America's convictions and beliefs in this regard." Let us heed the call of our consciences.

Senator BUSH. That will take us over to the middle of page 3 on the prepared statement.

The importance of unity in our battle against communism also has been stressed by the President of the United States. In his Memorial Day address at the National Bicentennial Dinner of Columbia University, President Eisenhower said this:

Possibly in no other way do the Communists so clearly exhibit their fear of the free world achieving real unity as in their persistent efforts to divide and thereby weaken us. They exploit every difference of view among independent nations to make honest discussion falsely appear, not as a valued characteristic of free systems, but as indication of mutual hatreds and antagonisms. This doctrine of divide and conquer they apply not only as between nations, but among groups and individuals of the same nation. They ceaselessly attack our social, industrial, educational, and spiritual institutions, and encourage every type of internecine struggle of whatever kind.

It is very easy

I am continuing the President's remarks—

to become an unwitting tool or ally of such conniving. For example, there is no other subject or purpose in which Americans are so completely united as in their opposition to communism. Yet, my friends, and I say this sadly, is there any other subject that seems, at this moment, to be the cause of so much division among us as does the matter of defending our freedoms from Communist subversion? To this problem we must apply more knowledge and intellect and less prejudice and passion. Above all, we must not permit anyone to divert our attention from the main battle and to inspire quarrels that eventually find good citizens bitterly opposed to other good citizens, when basically all would like to be joined in effective opposition to communism.

That is the end of the President's statement which I quoted.

Now, it appears unfortunately too true that many patriotic Americans have become alarmed by what have seemed grossly unfair and improper methods employed by some congressional investigating committees. This has caused disunity; indeed, grave apprehension and unhappiness.

Obviously, some criticism of investigating methods stems from the Communists themselves and from fellow travelers; but, apart from these self-serving attacks, one sees a mounting volume of criticism from completely responsible and loyal citizens in all walks of life.

In the statement which accompanied my filing of Senate Resolution 253, I made these observations-and I quote:

It is true that any Member of the Congress who seeks to expose Communists or Communist sympathizers automatically becomes a target of attacks by those who are involved, directly or emotionally, in the Communist conspiracy, and that that attack includes indiscriminate criticism of methods.

It is equally true that many patriotic Americans have become alarmed at abuses of the investigative power. Fear exists in the minds of these loyal Americans clergymen of all faiths, school teachers, educators at all levels, Government employees, lawyers, men and women in all walks of life-that if the Congress does not insist on fair and just investigating methods, the basic rights of all individuals may be destroyed.

Those who seek to lump together the Communists who oppose all investigations of their activities and these loyal Americans who oppose only those investigating methods which offend their sense of justice and fair play are making a serious mistake.

Nothing could play more into the hands of the Communists and create unhealthy divisions among us at a time when Red aggression is on the march and our best thought and energy are needed to bring it to a halt.

Mr. Chairman, I could read into this record many statements by religious leaders, educators, lawyers, and thought leaders in other areas of public life expressing deep and serious concern about abuses of the power to investigate; but I think this unnecessary because we are all aware of the insistence by those who can by no means be accused of softness toward communism that the Congress adopt investigating procedures which conform to American standards of fairness and justice.

This insistence does not imply that congressional investigations of subversion, as in other fields, have not served a useful purpose. Among other things, they have focused public attention on the very real threat that communism presents to our free American institutions and have resulted in legislation intended to plug loopholes in our defenses against it.

Without detracting from the contributions of other committees, Mr. Chairman, both in the House and in the Senate, I would like at this time to stress especially the importance of the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Internal Security. Its report entitled "Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments" presents the clearest picture we have had of the infiltration of our Government by Communists which took place in former years.

I might say, parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, I thought enough of that report to buy a thousand copies of it with my own money and persuaded my State chairman to buy, I think, another thousand copies, and we gave distribution to that among thought leaders in our State because we thought it was a very important report.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to hear that.
Senator BUSH. I thought you might be.

Significantly, the Subcommittee on Internal Security has so conducted itself as to cause little public concern over its methods. While I have not had the opportunity to observe its procedures at first hand, I have been impressed by various statements testifying to the fairness and sense of responsibility which have guided the subcommittee's members and staff in their official duties.

I was particularly impressed by the testimony before the subcommittee on March 11, 1953, of Dr. Harry D. Gideonse, president of Brooklyn College of the city of New York, at a time when alarm was being voiced in some quarters that committee investigations might interfere with academic freedom.

Dr. Gideonse made various statements that the committee's procedures were fair and, in particular, expressed his approval of precautions taken to avoid damage to the reputations of innocent persons. The following exchange occurred between the late Senator Willis Smith, of North Carolina, and Dr. Gideonse-and I quote:

Senator SMITH. Doctor, I judge from what you have said up to now that you do not see any reason why the really sane and level-headed members of the teaching profession should not cooperate with this committee, and that they need have no fear of encroachment upon academic freedom, so-called. Is that your feeling today, after what you have observed about the committee's activities? Dr. GIDEONSE. Yes, sir.

To me this demonstrates that an investigating committee working in the field of subversion need not cast aside standards of fairness in order to obtain results. Indeed, it suggests that more and better re

49144-54-pt. 1—3

sults can be obtained by the use of fair methods, and that public confidence in the work of the committees will be strengthened in consequence.

Concluding now my preliminary remarks, Mr. Chairman, I turn to a brief discussion of Senate Resolution 253; and let me again disclaim any pride of authorship or claim to originality in the drafting of these proposed rules.

I have drawn heavily from two sources: First, the recommendations of the Republican Policy Committee made earlier this year; and, secondly, a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania, after a long and careful study made by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Rules of which he was a chairman. The hearings of Mr. Scott's subcommittee have been published, and contain much information which I believe will be useful to this committee.

Advantage might well exist in having the Senate rules on investigating procedures as nearly in conformity with those of the House as practicable. Several committees, in the House and in the Senate, are active in the investigating field. Uniformity, or near uniformity, in the rules would avoid public confusion and misunderstanding and, conversely, promote better understanding of these procedures in both Houses.

I believe that Senate Resolution 253 strikes a proper balance in the difficult task of safeguarding the rights of individuals called as witnesses or otherwise involved in Senate investigations, and at the same time safeguarding the power of committees to investigate. In my judgment, Senate Resolution 253 will give no comfort to people who want to cripple congressional investigations by forcing committees into a rigid straitjacket of restrictive rules.

Nevertheless, Senate Resolution 253 contains provisions which would go a long way, if adopted and enforced, toward eliminating some of the more flagrant abuses concerning which there has been much complaint.

Among its major features for the protection of individuals are these: 1. A majority of a committee must assume responsibility for all major decisions.

2. Three absolute rights are given to witnesses: (a) Advice by counsel; (b) a public hearing, if they insist; and (c) a right to decline to submit to radio, TV, or motion-picture coverage in testifying.

3. Witnesses and other persons threatened with loss of reputation are given an elaborate set of safeguards, including the privilege to question, through written interrogatory, their accusers; or the right to submit a written statement in their defense.

Much emphasis has been placed in public discussion on the need for protecting individuals from abusive actions by committees. Perhaps not enough attention has been paid to the problem of protecting committees from contemptuous and arrogant defiance by some individuals, particularly by the Communists, their fellow travelers, and sympathizers.

Congressman Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio, who was assigned to the House Committee on Un-American Activities at the start of the 83d Congress, has given a vivid account of his experiences in an article entitled "I Was the Target," published in the American Legion magazine in April 1954.

Mr. Scherer says that he had been accustomed to "the rugged give and take of political life," but "not until I joined the struggle against Red sedition, however, had anyone impugned my patriotism, honesty, and sheer human decency. Thereafter I had to accustom myself to being called-to my face, in print, and on the air-a witch hunter and character assassin, an inquisitor and Fascist, to cite the more fashionable labels. I had become one of the group of congressional investigators being smeared in chorus as smearers of innocents and enemies of the Bill of Rights."

So much for Mr. Scherer.

No doubt members of this committee could cite similar experiences of their own. The temptation to resort in self-defense to the tactics employed by the Communists themselves is understandable; but I remain firmly convinced that it must be resisted. Otherwise, we surrender the moral principles which make our free American system superior to the Communist system and which, in the long run, constitute our most important sources of strength.

