Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and Congressman John Moss

Well as you may know I was the chairman of a subcommittee that conducted a rather

extensive. And intensive inquiry into our national

security programs particularly the security rules and regulations

relating to government personnel and American industry that have

that has the defense contracts.

That was the actual voice of Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota on this

program you will hear Senator Humphrey and Congressman John Moss of California.

Both of these men are chairman of congressional committees set up to evaluate our government's

security and secrecy programs. Are our government secrets being

protected. Can they be overprotected to the problems of national

security and government secrecy affect you. These questions will be answered

now on the seventh program in this series. Security and Civil Rights produced

by the University of Minnesota radio station KUNM in cooperation with the National

Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the Educational

Television and Radio Center. To introduce our topic for today and our

special congressional guest authorities here is the consultant commentator for security and

civil rights a member of the law faculty of Columbia University. Professor

Paulson.

Of course in any great problem such as security and civil rights in the

forefront of the solution to the problem and the controversy about the problem

rightfully and stands our elected representatives in the Congress.

On this program. We present to you the views of two members of the

Congress of the United States who are identified with committees of the Congress in

important positions. We've all heard about the various

committees in the Congress that have investigated American activities

and the McCarthy committee operating in the Senate.

Yet these committees have not been charged with the task of reviewing the

problems of security in the laws with respect there to nor have they

studied the problem of the need for government secrecy so far as

information is concerned. Sen human H Humphrey of Minnesota is the

chairman of the Senate special subcommittee on loyalty security programs.

It is a special task of this committee to evaluate the present laws and to

make recommendations for change. Our second speaker on this program

will be Congressman John Maass of California chairman of the House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Government Information which deals directly with the

question of how much secrecy is necessary how much freedom of

information can be provided to the public of the United States.

First. We will hear an interview with Senator Hubert H Humphrey of Minnesota.

Conducted by Mr. Philip Goh producer of this series and

recorded in Senator Humphrey's office in Washington D.C. Could you talk a

little about the kind of legislation that we've had in recent years in relation to national security.

Well as you may know I was the chairman of a subcommittee that conducted a rather

extensive and intensive inquiry into our national

security programs particularly the security rules and regulations

relating to government personalities and American industry that have

that has the defense contracts. This hearing was based

on a resolution that I introduced designed to establish a

presidential commission on the subject of national security. That

resolution was adopted after several weeks of hearings and debate in the Senate and House of

Representatives. The president has or should I say the commission has

now been appointed representing the public. The House of Representatives and the

Senate of the United States. The commission has organized its staff. It's

now in the process of holding hearings and making a formal scale study of all

the security laws espionage acts and other laws relating to

our national security plus the president's executive order on loyalty security

programs. So. I'm confident in my own mind that we're going to make

genuine progress and in fact I can say now that as a result of the hearings

so there have been substantial reforms in the overall government employee security

program. And I feel that we're on a path around the road

to equating personal rights with national security in

a way in a really good sound and constructive manner.

Well Senator Humphrey you're an authority to speak in this area do you

feel that constitutional protections are of any unique significance today.

Well I always feel that constitutional protections are of real significance.

The phraseology in our Constitution as the courts have

interpreted Due Process of Law is a great protection to

any individual's rights without what is meant in due process of law.

Your substantive rights may very well be meaningless or at least greatly diluted.

But what about this is not an unrelated question but we will show the relationship a little

later. Would you comment just on the question of how great are the threats to our

national security today.

Well I would say that one should not underestimate the threats to our national

security. The communist organization the

International Communist Conspiracy is always at work.

We would be very foolish to undermine underestimate its diabolical purpose.

Therefore I believe that it is essential that our government always be on guard. However

I must say that it is important that in the protection of national security

that we do not deny the basic rights of individuals. In other words

in order to combat or to challenge and meet the totalitarian

we must not keep his ways and manners.

You think that this is occurring to any extent you think that there are threats to our

individual constitutional protections today.

I think there have been and I suppose there will always be some. I must say however that I think

theres been a decided improvement. Furthermore the courts particularly the

Federal District Circuit and Supreme Court have laid down some very

good rules of law. The procedural rights of individuals are being

protected by our courts. I think the main abuse of procedural rights

or of individual rights comes in administrative agencies. But even

there there is improvement and I am confident that there will be substantially

more improvement in the months to come.

