Hearing relating to H.R. 9753, to amend sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal security act of 1950, as amended, relating to employment of members of Communist organizations in certain defense facilities. Hearing

11^2 < (I

'!B!ilt!titi'i!«l(i

Mm

ii

mmm

ill

i

!

Hilji- ;t 111

<

» liimi

1111,

T ■

:|md c|

Hpti

r "^m?nF*

ii

'■ : 'i

iiSHi

1 , ■
' 1

\ wlk

.-

t. ■

•; ? ' , ' !
■> ' ' ' ' '

H

m\.. >m

^i: ! It' >■

^^^^^^^Hii-'

:flln:. ■

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hi^tt '

i{>:>s}{ii}»i

U^/>oo ^'7^/

COLLEGE
LIB

\

2.7-9-

y

us Doc 2.791

■L'^

Committee on Un-American Activities

House
87th Congress

Table of Contents

1. Hearing Relating to H.R, 9755; to Amend Sec-
tions 5(7) and 5{'b) of the Internal Seciirity op£
Act of 1950, As Amended, Relating to Employ- ' "*
ment of Members of Communist Organizations

in Certain Defense Facilities

2, Hearings Relating to H.R. 10175 > to Accompany
H.R. 11565, Amending the Internal Security -^^il
Act of 1950 '

5-^. Structure and Organization of the Communist ^ ^
Party of the United States, pt.1-2 ^^W

5. Communist Propaganda - and the Truth - About
the Conditions in Soviet Russia ^?''

6-7. Communist Activities in the Cleveland, Ohio, V''**^
Area, pt.1-2

8." Intellectual Freedom" - Red China Style ^

HEARING RELATING TO H.R. 9753, TO AMEND
SECTIONS 3(7) AND 5(b) OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED, RELATING
TO EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMU-
NIST ORGANIZATIONS IN CERTAIN DEFENSE
FACILITIES

Since these hearings are consecutively
paged, they are arranged by page number
instead of alphabetically by title

FEBRUARY 7, 1962
INCLUDING INDEX

Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTTNG OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1962

HAHVAKt «"LLi«k L18«AJ$^
D»r»3'.T*%» lY THE

HEARING RELATING TO H.R. 9753, TO AMEND
SECTIONS 3(7) AND 5(b) OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED, RELATING
TO EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMU-
NIST ORGANIZATIONS EN CERTAIN DEFENSE
FACILITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMEEICAN ACTIVITIES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 7, 1962
INCLUDING INDEX

Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
7SI998 WASHINGTON : 1962

HAM'AKii ••aLKvt UB8AS^
D?f»SlT^ lY THE

y?/')

/

ft-

)9^ /' ^ D

^.

N ACTIVITIES

lESENTATIVES

ia, Chairman

SCHERER, Ohio
I. JOHANSEN, Michigan
p. BRUCE, Indiana
1 SCHADEBERO, Wisconsin

TtCtOT

>el
el
hsistant

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 7, 1962: Statement of: I'age

Frank A. Bartimo 442

Kevin T. Maroney 442

Maj. Bruce F. Meyers 442

Index i

ni

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

United States House of Representatives

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio

CLYDE DOYLE, California AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

EDWLN E. WILLIS, Louisiana DONALD C. BRUCE, Indiana

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Virginia HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin

Frank S. Tavexxer, Jr., Director

Alfred M. Nittle, Counsel

John C. Walsh, Co-counsel

QwENN Lewis, Administrative Assistant

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 7, 1962: Statement of: ^^^^

Frank A. Bartimo 442

Kevin T. Maroney 442

Maj. Bruce F. Meyers 442

Index i

m

Public Law 601, 79th Congress

The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946]; 60 Stat.
812, which provides:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
oj America in Congress assembled, * * *

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rule X

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES
* * Hl * * * tr

17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.

Rule XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES
*******

(q)(l) Committee on Un-American Activities.

(A) Un-American activities.

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit-
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent,
character, and objects of un-American projiaganda activities in the United States,
(ii) the diflfusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa-
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks
the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and
(iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary
remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi-
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such
times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting,
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served l)y any person
designated by any such chairman or member.

Rule XII

LEfllPLATIVE OVKRiSlCHT BY STANUIN'G COMMITTEES

Sec. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws
and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces-
sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Re])resentatives
shall exercise continiious watchfulness of the execution by the administrative
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which i,s within the jurisdic-
tion of such coniinittee; ami, lor that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports
and data submitted to the Congress In- the agencies in tlie executive branch of
the Government.

IV

RULES ADOPTED BY THE 87TH CONGRESS

House Resolution 8, January 3, 1961
*******

Rule X

STANDING COMMITTEES

1 . There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress,
*******

(r) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members,
*******

Rule XI

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES
*******

18. Committee on Un-American Activities.

(a) Un-American activities.

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee,
is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char-
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop-
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu-
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in
any necessary remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi-
gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times
and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has
recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance
of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and
to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under
the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any
member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person
designated by any such chairman or member.

27. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and in
developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary,
each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness
of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject
matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that purpose,
shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by the agencies
in the executive branch of the Government.

HEARING RELATIN(J TO H.R. 1)753, TO AMEND SEC-
TIONS 3(7) AND 5(b) OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT OF 1050. AS AMENDED, RELATING TO EMPLOY-
MENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS
IN CERTAIN DEFENSE FACILITIES

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1962

U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Un-American Activities.

Washington, D.C.

The CommiLtee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to call,
at 10:10 a.m., in room 34G, House Office Building,-, Washington, D.C,
Hon. Francis E. Walter (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Committee members pi'esent: Representatives Francis E. Waltei" of
Pennsylvania; Clyde Doyle of California; Gordon H. Scherer of Ohio;
Donald C. Bruce of Indiana; and Henry C. Schadeberg of Wisconsin.

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., director; Alfred M.
Nittle, counsel; and John C. Walsh, co-counsel.

The Chairman. The committee will come to order.

Let the record show that a quorum is present for the consideration
of H.R. 9753.

This is a bill to amend the Internal Security Act relating to the
employment of members of Communist organizations in certain
defense facilities.

(The bill H.R. 9753 follows:)

[H.R. 9753, 87th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950, relating to employment of
members of Communist organizations in certain defense facilities

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the Internal Security Act of 1950 is amended —

(1) by amending the second sentence of section 3(7) (50 U.S.C. 782(7)) to
read as follows: "The term 'defense facility' means any facility designated
by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 5(b) of this title and which
is in compliance with the provisions of such subsection respecting the posting
of notice of such designation."; and

(2) by amending section 5(b) (50 U.S.C. 784(b)) to read as follows:
"The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to designate facilities, as

defined in paragraph (7) of section 3 of this title, with respect to the operation of
which he finds and determines that the security of the United States requires the
application of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary
shall promptly notify the management of any facility so designated, whereupon
such management shall immediately post conspicuously, and thereafter while so
designated keep posted, notice of such designation in such form and in such place
or places as to give notice thereof to all employees of, and to all applicants for
employment in, such facility. Such posting shall be sufficient to give notice of
such designation to any person subject thereto or affected thereby. Upon the
request of the Secretary, the management of any facility so designated shall

441

442 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950

require each employee of the facility, or any part thereof, to sign a statement that
he knows that the facility has, for the purposes of this Act, been designated by
the Secretary under this subsection."

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner, your witness?
Mr. Tavenner. Yes; we have asked Mr. Bartinio to be the first
witness.

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. BARTIMO, ASSISTANT GENERAL
COUNSEL (MANPOWER), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ACCOM-
PANIED BY KEVIN T. MARONEY, CHIEF, APPEALS AND
RESEARCH SECTION, INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION, DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE, AND MAJ. BRUCE F. MEYERS, ASSISTANT
TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

The Chairman. Mr. Bartinio, will you state your full name for the
record, please?

Mr. Bartimo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. My name is Frank A. Bartimo. I am the Assistant
General Counsel of Defense for Manpower.

Mr. Walsh. Mr. Bartimo, before you continue, may I state for
the record certain background information necessary to have before
us in considering your views.

Mr. Maroney, would you also state your full name.

Mr. Maroney. Kevin T. Maroney, Chief of the Appeals and Ke-
search Section, Internal Security Division, Department of Justice.

Mr. Walsh. I will call you later on, sir.

H.R. 9753 is an amendment to sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal
Security Act of 1950, relating to employment of members of Com-
munist organizations in certain defense facilities. This committee
included among the provisions of the Internal Security Act of 1950
the principal provisions of the Wood bill which relates to employment
of members of Communist organizations in defense facilities. This
appears as section 5 of the Internal Security Act of 1950; the pertinent
portion of section 5(a) is as follows:

When a Communist organization, as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of
this title, is registered or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring
such organization to register, it shall be unlawful —

(1) For any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that
such organization is so registered or that such order has become final —

and I skip now to (C) —

(C) in seeking, accepting, or holding employment in any defense
facility, to conceal or fail to disclose the fact that he is a member of
such organization; or

(D) if such organization is a Communist-action organization, to en-
gage in any employment in any defense facility.

Now the definitions of "facility" and "defense facility" appear in
section 3, subsection 7 of the act, and it states as follows:

(7) The term "facility" means any plant, factory or other manufacturing, pro-
ducing or service establishment, airport, airport facility, vessel, pier, water-front
facility, mine, railroad, public utihty, laboratory, 'station, or other establishment
or facility, or any part, division, or department of any of the foregoing. The

RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 443

term "defense facility" means any facility designated and proclaimed by the
Secretary of Defense pursviant to section 5(b) of this title and included on the list
published and currently in effect under such subsection, and which is in compliance
with the provisions of such subsection respecting the posting of notice of such
designation.

Subsection (b) of section 5 provides that —

The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to designate and proclaim,
and from time to time revise, a list of facilities, as defined in paragraph (7) of
section 3 of this title, with respect to the operation of which he finds and deter-
mines that the security of the United States requires the application of the pro-
visions of subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary shall cause such list as
designated and proclaimed, or any revision thereof, to be promptly published in
the Federal Register, and shall promptlv notify the management of any facility so
listed; whereupon such management shall immediately post conspicuously, and
thereafter while so listed keep posted, notice of such designation in such form and
in such place or places as to give reasonable notice thereof to all employees of,
and to all applicants for employment in, such facility.

The Chairman. Mr. Bartimo, make 3'our statement, please.

Mr. Bartimo. It is a privilege for me, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee, to appear before you this morning, and to present
the views of the Department of Defense with respect to H.R. 9753.

The Department of Defense strongly endorses the enactment of
this bill, which amends sections 3(7) and 5(b) of the Internal Security
Act of 1950.

H.R. 9753 wotild eliminate the requirement that the list of defense
facilities so designated by the Secretary of Defense be published in
the Federal Register. This list is made up of facilities which are so
essential to the interests of national security as to require the exclusion
of members of Communist organizations required to register under the
act. The requirement that the management of each facility desig-
nated by the Secretary of Defense as a "defense facility" be notified in
writing and required to post notice of such designation would be
retained. Further, this bill requires management, if requested by the
Secretary of Defense, to obtain a signed statement from each of his
employees certifying that he knows that the facilitj^ has, for purposes
of the act, been designated by the Secretary of Defense.

Under the present provisions of the Internal Security Act it is
understood that the Secretary of Defense may exercise broad discretion
in selecting industrial facilities to be designated as "defense facilities."
It is also understood that a member of a Commtmist organization
cannot be charged with unlawful conduct under section 5(a) of the act,
unless the Secretary of Defense includes the facility, where he seeks,
accepts, or holds employment, in a list designated, proclaimed, and
published in the Federal Register.

A tentative list of facilities, deemed so vital as to require the applica-
tion of the provision of the act barring members of Communist
organizations has been prepared and includes facilities engaged in the
following:

(1) Top-secret projects — —

The Chairman. May I interrupt at that point?

Mr. Bartimo. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Does that have a technical meaning, "top-secret
projects"? Is that defined as a particular type of project?

