rights which I believe are basic and should be afforded all witnesses before all committees. They are:

1. The right to be accompanied by counsel.

2. The right to supplement testimony by a brief written or oral

statement.

3. The right of a witness to receive a record of his testimony. 4. The right to submit, at the chairman's discretion, written questions to be asked of opposing witnesses.

The resolution also provides that—

Any person who is specifically identified by name in public hearing before the committee and who believes that testimony or other evidence given in such hearing or comment made by any member of the committee or its counsel tends to defame him or otherwise adversely affect his reputation, shall be afforded the following privileges:

(1) To file with the committee a sworn statement, of reasonable length, concerning such testimony, evidence, or comment, which shall be made a part of the record of such hearing.

(2) To appear personally before the committee and testify in his own behalf. (3) Unless the committee by a majority vote shall determine otherwise, to have the committee secure the appearance of witnesses whose testimony adversely affected him, and to cross-examine such witnesses, either personally or by counsel; but such cross-examination shall be limited to 1 hour as to any 1 witness unless the committee votes to lengthen the period.

(4) In the discretion of the committee, by a majority vote, to have the committee call a reasonable number of witnesses in his behalf. The extent to which this privilege may be availed of shall be left to the discretion of the committee.

The bill also provides that

Any witness who gives testimony before the committee in an open hearing which reflects adversely on the character or reputation of another person shall be required to disclose his sources of information, unless to do so would endanger the national security.

House Joint Resolution 328 also includes the following rules to govern the procedures of the joint committee:

No statements shall be released and no documents shall be published by the committee without the approval of a majority of such committee.

Executive hearings shall be held only upon an order of a majority of the committee, and when such hearings are held at least two members of the committee shall be present.

When testimony given the committee is released, the full text of the testimony shall be released, except where considerations of national security otherwise require.

It is my hope that your committee will give these provisions full consideration.

A number of considerations led me to propose a Joint Committee on Internal Security. As I have stated, congressional investigating committees have a highly important role to play. They must be employed, however, in an intelligent, fair, and impartial manner. What is needed is a means of curtailing publicity competition among various committees. It is also important that investigation of subversives be put on an objective, nonpartisan level so as to insure full public support. A joint committee seems uniquely appropriate. Another advantage of House Joint Resolution 328 is that it provides for a chairmanship alternating between House and Senate Members. This provision-which could well apply to all joint committees is especially important in the field of subversive activities. It would tend to reduce the possibility of any one person developing a

49144-54-Pt. 4- 5

vested interest in investigating subversives. It might encourage the committee to work as a unit rather than as a mere tool of a particular chairman.

The question of efficiency is also involved. Under the present system, with at least three committees going off in different directions, it is obvious that the energy and resources of the Congress are dissipated. From the standpoint of efficient legislative-executive relations, furthermore, the joint committee would facilitate closer cooperation. The Justice Department and the FBI would have to deal with only one committee.

Another important motivation behind the proposal for a joint committee is a desire to take the question of communism out of the political This is a field where, in the national interest, there is great need for reducing partisanship. If there is a continuing threat that Communists will penetrate into policymaking positions, both parties are equally interested. If adequate security precautions are being taken, both parties want the public to know it. A single committee can handle these problems more thoroughly and effectively than three separate, and at times, competing committees.

By its very nature, the topic of internal subversion arouses fundamental fears and emotions. Nothing would divide a nation or stir its most violent emotions more than a continuing political war based upon charges that a political party has betrayed the national security. Moreover, these same emotions, if not properly tempered and channeled, could even serve as a real threat to a stable, representative gov

ernment.

In the final analysis, representative government is based upon the citizens' trust in the essential good will and integrity of his fellow citizens. Party government works because we have faith that members of both parties will generally strive for what they conceive to be the best interests of the Nation. We abide by the rules of the game. These prescribe that we provide basic support to the party that wins the election and permit that party to govern.

Underlying disagreements over specific issues and the natural competition between parties there has always been a fundamental respect for the patriotism of the opposition.

If Communists-in-Government is permitted to continue as a major issue between our political parties, I believe that this fundamental of our political system can become seriously corroded. National unity cannot be maintained when the loyalty of an entire political party is impugned. Play only upon a people's fears and you eventually sap their strength.

The problem of how best to handle the questions of internal security, like those of foreign policy and military security, should be dealt with on a nonpartisan basis. This is so not only because of the character of the general subject matter but also because charges against indiduals are involved, charges similar to those coming before the courts. Naturally, I recognize that party responsibility makes complete agreement between the parties unlikely. The problem of subversion, however, could be handled more effectively if conducted on less of a partisan basis. A single joint committee, with competent personnel and sufficient prestige, would help bring this about.

The divisive effects of communism as a political issue are not only domestic in character. They carry over into our international rela

tions, particularly into our relations with our allies. The nations of Europe, many of which have long histories as great powers, have a natural reluctance to accept the United States as undisputed leader of the western coalition. We should understand this, and win their confidence by demonstrating our capacity for leadership.

Maintaining an effective coalition against Soviet aggression would be ticklish enough even if the United States were able to present a perfect picture of maturity and unity in its domestic affairs. When we appear to be seriously dividing the Nation with intemperate charges, it becomes even more difficult to maintain the respect and faith of our allies. Sharp disunity at home could discourage the unity we need abroad.

The problem which the various proposals before your committee seek to remedy is one of more than ordinary importance. It is a problem that has far-reaching domestic and international implications. It is also only one of a number of related problems which require a degree of maturity and stability not demanded even a few decades ago.

Certainly such problems cannot be solved by any gimmick-not a joint committee, a code of fair play, or anything else that simple. The final solution will depend upon what type of public attitude American citizens finally develop on these questions.