You feel that there is any kind of innate conflict inherent conflict on the one hand

between national security and individual rights.

I don't think there needs to be. In fact I have addressed myself to this subject on several

occasions. I did so at the University of Minnesota last year at the

annual Phi Beta Kappa dinner. I've done so with the American Political Science

Association and other fine groups. It seems to me that task of

statesmanship now want to reconcile our national security

which is of utmost importance to all of us with our basic individual rights.

I think this can be done by careful procedures by bringing into

administrative agencies as much the. Idea

of due process of law as is possible in an administrative tribunal and

surely in the courts to proceed within the tradition of Anglo-Saxon

America Long.

Just one final question as I think it's a kind of thing that people back in Minnesota and other parts away from

Washington ask that is the most people are very good and loyal

Americans but concerned should they not have the political backgrounds of their friends that they have to check

and who's written a particular book before they read it. How much of this security involves

just government employment as such and how much the average man and terms of his

concerns.

Well first of all I think we ought to understand that the government does not owe

anyone a job as such but the government does everyone justice.

And when a person is employed by the government he or she should expect

that a security check will be made. It has been my view of however

that when that check is made and if there is some derogatory information turned up

that the individual should be confronted with that in information. The individual

concerned should have the opportunity to defend himself. He should have the right of

consul. He should have the right of proper review of the charges so that not so that

no one person makes a a final determination. Now this goes also

on for applications for jobs as well as being on the job. I

want to emphasize the importance of job applicant security tests.

You see if a person applies for a job with the federal government these days

he is given a security check. And in many agencies of the government the

individual may be turned down on the basis of that security check and still never know why

he was turned down. Just told that there's no job available yet the. They

file the Cheka remains in government files and

haunts that person to the last day of his life even as he or she may seek

private employment. Because in many areas now of American life industry

has contracts with the government and therefore checks with government security

agencies with the Civil Service Commission for example to see whether or not there was any

derogatory information. Now frequently this derogatory information is on

is of little or no consequence. It can't be substantiated. It sometimes is based

upon half truths and rumors I say sometimes. But whatever it may be I think the

individual should have the right to reply to clear his or her record and up to

date in many agencies this has not been permissible and therefore some grave

injustice has been done to some of our fellow citizens. Now you've

asked about the general general private associations.

Well I think every person who would like to be reasonably careful about his his or

her private associations. But I would say that the main interest in this should

be in the public eye where government is involved. It would

be indeed a very sad day in American life if everybody was suspicious of his

neighbor. If everyone looked with a jaundiced eye upon everyone with whom he or she

visited or associated. I'm sure that the average American is

sufficiently politically mature to really understand and

and found her out and the one who would be a true subversive one who

wouldn't try to undermine the foundations of our country. Furthermore I think it's rather

good for people to rub shoulders with many kinds of people this is the only way that you

can understand the good from the bad and the loyal from the disloyal. The

persons who are deeply interested in their country and those who are not. If you constantly

keep people sort of closeted Oh wait they'll never be able to understand the

menace of totalitarianism. Frankly I think people ought to know much more about it and they

ought to be instructed as to what this communist ideology is all about

in its true sense and not going around feeling that when somebody is for a two cent

postage stamp instead of a three cent one that he may be communist a communist or

a totalitarian is one that does not believe in democratic processes. It is one

that does not believe in the rights of the individual is one that has

another loyalty other than his own country is one that literally repudiates all

democratic principles. And it's not too difficult to understand these people once that you understand a

little bit about the whole totalitarian idiology. I frankly think

that both government and educational institutions have rather failed in

alerting the American people to the menace of any type of subversion of our

totalitarianism that is alerting them to its nature. That's why so

many false prophets can run across the country frightening people. Now one final

word. I think we have to be careful that in a free society we do

not put the damper on or

what should I say our of our book or tried to do away with an orthodox thinking.

After all the most important thing in a free society is competition of ideas the right of

free choice the right to be different. The right to dissent to discuss and to debate

and the right to engage in controversy. I've noticed in recent years that

people really shy away from controversial subjects. People are somewhat

suspicious of anyone else who has a different point of view. There's a tendency to

stamp out a kind of uniformity based on mediocrity of

thought and citizenship participation. This is a bad thing.

American democracy must have vitality it must be willing to tolerate many

differences. It must be willing to enjoy the experience and

appreciate the experience of legitimate dissent legitimate discussion.

