We know that some charges are easily made and very difficult to disprove.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else?

Senator, if there is nothing further, we want to thank you.
I see Senator Hayden is back.

Have you any questions, Senator Hayden?

Senator HAYDEN. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for coming and giving us the benefit of your views and advice.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you very much for your courtesy and your patience.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Ives of New York, will you take the witness stand?
Senator IVES. Do you want to swear me in?

The CHAIRMAN. That is up to you, sir.

Senator IVES. I am always willing to be sworn.

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?

Senator IVES. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. IRVING M. IVES, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator IVES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to be with you on this occasion.

I understand that your committee is considering the various resolutions which have been introduced during the 83d Congress and which would amend the Standing Rules of the Senate with respect to the conduct of committee and subcommittee hearings.

Although a sponsor of one of the resolutions now before you, I do not wish to limit my remarks to the substance of that particular proposal; that resolution was introduced early last year.

It is well established that the investigatory powers of congressional committees and subcommittees arise from the power of the Congress to inquire into matters involving the public interest.

Investigations by congressional committees in the past have been numerous and periodically necessary to protect the general welfare. For example, a special subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is currently conducting an investigation of employee-welfare funds, and I trust that the investigation will result in a broader understanding of this complex and vital subject affecting, as it does, the health and welfare of millions of American workers and their families.

I bring that in, Mr. Chairman, because it so happens that I am the chairman of that subcommittee and I suspect there might be a certain amount of temptation to digress into dubious channels. Insofar as it is humanly possible to do so, we shall do nothing of the kind.

You may be interested to know, even though that committee is made up of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, we are operating by unanimous consent, something new perhaps around here.

I think we can do a good job by that procedure, because we are after the facts and the truth, and where something arises which is dubious, where wrongdoing becomes evident, we are going to turn over whatever we find to the Department of Justice and proceed no further in that connection ourselves.

During recent years it has become obvious to many of us that certain basic procedures should be followed in the conduct of investigatory hearings by committees and subcommittees of the Congress, in order to obtain the maximum benefits from such investigations and to protect the rights of the parties involved.

Although congressional investigations have been common since the birth of the Republic, the American public was not fully aware of them until the broad coverage recently given such investigations by radio and television. In fact, the medium of television in particular has brought the participants in congressional investigations into the living rooms of millions of American homes and has produced the intense interest and concern which American citizens have expressed with respect to the conduct of such investigations. The names, faces, and actions of those participating in these widely publicized proceedings have become household words throughout the country.

The importance of and need for congressional investigations should not be minimized; the conduct of such investigations should be in accordance with basic procedures adopted by each House. To this end it seems to me that the following areas should be encompassed by Senate rules controlling the conduct of investigatory hearings:

(1) Any investigation conducted by a committee or a subcommittee of the Senate should have the approval of and be authorized by a majority of the full committee. Moreover, investigatory hearings held by a full committee or subcommittee of the Senate should be called only upon reasonable notice to each of the members of the committee and only when a majority of the committee is present, except in those instances where, by a majority decision, the committee or the subcommittee has decided that a minority and majority member should constitute a quorum for the conduct of the hearing.

I would add to that, in line with what was previously said when Senator Hennings was testifying, we might run into a condition where it would be necessary for only one member of the committee to conduct the hearing. I realize the difficulties involved.

I shall have more to say about that at the conclusion of my remarks. (2) Although congressional committees are not judicial in nature, certain investigations must be considered as quasi-judicial insofar as they may affect the rights of witnesses called before a committee or subcommittee. Such witnesses should be granted the right to be accompanied by legal counsel while testifying before a committee or subcommittee. Such witnesses should also have an opportunity to supplement oral testimony with brief written or oral statements which, if they are germane and pertinent to the matters concerning which the witnesses had been previously examined, should be made a part of the record of the proceedings. For the benefit of all the participants, as well as the general public, accurate stenographic records of the proceedings should be kept and this record should be available to the witnesses or their counsel.

(3) Hearings held in executive session by Senate committees or subcommittees should be conducted with the same respect for the

rights of witnesses as that which prevails at hearings held in public. To protect such witnesses, no statements should be released or documents published without the approval of a majority of such committee or subcommittee and unless the full text of the testimony or document is released, except where matters of national security are concerned. Whenever the national security permits, witnesses called before Senate committees or subcommittees, either in executive or public hearings, should be advised with respect to the nature of the inquiry and the particular matters to be covered during their appear

ance.

I don't go quite so far as Senator Hennings went in his comment concerning matters of that nature. I do think, however, to a certain extent, and insofar as it is possible to do so, the witnesses should be so advised.

Not only would this action protect the individual witness, but in many instances it might result in more constructive testimony.

(4) It is also important to consider individuals who are affected adversely by the testimony of witnesses before committees or subcommittees. As rules of evidence covering the conduct of judicial proceedings do not apply to investigatory hearings of legislative committees, adverse statements without foundation in fact are sometimes made by witnesses called before such committees and are given unwarranted publicity. It is only fair that individuals adversely mentioned in such testimony be given an opportunity to confront witnesses making such reference and to appear or file a statement of refutation to be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. Wherever practicable, a committee or a subcommittee of the Senate should call witnesses requested by such individuals in their behalf. Likewise, at the discretion of committees or subcommittees, witnesses should be granted the privilege of questioning other witnesses who have commented adversely on their testimony.

(5) The Federal courts, as well as the courts of the several States, severely restrict the use of so-called hearsay evidence. Although committees or subcommittees cannot and should not exclude all such evidence, serious efforts should be made to prevent the introduction of unsupported or irrelevant evidence. Therefore, unless the national security is concerned, witnesses appearing before committees or subcommittees should be required to reveal their sources of information with respect to testimony which adversely reflects on the character or reputation of another person.

As I stated earlier in these remarks, I do not appear here on behalf of any particular resolution, but I urge that your committee include the areas I have mentioned in your consideration of new and sorely needed rules to govern the conduct of investigatory hearings by committees and subcommittees of the Senate.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to add a few words to this.

If you will allow the personal reference, for about 25 years, consecutive years, I have been a member of one or another legislative bodies. I have been chairman of special committees. I have been chairman of standing committees. I have had all types of investigations before me. I realize the problem with which the Senate and the Congress as a whole are confronted in trying to straighten out our rules with the particular purpose of protecting witnesses. That is what we should be really interested in.

I think, however, that we have got to be very careful in our effort not to do something which makes our procedure too cumbersome.

I think there is a great difference between the inquisitorial hearing, or whatever you want to call it, and one dealing strictly with legislative matters.

Theoretically, a legislative committee, in holding hearings, is supposed to be trying to ascertain the truth and facts with respect to legislation, and nothing else.

I don't see why, following my recommendations, rules can't be established in the Senate which would not be cumbersome-I don't think there is anything that is cumbersome in my suggestions-which would offer a sufficient amount of protection to witnesses, and which at the same time would produce the evidence and the facts that are necessary for the purpose of creating the legislation which may be involved. I merely want to make that statement because I know something about the problem, and I have a great respect for what we are up against in the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hayden, do you have any questions to ask Senator Ives?

Senator HAYDEN. Let me see if I understand the Senator from New York. Can there be more than two purposes for a legislative investigation? My understanding is, first, that committees hold hearings for the purpose of determining whether new laws should be enacted or existing laws should be amended. That is a legislative function. Senator IVES. That is the legislative function and that, in my judg ment, is primarily the function of a legislative committee.

Senator HAYDEN. Second, Congress undoubtedly does have the right to follow any dollar appropriated by it to see that it is properly expended.

Senator IVES. There is no question about that. I pointed that out in my statement.

Senator HAYDEN. Beyond those two functions, what else remains to be investigated?

Senator IVES. I think, under the Reorganization Act, the Committee on Government Operations can go even further. I think it can go into the actual operation of departments, if I read the provisions in that act correctly. I don't think in that particular instance legislation is necessarily an objective.

Senator HAYDEN. That committee can inquire as to whether new legislation ought to be enacted or whether legislation now on the statute books is being properly administered

Senator IVES. You are right. All of it deals ultimately and basically with legislation. There is no getting around that. There is no question about that at all. It all has a direct or indirect bearing on legislation.

Senator HAYDEN. Aside from the Committee on Government Operations and the Committee on Appropriations

Senator IVES. Yes; I think that would be the other exception.

Senator HAYDEN (continuing). All other committees are, or should be, primarily concerned only with legislation.

Senator IVES. And with nothing else.

Senator HAYDEN. That is where I agree with you.
Senator IVES. I have had a little experience in this, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, in your statement, on page 3, you say: Wherever practicable, a committee or a subcommittee of the Senate should call witnesses requested by such individuals in their behalf. Likewise, at the discretion of committees or subcommittees, witnesses should be granted the privilege of questioning other witnesses who have commented adversely on their testimony.

We have just seen concluded here in this room a hearing that went on for some 36, 37, or 38 days, and the right of cross-examination was limited to only those in the dispute. Now, you saw what happened there. Where would you end up?

Senator IVES. I think that could have been controlled so it wouldn't have dragged out the way it did.

The CHAIRMAN. You think witnesses should be granted the privilege of cross-examining other witnesses who have commented adversely upon their testimony?

Senator IVES. I certainly think they should, where their own characters and reputations are at stake.

I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: We can adopt all the rules we want with regard to hearings. In the final analysis, the human equation is bound to prevail. It is the chairman primarily and the members of the committee that are going to have to determine these things and, by the use and exercise of their judgment, are going to have to decide on the course to be taken.

A chairman can hold these things in line if he wants to.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would leave it to the discretion more or less of the chairman?

Senator IVES. I certainly would; but I would have this in the rules. The chairman doesn't have to get himself in a position where he has witnesses who have been attacking other witnesses or other people, so that anything like this would arise.

A strong chairman never has to get into this kind of predicament. It is a matter of judgment.

I certainly would have this kind of provision in the rules, none the less. It should be a warning to a chairman and a committee to refrain from opening things up which otherwise they might.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Senator Hayden, do you have any further questions?
Senator HAYDEN. NO.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we certainly thank you for your time and advice.

Senator IVES. I certainly thank you for the privilege of being here. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wayne Morse, would you come around to the witness chair, please?

Senator Morse, I understand your statement has not been mimeographed yet and you have the only copy.

Senator MORSE. It is being mimeographed. It is down in the mimeograph shop, and I thought it would be here by this time.

The CHAIRMAN. It is up to you whether you want to be sworn or

not.

Senator MORSE. I always welcome an opportunity to be sworn.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony given in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Senator MORSE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Senator Morse