In the interim, however, I do believe that the type of machinery and procedures we employ are extremely important. They can serve as a brake upon violent emotions. They can help us direct those emotions into more constructive channels. Such proposals can serve also as a rallying point for those seeking to educate the public concerning the necessity of maintaining its equilibrium and sense of proportion. In that way we can help protect our most important possessionsrepresentative government and our rights and freedoms as American citizens.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to point out that President Eisenhower has referred to what he called the conscience of Congress. I think this problem which your committee is considering is a fundamental one for each one of us as Members of Congress. Ι also think it is of increasing interest and importance to individual citizens.

I believe public interest has become more acute in recent months. I also believe that public knowledge of the way in which our Government works is increasing, and that it is essential that our citizens have full confidence in their Government. It is for that reason, basically, that I feel it is very timely and important that we give close attention to the rules under which our committees operate.

That is all I have at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CARLSON. Congressman, we appreciate very much your statement before this committee this morning. We are glad to have a Representative from the State of New Jersey, especially the one before the committee at the present time.

I believe I am correct in stating that your father served in the United States Senate, and also your grandfather; is that correct? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A cousin served and also my great-greatgrandfather.

Senator CARLSON. I knew the family had been quite active in the affairs of the State and the Union for many years.

Senator Hayden.

Senator HAYDEN. As I understand your proposal, it is to provide for a committee to deal with the one subject, subversion-internal security, and the various other committees would retain all the jurisdiction they now have under the rules of the House and Senate?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The joint committee would have exclusive jurisdiction in the field of internal security, Senator. So, the other committees would no longer have that particular responsibility.

Senator HAYDEN. What mechanical means have you provided to prevent other committees from invading this field?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My bill provides that the proposed joint committee would have exclusive jurisdiction. That would automatically preclude any other committee from responsibility in the field.

There is a specific provision, for example, that the House Un-American Activities Committee would be terminated, that being its sole responsibility.

Senator HAYDEN. The House has protected the jurisdiction of the Un-American Activities Committee much better than the Senate has protected the jurisdiction of Senator Jenner's Subversive Activities Committee. It is very easy for another Senate committee to go into that field, and it seems to me there should be some means provided whereby the House or the Senate could restrain other committees from invading the jurisdiction of your proposed joint committee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think part of the problem of competing committees stems from the fact that at present there is no attempt to make one committee exclusively responsible for a given area of affairs. It is possible for more than one committee to have a legitimate interest in the same field; but if specifically we spell it out that there should be exclusive jurisdiction in one, presumably the other committees would have no jurisdiction in that particular field.

Senator HAYDEN. That is all.

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Berkovitch.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Congressman, addressing myself to one of the specific provisions in your proposal, on page 4 of your statement you note that the bill you sponsor provides that any witness who gives testimony before the committee in an open hearing which reflects adversely on the character or reputation of another person shall be required to disclose his sources of information unless to do so would endanger the national security.

I take it that the purpose of that is to assure, insofar as possible, the reliability of the evidence that is being given; is that correct, sir?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. That is correct.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. I would like to ask you this: Would you require that the disclosure of the sources be a public disclosure, or merely a disclosure in private to the members of the committee?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not think it would be necessary to require a public disclosure. As long as the information was made available to people who could make legitimate use of it, to establish the authenticity and the reliability of the evidence, that would be sufficient. Mr. BERKOVITCH. Thank you.

Senator CARLSON. Judge Morris.

Mr. MORRIS. Congressman, actually, if a witness does not disclose his source of information, he is not even giving evidence; is he?

What he says isn't even evidence if he doesn't give the source? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, it has some probative value, in the public's mind at least, if he gets it in the record.

Mr. MORRIS. You mean if he says, "Someone told me this," and refuses to say who told him?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Again, in congressional hearings, we are not as strict as we are in judicial proceedings. A good deal gets in the record which would be considered hearsay and perhaps could be objected to in a judicial proceeding. So, the fact that the source of information is not provided would not necessarily affect its influence on a committee or the general public.

Mr. MORRIS. Do you know of any committee that would take testimony of that nature, namely, the testimony of some witness who says, "Well, someone told me," and then refuses to say who told him?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think often the question is not asked. In many cases the witness takes it upon himself to make statements without substantiating them. Frequently they go into the record without being questioned.

Mr. MORRIS. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Senator CARLSON. We thank you very much for your appearance, Congressman.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CARLSON. The next witness will be Representative Jacob K. Javits, of the State of New York.

Congressman, do you object to being sworn?

Mr. JAVITS. Not at all.

Senator CARLSON. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. JAVITS. I do.

Senator CARLSON. You may proceed in your own way, Congressman. TESTIMONY OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I shall try not to make my testimony cumulative.

I have had the advantage of hearing the testimony of my colleague from New Jersey, and also that of Mr. Angell.

First, a personal word, Mr. Chairman: I have been in this subject for a very long time, since 1947, and, as a matter of fact, without claiming any pride of authorship, because I am sure others thought of it when or before I did, I introduced the first resolution for a joint committee in 1947, House Joint Resolution 267, pursuing the same idea generally that Mr. Frelinghuysen has spoken of so well, and also sponsored the rules of procedure developed by the Bar Association of the City of New York in 1948 in a bill which I introduced in successive Congresses since that time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to two points, which I don't think are cumulative in our discussion here.

First, the responsibility of the whole Congress on this subject; and, second, what it has meant to our foreign policy, because I happen to be a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

It seems to me the time has come, Mr. Chairman, for the whole Congress to gain control over these investigations which have been handled