particular question of rules of procedure was not considered by us at that time, and we do not have special resolutions dealing with the particular specifics of the problem that are presented here.

My particular purpose in being here is to inform the committee that we, as an organization, have given long and serious consideration to the investigative process of the Congress of the United States, and to express to you our confidence in the Congress and in the committees of the Congress.

I should like, in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, to say that I think in the consideration of the adoption of rules of procedure we should first consider that a congressional committee is not a court, is not an administrative body. It does not have the power to and does not render a judgment. It does not have the power to and does not impose a penalty or a punishment on any person.

The matter of rendition of judgments or the imposition of penalties or punishments upon individuals is still within the judicial branch of our Government.

So, it seems to me that one thought should be kept uppermost and foremost in our minds in the consideration of rules of procedure that should be adopted for the conduct of congressional investigating committees. I think we should start out with the realization that an investigating committee is merely a committee that has for its purpose the investigation of some particular thing for the purpose of developing the facts.

It must necessarily be an informal procedure, just as an investigation by the detectives of the Metropolitan Police Department, or of a district attorney, or of a sheriff's office, to elicit the facts in connection with the supposed commission of crime.

It must necessarily be an informal procedure that can be changed to meet the circumstances and conditions attendant upon each particular circumstance.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned, we cannot help but think the founders of this Republic exercised a very great foresight in the establishment of our American system of government when they devised the system of separation of powers.

We know that back centuries ago, under some of the English kings, the King's Council had powers to legislate, had executive powers, had judicial powers, could determine what was unlawful, prescribe what should be unlawful, determine what person was guilty of a violation of what they had prescribed as unlawful, and fix the penalty and punishment.

The abuse of the rights of the individual from the concentration of all powers of government in one body led the founders of our Republic to provide for separation of powers.

Now, we believe that the investigative process is a very essential element of the legislative power of the legislative branch of our Government. Now, of course, I don't mean to suggest the legislative branch or the legislative power of the Congress is being attacked by any other branch of the Government; but if the Congress were to abdicate it, or if the Congress were to impose rules upon itself that would seriously impair an important function of the legislative branch of the Government, we believe that would be a serious threat to the maintenance of our system of government under the separation-ofpowers doctrine.

We have confidence in the Congress because the Congress is selected by the American people. In fact, I should say that the Congress is the American people, and we believe that if the Congress were to impose upon its committees an elaborate set of rules that would restrain or impede the conduct of their investigations, they would have seriously hampered an essential power of the legislative branch of the Government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one specific reference to Senate Resolution 256, and call attention to one thing in it which occurs to me illustrates our fear that if we attempt to adopt a set of elaborate rules we will create more confusion than exists.

Calling attention to the resolving clause of this resolution-I should like to read it:

That the following be, and hereby are, adopted as the code of the fair committee procedure of the Senate of the United States in connection with all investigations in which committees act as organs of inquiry and investigations as distinguished from their general roles in which they discharge normal legislative functions, including the holding of normal hearings incident to committee business.

Now, I don't know how that might be interpreted, but it occurs to me that if such a rule had, for example, been in existence in the House of of Representatives during the 82d Congress, when the House adopted a resolution creating a select committee under the chairmanship of Congressman Teague, of Texas, to investigate the operation of the educational aid and training program and of the housing program under the GI bill for World War II veterans, serious question might arise. Do these rules apply to that committee or not?

The committee was certainly an organ of inquiry and investigation, but also, as a result of the investigation, Mr. Teague wrote the bill which became Public Law 550, the so-called Korean GI bill.

I think there would be a serious question in many, many instances under the language in this resolved clause as to whether or not the rules prescribed in this resolution should apply, or whether they should not apply.

I think there would be occasions that would arise during the conduct of hearings or inquiry by a congressional committee where the question would arise: Well, do the rules of procedure apply to this witness and not to this one?

This part of the hearings seems to get over into an inquiry, while this part of it is dealing with a specifically numbered bill that has been introduced.

Do the rules apply to some of the witnesses and not to others in the same hearing? Now, we have a real fear that if an elaborate set of rules is to be adopted, it will create that which the proponents of the

rules seek to eliminate. Now, I think undoubtedly, so far as both the proponents and opponents of rules of procedure are concerned, all have the same objective, but oftentimes we become frantic and frightened by a condition and rush in with an antidote or a treatment to administer that may be worse than the condition.

Generally speaking, I should like to say we have confidence in the committees, in the operation of the committees. We believe, of course, the Congress, itself, the Senate and the House-it is a matter for them to determine what rules are to guide and conduct and regulate the proceedings of the body, and certainly if the House and the Senate feel there should be some other rules that would be acceptable, but from our observation of things, it seems to us matters, generally speaking, are fairly conducted, as fairly conducted as in other branches of the Government.

I am sure that every citizen is aware of the fact that, in spite of all the safeguards we have imposed to protect persons accused of crime, there are instances when innocent persons are convicted of a crime; yet that doesn't mean, and nobody has ever suggested, any substitute for the American jury system that would be an improvement upon it, and we don't say that perhaps everything that has been done by a congressional committee has been perfect.