Mr. Bartimo. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in response to your
question I might state that by a "top-secret project" we mean a
project which because of its security aspects has been classified with a

79998—62 2

444 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950

top-secret stamp, under the classification system promulgated in the
executive branch, wliich as you know runs from top secret, secret, and
confidential.

The Chairman, Yes. That is an answer, but what I wanted the
record to show was that "top secret" has a very technical meaning,
sir. They are words of art.

Mr. Bartimo. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. All right.

Mr. Bartimo (continuing). (2) Production of the most essential
weapons sj^stems and most critical military end items and components ;
(3) production of essential common components, intermediates, and
basic and raw materials; and (4) important utility and service facilities
and other industrial and research installations whose operations and
contributions to the national defense effort are of utmost importance.

Facilities and installations of interest to the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Federal Aviation Agency, and certain other departments and agencies
are also included in this list.

Enactment of H.R. 9753 will eliminate the requirement that a con-
solidated, unclassified list of defense facilities, such as those described
above, be published. Such publication as is now required by the
Internal Security Act of 1950 would in the opinion of the military
intelligence experts materially aid the intelligence efforts of any
foreign government hostile to the United States. Publication would —

(1) Aid in planning intelligence penetration and hostile espion-

(2) Provide a target list for potential sabotage operations and
for target intelligence purposes; and

(3) Confirm and establish the accuracy of existing intelligence
documentation.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, the publication of a consolidated
master list of our strategic and vital facilities is not deemed to be in
the national interest.

• It is important to note that section 5, as amended by this bill, con-
tains provisions which will assure that the persons subject to this act
will know what conduct on their part renders them liable to penalties.
Each facility designated by the Secretary of Defense would be required
to display prominently notice of such designation. In appropriate
instances, the Secretary of Defense may require that each employee
of a facility be personally notified that continued employment by
members of Communist organizations is unlawful.

I urge strongly that the committee report favorably on H.R. 9753.

And I might add a footnote to that, Mr. Chairman; on behalf of
the Department of Defense, I want, in all humility, to congratulate
your committee for the expeditious action which you have taken to
bring this bill to a hearing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Well, you take my breath. This is something I
am entirely unaccustomed to, and I find myself in much the position
that a friend of mine who owned a string of racehorses found himself.
This man had a restaurant, and back during the days of limited
availability of steaks, I was impressed one night and I remarked on
the excellence of his steak, and he said "Well, that is the first nice
thing anybody has ever said about my horses."

RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 445

Well, this is a difTicult problem, and we are all very happy that
you could see what we were trying to do, and cooperate. This is a
strange experience, because we find other agencies are a little bit
slow in taking the action that is so important to be taken if we are
going to protect our security.

Mr. ScHERER. You wouldn't be referring to the vState Department,
would you?

The Chairman. Well, j^es, I would be referring to the State
Department.

You may proceed now, Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Walsh. Now Mr. Maroney, you are from the Department of
Justice?

Mr. Maroney. Yes, su*.

Mr. Walsh. And have you a statement which you wish to read
for the record, sir?

The Chairman. Wait a minute. Have you any questions for Mr.
Bartimo?

Mr. Walsh. I thought the two statements would be read, and then
we will ask the questions of the two of them together.

The Chairman. All right. Is that satisfactory with the committee?

Mr. Scherer. Do you have a copy of the next witness' statement,
or doesn't he have a statement?

Mr. Maroney. I have no prepared statement.

However, as stated in the report of the Department on this bill
to the committee, in the letter dated February 2, 1962, the Depart-
ment of Justice wholeheartedly endorses this bill, and urges its im-
mediate consideration and enactment.

For the reasons enumerated by Mr. Bartimo in his statement, the
present requirement of section 5(b) that a list of defense facilities be
published in the Federal Register creates a situation dangerous to the
national defense, and jeopardizes the national security, since that list
could be used as a guidebook for sabotage and for the selection of
military targets by any potential enemy.

It is obvious, therefore, in our view, that it is inadvisable to require
publication of such a list in the Federal Register. Since this bill
would eliminate the requirement of publication of a list, and still
would retain the present essential requirements and purposes of sec-
tion 5 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, the Department of Justice
favors this amendment to the Internal Security Act.
\ Specifically with respect to the last sentence of H.R. 9753, which
would require the management of any defense facility so designated
by the Secretary to require from his employees written acknowledg-
ment of his awareness that the facility has been designated as a
defense facility, the Department of Justice also favors that specific
requirement, since it would facilitate proof in a given case to show
actual notice rather than implied notice.

