Rule of Procedure for Senate Investigating Committees

maintaining a proper balance of power among the three branches of our Government.

May I insert here that I refer to Senator Lehman's testimony on page 3, and he there cites his authority as Mr. Telford Taylor, who has written in the winter 1954 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review with respect to this question.

As you have already noted, my first three points deal with the general question of congressional inquiries and the extent to which these inquiries should invade the private rights of citizens. It has already been stated that I do not wish to question the right as well as the responsibility of Congress to carry on investigations relative to its legislative functions. The question before your committee, as I understand it, is how the Senate committees can discharge this responsibility with fairness to all parties involved. Whereas the first three points I have raised have an indirect bearing upon this subject, I now wish to address myself directly to the question of committee rules.

My fourth point, therefore, Mr. Chairman, is in support of immediate adoption by the Senate of a code of uniform and fair rules of procedure for all committees which operate under its jurisdiction.

I do not regard myself as competent to deal with the proposed bills in detail since I am not an authority on constitutional or parliamentary law. However, I do believe that your committee has before it proposals for such rules which would improve the investigative procedures of the Senate in a very substantial way.

Among the safeguards to witnesses which we believe should be written into any code of fair committee procedures are the following, and again I quote from the statement of policy on civil liberties made by our executive committee on April 8, 1954:

(1) Nothing shall abridge the right of a person to testify in his own behalf; to present additional evidence in his own behalf; to subpena witnesses both for and against him; to confront and cross-examine his accuser within reasonable limits; to file a statement in his own behalf; to have the opportunity to be accompanied and advised by counsel; and to receive advance notice of the charges against him, insofar as possible;

(2) All testimony taken shall be relevant and germane to congressional power and to the subject of the hearings as set forth in the resolution or motion scheduling the hearing;

(3) A witness shall receive promptly a transcript of his testimony or the testimony of others affecting him;

(4) Statements may not be released by a committee without approval of a majority of the entire membership; no report based upon evidence or testimony adversely affecting a person shall be released unless such evidence or testimony and the complete evidence or testimony offered in rebuttal thereto, if any, is published prior to, or simultaneously with, the issuance of the report.

The enactment and enforcement of such rules to govern the work of the Senate committee would, I believe, go a long way toward helping correct some defects and unfair practices which now exist.

You have already heard testimony to the effect that unform rules of procedure would not help the situation. This was argued on the basis that you cannot make a committee or its chairman follow practices of fair play by applying rules. Although there is merit in this argument, is it not also true that unjust committee procedures, and chairmen who use unfair methods can be restrained with rules which are enforced.

If one is going to argue that rules are of no use per se, then the whole Congress might as well close shop and go home.

What are laws but rules which are enacted and enforced to regulate both the actions of those who willingly cooperate and to restrain those who are not acting in the best interest of the public?

It may be argued that it will be difficult to adopt rules of procedure and find ways of enforcing them, but our great Nation is in a sorry state of affairs if its chief lawmakers are unable to govern themselves in the process of governing the rest of us.

Certainly our lawmakers should be willing to submit themselves to fair standards of practice and rules of procedure which will help them to dispense with their work in a more orderly and efficient manner, and which will assure witnesses who appear before their committees fair and just treatment.

I believe that a Member of the United States Senate has referred recently to this body as the last great free institution left in the world, or words to that effect. We who are citizens and you who are in the Senate may take pride in this fact, but there is also a danger inherent in this statement. Freedom should never mean license to do as one pleases at the expense of welfare of others. Freedom must always be coupled with responsibility and restraint. Where these are not self-imposed, then they must be imposed by the majority whose welfare is in jeopardy.

Many of us believe that in both Houses of Congress the freedom and power of some of our legislators has not been responsibly exercised, nor has there been sufficient evidence of self-restraint by some Members of Congress. For this reason the public has been aroused to the point where we call upon our representatives in the Congress to take steps to correct this situation.

It is not only the reputations of certain Senators and Congressmen which are at stake, but the reputation of the Congress itself, and indeed the reputation of our Government and our Nation as a whole.

In the face of this, for anyone to suggest that the Senate or House cannot restrain its members with rules of procedure sounds more like an alibi than a reasoned argument. This would be easy to say to the world that the body which makes the laws for the greatest democracy on earth cannot discipline itself and cannot require compliance with its own rules.

The final point I wish to make is that there can be no shortcuts to justice in the protection of committee witnesses.

It has been stated in testimony here that for congressional committees to adopt some of the safeguards for witnesses which are standard practice in the courts of our land, such as the right of crossexamination, or for them to adopt the proposed requirement that more than one committee member be present to hear testimony, that such rules would only serve to make present committee procedures more cumbersome, time consuming and might open the way for stalling tactics on the part of witnesses. Granted that this might be the case, we may ask whether efficiency or justice is to become the standard by which we judge the investigative work of our congressional committees.

If efficiency is our goal, then we may well learn a great deal from observing and adopting the practices of the very people our Congress is claiming to be investigating. Democratic procedures are cumber

some, time consuming, and often quite inefficient, but they are the price which free men have to pay to remain free.

Let us remember that the arbitrary and tyrannical methods of totalitarian governments may be the epitome of efficiency, but for the sake of efficiency they tend to disregard the just treatment of their people.

It is because some of us in America believe we are blindly adopting for ourselves some of these methods which seem more concerned with efficiency than justice that I am testifying in support of the adoption of uniform rules of procedure for the Senate committees.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to express sincere appreciation for this opportunity to appear before your committee. As you weigh the arguments which have been brought before you, may you keep foremost in your considerations the great principles of freedom and justice which are at stake in this important decision.

I thank you.

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Cooper, we appreciate very much receiving this statement from you on behalf of the Religious Society of Friends. I know, personally, many of your fine people, and I know of their interest in the preservation of this great democracy of ours. Are there any questions?

Mr. Berkovitch.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. No.

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Morris.

Mr. MORRIS. No.

Senator CARLSON. We thank you for your statement.

The committee will stand in recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10:30 a. m., Wednesday, July 7, 1954.)

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SENATE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION