As you know, the Lehman-Morse bill was before the Senate, and now it is interwoven in this bill. I have yielded for the time being on this particular language although we may work out better language on the floor of the Senate. I would prefer to get some language in there that draws the distinction I drew in answer to Senator Jenner's question in regard to charges of wrongdoing or charges that raise a question in the public mind of innocence or guilt. Now, that is implied. That is what my colleagues imply-if I understand this correctly-by the language you have just read; but I think it can be clarified. Senator HAYDEN. A good, fair-minded committee actually needs no rules. Senator MORSE. I beg your pardon. Senator HAYDEN. A good, fair-minded committee actually needs no rules. Senator MORSE. Well, of course, we can say that of a very good and well meaning judge. Senator HAYDEN. On the other hand, what is there to keep a chairman from saying his hearing is the normal one, that is legislative not inquisitorial, and then proceed under no rules at all? Senator MORSE. What you are overlooking is the check we have in the bill. The appeal body is the body that will say that, if the chairman does that and is proven to be wrong-in other words, if they find the committee didn't follow this rule of judicial reasonableness to which I have referred and found that it exercised its discretion arbitrarily and capricously. Senator HAYDEN. Again, I notice here in section 3, subsection (b): "Rulings on motions or objections shall be made by the member presiding, subject to appeal to the members present on motion of a member." This means an appeal to the majority of those present, I assume. Senator MORSE. Assuming a quorum present. Senator MORSE. Assuming a quorum present. Senator HAYDEN. We asked Senator Ives about testimony taken in executive session where two members of the committee are present. Is it necessary, in your opinion, that they be members of different political parties? Senator MORSE. No; no. I may be wrong about this, but I just refuse to believe that United States Senators, when they are dealing with the questions that involve the wrongdoing of a fellow citizens, are going to have their decisions influenced by any partisan consideration. So, I wouldn't lay down the party quorum requirement; that is, I wouldn't require that, in order to have a quorum you would have to have a majority of the members of each party present. Senator HAYDEN. You would have a 16-hour rule: Committee meetings, other than regular meetings authorized by Section 133 (a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, shall be called only upon a minimum of sixteen hours' written notice to the office of each committee member. This provision may be waived by the assent of the majority of the members of the committee. Senator MORSE. I think that is a reasonable time limit. Senator HAYDEN. There never has been any time limit like that before. Senator MORSE. I know, and we have got caught, may I say most respectfully, with our shirts unbuttoned sometimes and our ties off because we just couldn't get to the committee meeting because we didn't have sufficient notice, and we have suffered great embarrassment as individual Senators at times because the question was asked, "And where was you, John?" And I use the word "was" colloquially there. They don't understand, but you very frequently would have been there if you had due notice that you should be there. The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Senator Hayden? Senator HAYDEN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Senator MORSE. I want to thank you very much for the privilege of testifying. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Morse, I want to thank you for appearing before this committee. At this time, if there is no objection, I want to put in the record a statement by Senator Estes Kefauver, of Tennessee. He was to be a witness here today as one of the authors of the measure Senator Morse just testified about, Senate Resolution 256. He stated that he would like his statement to go in the record at this point and that he would be a witness at some future time. (Senator Kefauver's statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. ESTES KEFAUVER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE On behalf of 18 colleagues and myself I wish to file a statement on the resolution proposing a code of fair committee investigating procedure for the Senate of the United States which we are jointly sponsoring. For a long time some of us have been trying to get a set of fair and impartial rules governing the conduct of committees. I introduced my original proposal in this session. Senators Douglas, Lehman, Morse, and Humphrey also had proposed codes pending in committee. None of us has ever been successful in obtaining hearings or getting any action on these proposals. We have met and discussed this subject and decided that it would be well for those of us who had sponsored such codes to get together on them; which we did. We worked over our various proposals as well as the suggestions that had been made in codes introduced in the House and proposed by bar associations and other groups. Our purpose was to draft one new measure on which we could all join, incorporating what we believed to be the best elements of all the proposals that had been made. The whole situation bearing on this proposed legislation has been highlighted recently by congressional hearings, and is most disturbing. It is disturbing to me because I feel that committee hearings, with legitimate aims and properly conducted, are a necessary adjunct to our legislative process. Yet they should be characterized by fair and sound procedure. There