Mr. BERKOVITCH. Yes, I started to ask you, Senator TydingsMr. TYDINGS. Go ahead.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. On your proposal that no Member of Congress should make any statement attacking either the loyalty or integrity of any person unless there is theretofore an inquiry by an investigating committee-what would you suggest in the event the question was referred to an investigating committee and the committee either failed to make an investigation or made an investigation which the particular Member of Congress who had initiated it, felt was not appropriately conducted-in other words, was dissatisfied with either the method or the result of the investigation. Would you, thereafter, caution that Member of Congress to forever hold his peace?

Mr. TYDINGS. What I would suggest is that the inquiry be asked for by an investigating committee, that it be reduced to writing, and that the inquiry be addressed to the appropriate committee, and that a provision be put on it-the charge that there is dishonesty in the FHA or improper conduct in the FHA, or whatever the charge is, without mentioning names-that it be investigated by a certain committee, and that it report to the Congress not later than 30 or 60 days.

Now, the whole purpose of my suggestion here is not any way at all to curtail the work of any investigating committee. The purpose of my suggestion is, and we've all-I've served in Congress and I know the potency of a charge made on the Senate floor before an investigation is had. There are a great many people who say that no Member of the House of Representatives or no Member of the Senate would make such a charge if he didn't have the facts to support it, and that has not always, in my judgment, over a wide period of time, been borne out. Nevertheless, if the man is actually named before the investigation takes place and if facts afterwards don't warrant the charge, it's awfully hard for him to get rid of the taint that he was charged with a certain offense, whether it be getting too much money from the FHA or whatever it might be, until-well, he never does get rid of it. I could give you illustrations, but I don't want to get into personalities. I say this because as a former Member of the Senate, I have a very warm and immense interest in seeing it remain the great body that it is, and I fear this sort of thing is more and more creeping into our way of doing business and that quite often charges, which are not afterwards sustained, are made on the floor. And there's no way the accused can answer it; he can't go get a forum where he can have his side of the thing put in the press. So, it would seem to me where it would be possible, where questions of honesty or loyalty are raised, that the matter should be referred to an investigating committee and the Member ought to be willing to go down in executive session and say, Mr. Chairman, the following facts have come alleged factshave come to my attention, and here they are. And, if it makes any sense, at all, there is no chairman that I know of who wouldn't proceed to investigate it.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. On that point, Senator, you were the chairman of a committee, a special committee, I believe

Mr. TYDINGS. That is right. A subcommittee of Foreign Relations. Mr. BERKOVITCH. Which investigated in 1950 into certain charges made on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. TYDINGS. That's right.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. The charges, at the time they were made, I believe, did not name individuals.

Mr. TYDINGS. Yes, the Member of Congress who made the charges, named some of the persons on the Senate floor and 9 of them were publicly charged before the investigating committee-9 of them were publicly charged and had public hearings. They were charged in public, and sometime

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Let me ask the question: At that time a particular Senator appeared before your committee and I think he requested that he be allowed to make his charge and name the names in executive session, secret session

Mr. TYDINGS. That is incorrect.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Well, sir, the record, I think, would bear me out. Mr. TYDINGS. If you will turn to the early pages of the committee report, you will find I invited him to make them either in public or in private and the responsibility would be his. If you want me to find the exact quote in the early pages, I would be glad to look it up and read it.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. I would do that, Senator, but may I ask you this before we proceed?

Mr. TYDINGS. Yes, but don't misquote me.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Yes, but do you believe it is for the witness before a committee to make the determination whether the testimony should be in public session or executive session, or should it be for the committee?

Mr. TYDINGS. I would doubt that I was as wise as I might have been on reflection to allow any public charge to be made, but I didn't ask that they be made publicly. I left it up to the Senator who had made the charge in the first place as to whether or not he wanted to proceed in open or executive session, and you'll find that quote in the early part of my testimony.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. That's correct.

Mr. TYDINGS. That's right.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. You gave the witness before your committee the option.

Mr. TYDINGS. I did. I think probably on second thought that was not wise. After all, he was a United States Senator. But, nevertheless, I don't want the responsibility for the procedure that followed. I didn't ask for it that way.

Now, your next question.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. May I ask you this, Senator, referring to the investigation we have been discussing: did your committee afford the right to persons named to come in and cross-examine those who were making the charges against them, in other words, to bring out the truth or the falsity of the allegations?

Mr. TYDINGS. You are speaking now about those who were publicly accused, aren't you?

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Yes.

Mr. TYDINGS. No, we didn't; but we didn't know who was going to be accused. We didn't know who was going to be accused until their names were mentioned publicly, and then we immediately sent them wires telling them that they would have the right to appear and answer any questions or make any statement or produce any evidence that they desired, and to call any witnesses that they desired.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Well, Senator, would you recommend as appropriate procedure that these charges be made for the first time at a public hearing, or would you now recommend

Mr. TYDINGS. No.

Mr. BERKOVITCH (continuing). That the executive session be used

as a means

Mr. TYDINGS. I would recommend where questions of honesty or loyalty are concerned that the Member not be permitted to make the charge on the floor of the Senate, by name, and that the original charge be made in executive session.