In view of the fact that there may be certain situations where the
proof of implied notice from the posting would create doubt as to
whether or not the employee did in fact have notice, this additional
provision would give the Defense Department the opportunity to
insure that actual notice was brought home to each employee affected
by the provisions of this bill.

Mr. Walsh. And do both of you gentlemen agree that this pro-
vision where notice, actual notice, will be brought home to each em-

446 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950

ployee strengthens the bill, and also would be conducive to more
successful prosecution?

Mr. Makoney. That is our view; yes, su\

Mr. Bartimo. I would like to make a comment on that. I think
it might be important for the legislative history.

The committee in its wisdom has provided in law what is termed
in the art "constructive notice" by the sentence which reads "Such
posting shall be sufficient to give notice of such designation to any
person subject thereto or affected thereby."

With respect to the sentence which immediately follows that, which
reads "Upon the request of the Secretary, the management of any
facility so designated shall require each employee of the facility or any
part thereof to sign a statement that he knows that the facility has,
for the purposes of this act, been designated by the Secretary under
this subsection," I think that Mr. Maroney has made a very significant
statement so far as possible prosecution under this section is concerned.

I believe the fact that a posting, together with your statement that
this constitutes sufficient notice, would be given great weight by a
court. However, as Mr. Maroney pointed out, in cases where there
is some doubt — and I am thinking of this type of an example: In a
utility plant, where linesmen are on the road for months, and do not
get back to the main plant— in that type of case, the Secretary may
feel, to unplement the intent of this committee and the Congress,
should this bill become law, that he would require a personal certificate
of these individuals. But what I want to pin home is — and I am sure
the committee feels this way — that it would be a burden to get every-
one employed to sign a personal notice. It would be expensive and
burdensome on the part of the entrepreneur, and in my judgment is
not necessary in all cases. But there will be cases, out of an abun-
dance of great caution, where we should adhere to the procedure which
you prescribe in the last sentence of the bill.

The Chairman. When you mention the utility company, you are
.thinking of the list of facilities, "important utilities and service
facilities." Do you think "important utilities" is broad enough to
cover any type of a public utilit}^?

Mr. Bartimo. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I was using that merely
as an example.

The Chairman. Yes, I understand, but I am just wondering
whether when you say "important utility" if you don't leave the
door open in a trial to the question of whether or not this is actually
an "important utility," and that becomes a question of fact, to go
to the jury. I was just wondering if "utility" wouldn't be better.

Mr. Bartimo. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is safe to say that
if the Secretary of Defense, under the authority given him by the
Congress, designates a utility or a group of utilities

The Chairman. As "important."

Mr. Bartimo. I would believe that that would be prima facie
evidence that the Secretary is fulfilling his function under the law,
which you have requu-ed him to implement.

I would ask Mr. Maroney if he had any comment on that from the
Department of Justice point of view.

Mr. Walsh. That utility, of course, would have a vital contract
from one agency, have top secret or some other work that they are
doing which is vital to the internal security of this country.

RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 447

Mr. Bautimo. I believe that it is not necessary, under the definitions
of this particuhir bill, that a prerequisite would be a contract from the
Department of Defense or any other Government agency. I believe
the thrust of this bill is as follows: Where the Secretary of Defense in
his judgment feels that a particular utility or a particular manufac-
turing plant, even tliough they do not have a contact, is of such vital
necessity to our national security, he could designate that installation
as a defense facility.

That is my interpretation of the bill.

The Chairman. Well, it gives hmi very wide discretionary powers,
but I would hope that this language was sufficiently strong so that
there could be no attack on his conclusion, unless, of course, it was
capricious and arbitrary.

Mr. Bartimo. I would agree, Mr. Chairman, with your statement.

Mr. Walsh. I think that is covered in the bill at line 16 of page 2:

Upon the request of the Secretary, the management of any faciUty so designated
shall require each employee of the facility or any part thereof to sign a statement
that he knows that the facility has, for the purposes of this Act, been designated
by the Secretary under this subsection.