In answering the viciously unfair methods used by Communists, let us not descend to their level. Instead, we should insist on methods which permit action, firm and vigorous, yet action taken with obvious fairness.

In this connection, I invite the committee's attention to the proposed subsection 18 of rule XXV, which reads as follows:

Witnesses, counsel, and other persons present at committee hearings shall maintain proper order and decorum; counsel shall observe the standards of ethics and deportment generally required of attorneys at law. The chairman may punish breaches of this provision by censure or by exclusion from the committee's hearings, and the committee may punish by citation to the Senate as for contempt.

Some may question whether this provision places too much power in the hands of a chairman, particularly in view of section 3 of Senate Resolution 253 which would permit the taking of testimony by a single member of a committee, or by two members should a witness object to the presence of only one. The answer is that this provision was drafted with the thought that extraordinary situations in which a committee felt it unwise to vest such power in a chairman could be met in other ways. Section 3, for example, allows 1- or 2-member quorums only in the event that the committee does not otherwise provide. Should instances arise of abuse of the power given a chairman under the proposed subsection 18 the committee could meet the problem by revising its quorum rule.

Before leaving this question, I invite the committee's attention to the fact that section 3 of Senate Resolution 253 differs from the quorum recommendation of the Republican policy committee, which reads as follows:

No investigating committee or subcommittee is authorized to hold a hearing to hear subpenaed witnesses or take sworn testimony unless a majority of the members of the committee or subcommittee are present: Provided, however, That the committee may authorize the presence of a majority and a minority member to constitute a quorum.

It occurs to me that the Republican policy committee's recommendation holds within it the danger that a minority could stultify an investigation merely by absence.

I have noted with interest that the resolution introduced by Senator Kefauver for himself and others on May 27 does not require the presence of a minority member during the taking of testimony, at least

in executive session.

Mr. Chairman, I introduced Senate Resolution 253 because of my deep conviction that the Senate as a whole has a responsibility for its committees and should make provision within its rules for fair procedures. The committee is but the agent of the Senate, created by Senate rules, and directly responsible to the Senate as a whole.

In introducing the proposed code, these remarks were included in my statement:

This problem should be considered in an atmosphere of cooperation between my party and those on the other side of the aisle. Partisan charges on either side about events in the past will not contribute toward a solution. Let us keep our attention focused on the important principles which are at stake and strive to avoid being diverted by questions involving personalities, for the principles with which we are concerned affect the honor and dignity of the Senate as a whole, as well as the basic liberties of our citizens and our national security. They far outweigh in importance the political fortunes of any of us as individual Senators.

I venture to hope, Mr. Chairman, that your committee will approach this problem in that spirit, and attempt to report to the floor as soon as possible a code of fair procedures on which agreement between the majority and minority parties can be reached. If that is done, I feel confident we can take action on this important question during this session without delaying the President's legislative program.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have included at this point in the record a resolution which was sent me by the president of the State Bar Association of Connecticut, which simply endorses the principle of Senate Resolution 253.

The CHAIRMAN. It may go into the record and become a part of the record.

(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

Resolved: That the council of the State Bar Association of Connecticut approves in principle Senate Resolution 253, the Code of Fair Procedures for Congressional Committee Investigations proposed by Hon. Prescott Bush of Connecticut; that the council, not feeling its members sufficiently qualified, does not specifically approve or disapprove of the details of the resolution, but prefers to leave such detailed consideration of the resolution to the individual members of the association, all of whom have received copies of the same.

Senator BUSHI. That concludes my testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, we certainly thank you for appearing here as our first witness in these all-important hearings, and I would like to ask at this time: Do you have in mind any examples of what you consider improper conduct of a committee or improper committee procedures?

Senator BUSH. Mr. Chairman, I had not come here prepared to give a detailed list of examples or any list of examples of what I have in mind. I think that in the past few years there have been various instances where committees have been criticized by patriotic citizens for lack of decorum, lack of fairness, in connection with investigations, particularly investigations into subversive activities.

It was not my intention, however, to get into a list of illustrations. I hardly had thought that was necessary. So, I am not prepared to go into any detail.