I think our judgment was such on that, and the whole committee was more or less to blame; it wasn't my action; nobody protested as to whether or not they should be open or closed hearings. Later on an interest in our committee developed for closed hearings, but that was after nine people had been publicly accused. Having that experience, in retrospect, I think that the suggestion I have made here to you, to wit, that the original charge should be made in executive session, where there would be a full inquiry before a name is disclosed, would be a fairer course than we adopted in allowing witnesses the privilege of making charges publicly. However, you must remember at that particular time-it was 3 weeks after the investigation of Alger Hiss-and there was quite a sentiment in the country for a public hearing and I, and I think some other members of the committee, were afraid if we did have an executive session immediately after the conviction of Hiss that we might be accused of taking the thing under the table and hiding it.

The CHAIRMAN. Star chamber, in other words.

Mr. TYDINGS. That's right.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any further questions?

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Just one question on one-man hearings: Did your committee conduct any hearings

Mr. TYDINGS. No.

Mr. BERKOVITCH (continuing). Of a one-man committee nature? Mr. TYDINGS. If we did, it would only be for a short space of time, when somebody went out. My recollection is, and I think Senator Green will bear me out, except for a short period of time, maybe 1 day there might have been; but my recollection is that most of the time there was more than one member of the committee present.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Were there occasions when neither of the minority members of the subcommittee were present

Mr. TYDINGS. There was this situation that developed-Senator, I don't like to go into names.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't need to, sir.

Mr. TYDINGS. And I won't, but one of the members of the committee, my committee, unfortunately, was up for reelection and had a primary in a western State. It became necessary for him to be absent most of the time. The other member of my committee, when we had these files turned over to us, felt that a mere reading of the files, without knowing more of the personalities and seeing the people who had made the statements in the files, would not give him the kind of data upon which he would want to predicate an opinion and he so stated on the floor of the Senate. So, therefore, after he had read a certain small number of these files, he said he wouldn't read any more. Well, the other three members read them all.

The CHAIRMAN. Sir, were those executive files, too?

Mr. TYDINGS. They were executive files, FBI files and State Department files, and Senator Green and Senator McMahon and myself felt the committee had directed us to read the files. So we read and initialed one after the other of them, and the other members of the committee didn't; one was away, very probably running his electionit was a rather close election at that time. I believe the other member said quite frankly on the floor of the Senate he wasn't going to read the files, notwithstanding the committee had been charged with that duty.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. TYDINGS. So that at all times the door was open and let me conclude, even after Senator Green, Senator McMahon, and myself had finished reading the files, I wrote all the other members a letter and told them I would keep the files and-keep the files available for 5 more weeks in case they changed their minds or wanted to go down and see them, and I kept them on the table for 5 more weeks under guard, so they would have every opportunity to read them.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we'll stand in recess at this time. We had another witness who was supposed to be here this morning, but we ran over our time a little bit. We will try to work that witness in this afternoon.

And also we will have further hearings tomorrow in case he can't come in this afternoon.

Senator Tydings, we want to thank you for coming here this morning and giving us the benefit of your long experience in the Senate and with investigating committees and with committees in general. We are going into this subject rather extensively, going back into the past history of congressional committees, how they were conducted, what is the proper procedure, and so forth, and we would appreciate it if you would make yourself available in case we want to ask you some questions. The staff will be looking into this in the future.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to do anything I can to aid the committee. Let me say this: The first of August I am going away on a vacation for the rest of that month. I can always be reached by mail, however.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know whether it will be necessary.

Mr. TYDINGS. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. But if the occasion does occur.

Mr. TYINGS. I just want you to know I am not running away from it. I will be available.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. TYDINGS. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 12: 25 p. m., the hearing recessed to resume at 2:30 p. m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The hearing reconvened at 2: 43 p. m., Senator Jenner presiding.) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Congressman Meader, are you ready to testify?

Mr. MEADER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be sworn, sir?

Mr. MEADER. Yes, sir.

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. MEADER. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HON. GEORGE MEADER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Meader, have you prepared a statement for the committee?

Mr. MEADER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I delivered it to the staff of the committee yesterday afternoon. If I might, I should like to read the statement to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed in your own fashion.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss a matter of the utmost importance to the investigating processes of congressional committees.

I am sure there is universal agreement that the investigative functions of congressional committees can be improved. The disagreement, however, concerns methods of accomplishing that objective.

I believe that it is imperative that congressional investigations be strengthened and improved because I believe in the committee system. The reason, obviously, is that a small group of legislators can concentrate on a particular subject of national interest. It can examine the facts. It can consider conflicting views and policies and calculate possible effects much more effectively than a large group such as the House of Representatives and the Senate. In our modern, complex society such detailed study is vitally necessary, if government by the people, through elected representatives, is to work and to survive. Therefore, if your committee, through this study, can take action or make recommendations which result in more effective factfinding by committees as foundations for legislative proposals, rather than hamstringing that function, you will have performed an important public service.

Some persons propose to improve committee investigations through amendments to the rules of the Senate and House designed primarily to curb alleged abuses in the past, and to afford protection to citizens conceiving themselves to be affected adversely by committee investigations. My own view is that very little need be done to amend parliamentary rules of the House and Senate. I believe the goal we all seek can better be attained by establishment of sound and wise practices and principles for the conduct of investigations. At the same time, we must retain discretion and flexibility in committees, both so necessary to the prompt and efficient discharge of their policymaking responsibilities. I like to think of this as a positive as contrasted to a negative approach.

My statement, therefore, will consist of two parts. First, I will set forth briefly the principles by which I believe a congressional committee should be conducted. Second, I will point out provisions contained in some of the resolutions before you which I believe are defective or dangerous.

Judge MORRIS. Congressman, may I interrupt at this point to let the record show that Congressman Meader is called here today by