Therefore, any utility or any other defense facility which has a
contract could, under certain circumstances in the discretion of the
Secretary, be notified to have each employee sign that this is a defense
facility.

Mr. ScHERER. Counsel, the witness has just said that the facility
would not necessarily have to have a defense contract.

The Chairman. As long as it was vital.

Mr. Bartimo. I believe, Mr. Chairman, to be sure that oiu" legis-
lative history is clear, that we should emphasize Mr. Scherer's point,
and that is, that in my judgment — and I believe the Department of
Justice concurs— it is not necessary that the Department of Defense
or any other Government agency have a contract with a particular
facility for the Secretary of Defense to properly implement the spu'it
and intent of this statute.

As we all know, the defense of our country involves many indi-
viduals and plants and facilities. A power station might be of
great significance, in spite of the fact that that power station doesn't
have a direct contract with the Government. It might be so vital,
however, in the manufacturing and the supplying of power to facilities
having a defense contract that the Secretary of Defense might feel
it necessary, in order to implement the spirit of this statute, to declare
that power station a defense facility.

Mr. ScHERER. Even if it were not fm'nishing power to a defense
facility, a utility which might merely furnish the ordinary power to
a municipality, in time of internal upheaval, could be so designated
under this bill.

Mr. Bartimo. I agree, Mr. Scherer.

Mr. Scherer. I remember some years ago, when I was with city
government, Army Intelligence told us that a few men, properly
placed in the utilities and communications, could disrupt the opera-
tion of a municipality in a few minutes.

Mr. Walsh. Have you anything f mother to say, Mr. Bartimo?

Mr. Bartimo. No, sir; if you have more questions, I would be
delighted to attempt to answer them.

Mr. Walsh. Mr. Maroney, have you anything further to say?

448 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950

Mr. Maromey. No, sir; nothing else unless there are some questions.

The Chairman. T would like to direct yoiu* attention to the lan-
guage on page 2, line 10, concerning the notice.

It provides that it be posted conspicuously, and "thereafter, while
so designated, keep posted, notice of such designation"; bj- adding the
language on line 10 and line 11, from the comma on line 10 to the
comma in line 11, isn't there a proposed duty which can't possibly
be complied with? And failure to prove that the notice was posted
continuously might leave the avenue open to get away from the
provisions of this act.

Mr. ScHERER. I think the chairman has something there. I just
agree with him.

The Chairman. After the notice is posted, it may be destroyed,
or the elements destroy it, or in some manner it may come down

Mr. ScHERER. Or somebody removes it purposely.

The Chairman. Purposely, that is right. Don't you think that
mere proof it was posted would be enough? Should we impose a
greater duty than that?

Mr. Maroney. You mean, Mr. Chairman — —

The Chairman. The man posts the notice, and then don't you
think that should be the end of the responsibilities, so far as the man-
agement is concerned?

Mr. Maroney. I would interpret this requirement that he insure
that the notice be continuously posted. That is, that if it were de-
stroyed by the elements so that it was unreadable, for example, that
he would have to replace it, so that someone coming upon it at that
point would be able to

Mr. Scherer. Yes, but what the chairman points out, and I think
properly so, is that it would be most difficult to prove in a prosecution
of an individual who was a Communist, and stayed at the plant, to
prove that the notice was posted continuously. That is what this
means; doesn't it?
, Mr. Maroney. Yes, sir.

Mr. Scherer. Suppose it was down for just 1 day? This makes it
more difficult for the Attorney General to prosecute under this section.

Mr. Maroney. I would think that if you had a small or a very
short lapse of time between taking down an old, worn poster and
putting up a new one, unless the individual could only be shown at
the plant at that particular time, when there was a hiatus between
the posting, there wouldn't be any materiality as far as he is concerned
in i)roving notice to him. The question would be, as far as he is
concerned, whether or not he received implied, whether he received
actual notice, which can be implied from the posting.