is not any reason why fair procedure cannot exist in the Senate of the United States just as it does in any other governmental agency or body. As Members of the Senate, we feel that the honor, the integrity, and the probity of this body are at stake, jeopardized by practices that have been allowed to flourish without procedural restraint. Although it is true that the great majority of all members of legislative bodies in the Nation desire to conduct investigations properly, a procedural code would protect both the integrity of the committee and witnesses, without depriving them of any basic rights, from that small percentage of inquiries that have been Laphazardly carried on. I think the important problem is how to get the facts and keep the public informed while at the same time avoiding or at least holding to a minimum evils and pitfalls coming from investigations of which we are all fully aware. Expanded newspaper, radio, and television coverage of congressional investigations have made millions of citizens familiar with the dilatory, time-wasting tactics pursued by some staff and committee members. Because of the unusual nature of the material involved, investigations have sometimes been sensational in nature. They have given vast numbers of the American people a completely mistaken impression of the Congress and its work. Worse, and more fatal still, a handful of men have comported themselves in such a way as to hold the Congress up to ridicule, and infect us all with the insidious cancer of public contempt. The institutions of democracy, Mr. Chairman, cannot long withstand that dreadful malady. The Senate must act, and it must act soon, to heal itself. I, therefore, beg of this committee to report this resolution favorably to the full committee. I can personally testify, as the former chairman of an investigating committee, to the great importance for a set of rules of procedure for all committees. Without proper procedural restraint, I can testify that power in the hands of a oneman committee to deal with the reputation and character of witnesses is far, far too great. Believe me, the consponsors of this bill have labored long and earnestly in attempting to come out with a bill which would be acceptable to all and accomplish the purpose in mind which we all strive for. Thus, we have devised a code of fair committee procedure on which we can, in fact, all agree. We believe that its enactment would be a great step forward in recouping the prestige and the utility of the Senate's constitutional investigative function. I am attaching herewith a summary of the provisions in the bill. Again, let me stress the urgency and importance of immediate action in favor of adopting a code of fair committee procedure. It is vital to the welfare of the United States Senate and to the welfare of the witness. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CODE OF FAIR PROCEDURE FOR SENATE COMMITTEES PROVISIONS COVERING COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION, INVESTIGATIONS, REPORTS 1. Approval of full committee required for appointment of subcommittees with less than three members. 2. Selection of committee staff and personnel subject to approval of the majority of committee members. 3. Written notice must be given 16 hours prior to committee meeting, unless waived by the majority of committee. 4. The resolution setting forth the subject and scope of committee hearings or investigations must be specific and can only be amended by majority vote of full committee. 5. Submission of any official committee report to all members 24 hours prior to its consideration by committee is required. 6. Testimony taken in executive sessions cannot be released by members or staff without prior authorization by majority of full committee. PROVISIONS COVERING THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES 1. Twenty-four hours' prior notification must be given a witness called by committee outlining the subject matter on which the witness is to be interrogated. 2. The right to make an oral statement or submit a sworn statement is given to every witness, and the statement must be included in the transcript of the hearings. 3. Release of statements or material adversely affecting an individual by a member of committee staff is prohibited, unless there has been prior or simultaneous release of rebuttal. 4. Persons adversely affected by testimony taken in public hearings are given the right to cross-examine witnesses in public hearings, be represented by counsel, and subpena witnesses and documents on his behalf at the discretion of the committee. 5. Persons adversely affected by the release of testimony taken in executive sessions are given the same rights to cross-examine, etc., as if the testimony had been taken in public hearings. SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT The Vice President and four other Members of the Senate are constituted as a group to receive complaints and investigate violations of these rules. They can advise the committee chairman of their findings, and present their findings to the Senate with such recommendations for remedial action as they deem appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. We will now stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10:30, and Senator Guy Gillette will be the first witness. (Whereupon, at 4:55 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10:30 a. m., Tuesday, June 29, 1954.) RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SENATE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. Res. 65, S. Res. 146, S. Res. 223, S. Res. 249, RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE 49144 Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1954 |