As a matter of fact, I don't know of anybody who does not at some time or another change his own mind perhaps and disagree with something he may have said himself.

Speaking generally, though, I just merely wish to leave the thought with you that we have confidence in the committees, and we see no real need for any great or major change.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of presenting our views. Now, I don't know if Mr. McNamara wishes he may want to supplement anything I have to say or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have anything, Mr. McNamara, you want to add to what Mr. Downer said?

I think the record will show you gentlemen both are here representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Mr. DOWNER. Yes, sir.

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS J. MCNAMARA, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY CAMPAIGN, UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one point, if I may, to Mr. Downer's statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McNamara.

Mr. MCNAMARA. That is in reference to televised hearings. We believe they are good, that television is a legitimate news service, and that whenever there is an open hearing at which the press is represented, the television cameras should have the right to record what is going on.

Basically, an informed citizenry is the best guaranty of good government, and television, I think, more than any other agency, can serve the people by keeping them abreast of what is going on in Congress.

Now, it is objected that some Congressmen or Senators may tend to play to the grandstands and ham it up a bit when they know the

television cameras are playing on them. We believe this: If a man wants to do that, let him do it. The American people will see and judge him accordingly, and the overall effect of televised hearings will be to actually improve and raise the standards in Congress.

The man who hams it up becomes known not only to his constituents, but to people in all parts of the country; similarly, the man who shows himself to be a man of intelligence, sincerity, and seriousness gains stronger support among his own constituents. He has a better chance of being reelected and returning to the House or Senate; and I might also point out, even beyond the man's own district, the area he represents, people have a chance to see him on television and judge his actions, and when he speaks in or out of Congress on some matter, they are actually better equipped to judge how much credence and how much weight they should give to his words.

The CHAIRMAN. On that particular point, let me ask you what you would do in this kind of a case: Suppose a witness who was here before a congressional committee, under subpena, objected to the television cameras being upon him, the lights and so forth, while he is testifying; what would you do under those conditions?

Mr. MCNAMARA. In that case I think you could order the lights turned off and that his face not be televised. I think this is largely a matter of what we are accustomed to, and I am sure about 30 years ago when radio was first introduced and a man who came up to testify-previously he knew his words would be heard only by the man in the room; then this mike was put in front of him and probably scared him the way televison cameras make some people nervous today; but, in spite of that fact, radio hearings did become pretty much standard procedure, when you had hearings of great interest to the public. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think congressional hearings have an educational value, and an educational duty to perform, as well as information seeking and investigation?

Mr. MCNAMARA. That is right; and while the cameras make people somewhat nervous today, I think that will disappear in a short time. After all, there are many people in this country today who are very willing to get upon a television program and sometimes make fools of themselves to win a thousand dollars or an automobile or something like that.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say to a witness who objects because of his right of privacy, that he shouldn't be exposed to the entire world when he is testifying before a congressional hearing?

Mr. MCNAMARA. Well, if you will allow the press to come in and take pictures of a man while he is testifying, I don't see how he can very well object to being televised.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose he objects to pictures being taken while he is testifying; what would be your opinion in that case?

Mr. MCNAMARA. I don't believe that is a valid objection, that his privacy is being invaded if his picture is taken either through a television camera or a press camera while he is testifying in a hearing. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, gentlemen, both of you. We appreciate the fact that you have taken your time to appear before us this afternoon. Mr. DOWNER. Thank you.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We are honored today by having Congressman Velde here, who is chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee, probably one of the oldest committees in investigation work, particularly in the Communist field, of any committee of Congress.

Mr. Velde, we are glad to have you with us.

Mr. VELDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, May I

The CHAIRMAN. It is up to you. Would you care to be sworn to testify? It is up to you.

Mr. VELDE. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you swear the testimony given in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. VELDE. I do.

May I introduce one of our counsel, Mr. Robert L. Kunzig.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I know Mr. Kunzig. We are glad to have you with us, sir. Let the record show that Mr. Kunzig is here with Mr. Velde.

Mr. Velde, do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. VELDE. Yes, I do, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed with your statement.

TESTIMONY OF HON. HAROLD H. VELDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Chairman, members of your subcommitee, members of your staff, as chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, and as an individual Member of Congress, let me say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee of the Rules Committee of the United States Senate.

I have testified in detail before the Scott subcommittee of the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives on this same subject and I, of course, welcome the opportunity to appear before you gentlemen and explain my views.

Let me say first, that I am fully in accord with the purpose and aims of this subcommittee in attempting to codify and establish rules of procedure for investigating committees of the United States Senate, I am equally in accord with the attempt of the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives to establish rules of procedure for our committees to follow.

May I beg your indulgence for just a few moments in asking you to look back with me through the years to note some of the activity in this field in the past.

Historically, the legislative branch of the Federal Government found it necessary through its committees to call American citizens who are experts on legislative matters before them in order that they might give the Congress the benefit of their views on pending legislation. There never was any question concerning the right of Congress to do this, neither was there any serious contention that in the legislative process the rights of any American citizen were being abrogated.

May I refer you to hearings several decades ago in which the American businessman was being throughly investigated. How thoroughly