The (yHAiRMAN, That would be true if this language were not here,
because if you look at line 14, "Such posting sliall be sufficient to
give notice," there it applies to the posting, not any duty to preserve
the condition of the notice, so I think that this weakens the bill. It
is language T think ought to be omitted.

Mr. Scherer. I think it would make it almost impossible to prove.

The Chairman. Very difficult.

Mr. Scherer. Who would you get to testify that the notice was
kept posted at all times?

RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 449

Mr. Tavenner. Doesn't it establish an additional element of proof
as a basis for prosecution?

The Chairman. That is right. It just adds one more element.

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chaiiinan.

The Chairman. Mr. Doyh'.

Mr. Doyle. May I bring this point? I think it is of equal impor-
tance, line 10, to provide that it be posted conspicuously. Now I
think that is very important.

1 know in the Industrial Accident Connnission cases in California,
sometimes in the early days, notices were posted way off in a corner
someplace, where normally the employees would not be walking by
or see.

I think that that word there requires a definite place where the
notice should be posted. In other words, conspicuously. I think
that means, as near as I read it, the intention is to make sure that the
employees see it; therefore, it must be posted in a conspicuous place
so far as all the employees are concerned.

The Chairman. I think if my distinguished friend would look at
the words and phrases that are here in our library, you will find that
there are a number of decisions construing what is a conspicuous
notice posted, and I think that it is a word of art that is very easily
understood, but this is a good point, and I think the report ought to
show that it is our intention that this notice be posted in a place
customarily frequented by all of the employees.

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. I think the record should show that.

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, then I move we
strike from lines 10 and 11, page 2, the words "and thereafter while so
designated keep posted."

The Chairman. Any questions on the motion? Any objection?

Hearing none, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Bartimo may have had something else he
wanted to say.

Mr. Bartimo. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment on what I be-
lieve is a very important observation on your part, as we all know, a
criminal statute is strictly construed, and we certainly want to build
a legislative history here which will help a court if there is any doubt.

I don't see any harm in deleting the phrase, but I think the legisla-
tive history ought to show, Mr. Chairman, that the intent of the
Congress and in spite of the deletion of that language was to post a
notice conspicuously and to continue that notice there. That if a
notice inadvertently or through the elements was eradicated for a short
interval of time, this should not frustrate the spirit and the intent of
the statute.

I think what we can do, Mr. Chairman, to help, if we delete the
phrase, as has been indicated, we will urge the plants designated by
the Secretary of Defense to continue to keep these notices up, in
prominent places, where people frequent and have an opportunity to
see them, until such time as the Secretary of Defense takes that plant
off the list. We will do this as an administrative device, to be sure
that people have sufficient notice.

450 RELATING TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 19 50

Mr. ScHERER. I think the language of the next two Hnes by infer-
ence or imphcation indicates that the notice should be posted con-
tinuously, and which reads now as amended :

whereupon such management shall immediately post conspicuously notice of
such designation in such form and in such place or places as to give notice thereof
to all employees of * * *.

Now that to me would mean that is is a continuous notice.

The Chairman. That is why I was disturbed by the other language.
What Mr. Scherer just read I think, corrects the problem.

Mr. Walsh. I think your next phrase, "and to all applicants for
employment," connotes a continuous display of the notice, because
as the applicants come in, the notice must be there.

The Chairman. Are there further questions?

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we appreciate your cooperation very
much, and we will try to get this on the calendar. Is there a motion
to report the bill?

Mr. Scherer. I move that the bill be reported.

Air. Doyle. Second.

Mr. Scherer. And that the chairman be authorized to take such
necessary steps as to bring it before the House.

The Chairman. It has been properly moved, and seconded by
Mr. Doyle, and that course will be pursued.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., Wednesday, February 7, 1962, the
committee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)

INDEX

Individuals Page

Bartimo, Frank A 442-450

Maroney, Kevin T 442-450

Meyers, Bruce F 442

Organizations
United States Government:

Department of Defense 442-444

Department of Justice 442, 445

i

o

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRABY

3 9999 05706 3115

This book should be returned to
the Library on or before the last date
stamped below.

A fine is incurred by retaining it
beyond the specified time.

Please return promptly.

'

t

|ii

1

IflRI

i

I ;