And therefore I would say that we ought not to be going around looking

for ghosts in closets or little pink elephants under beds or

whatever else you may wish to call him. Let's be strong in our own state. Let's be

willing to understand that people do have differences. And then let's be willing to really

separate or let's be capable of really being able to separate those who are

genuinely anti-democratic from those who are democratic in the

fullest sense to a point of being willing to argue every point of view. And many times taking a

Barry unpopular point of view simply because they believe in it.

That was Senator Hubert H Humphrey of Minnesota chairman of the Senate special subcommittee

on loyalty security programs. And now we shall hear an interview with

Congressman John Maass of California chairman of the House of

Representatives Subcommittee on Government security information discussing

with Mr. Philip gallop the work of his committee. This interview was

recorded in the office of Congressman mosque in Washington D.C..

Press 1 Mr. Moss what is the House Government Operations Committee investigating alleged

suppression of public information.

Of course the Subcommittee on Government information and the first

committee to be established by Congress for the purpose of determining

information policies of the federal executive departments

of government and of the independent agencies of government.

Is this something new and how did it come about.

It was authorized by the chairman of the Federal Government Operations

Committee. Congressman William Dawson of Illinois. In

May of last year under the general of the already of the Government

Operations Committee which is derived from statute.

I there are particular legal reasons for suppression or allowing

back of government information.

But we can answer that questions to geld we'd have a much simpler problem of

study than the one that faces us at the moment. There are many claimed

legal authorities by the various departments and agencies for their withholding of

information. Some of these authorities are correct. The Congress has from time to time

granted by statute to the administrators of departments and agencies.

The right to control information. We feel that in some instances this

has not been a wise action because in almost every

instance they place the responsibility upon me the

director of the agency to justify the release of news.

We believe we can bring a change of emphasis which would require the

justification of the withholding that much more information about government would be available.

How are we at a stand now given the parliament can make its own rules.

Well now in some instances where and we're not willing to grant that he has the overall authority.

Many of the departments and agencies are claiming for themselves the.

Supposed inherent powers of the president. It's the position of

the staff of my committee and of the committee members that any inherent powers of the

presidency are powers held by the president himself and powers which cannot be

delegated. And there is considerable doubt as to what those powers might be.

You may recall that in the case of the steel plant seizure ordered by former

President Truman the Supreme Court ruled in that instance

that the inherent powers were not so broad as to permit that action. I think perhaps

if the court should rule on this general question of control of information that the chief

executive would find that his powers are not nearly as broad

as have been claimed by almost every president since Washington. Is

there any likely your case that would pass this the court seemed to carefully

sidestep the specific point. However we

hope to come up with some legislative recommendations which will certainly clarify some

of these powers. What is the opposite of strategic information. If I

could give you the answer to that question Mr. Gubb I would be a very happy man.

After about 10 hours of hearings with the

present director of the Office of Strategic Information and his two predecessors in

office our committee finds and I think the record will bear us out very strongly.

But no one seems to know what the office does or what its objectives might

be.

I think one newspaper writer in Washington following our most recent hearings

characterized it as an agency of utter confusion that seems to be very

descriptive and at the moment that represents the agency's

activities as I see them.

But do they actually take the information which is not classified and checked over that for

possible last vacation.

Well that would appear to be one of the things that they are supposed to do although they deny that they do

it. The only thing that they did assure us

of was the fact that the directive giving the original

mandate to the secretary of commerce to establish an office of strategic information is

itself classified and that while the agency has to deal entirely in the

field of unclassified information nevertheless its progress

reports are classified. These are two interesting points which the committee

intends to study with extreme care.

What kind of budget is this office work roughly and this would have to be a

rough quotation I believe the budget is about $60000 a

year. But that's the direct budget. There's certainly other costs in connection with the

agency which would run that figure up considerably higher.

And this is a pretty naive question but I think it's probably fundamental to the work of Europol

subcommittee. Is public information zone portable.

It's about the most important commodity of government. If the people who

are themselves the governors in this nation are to

intelligently exercise their franchise to be able to

properly appraise the activities of government the official actions of the

president and his appointees to office it's

essential that they have the fullest possible information about the activities and the

actions of these men and the departments and agencies of government.

Without that information it would be impossible to cast an informed ballot.

I think it is so important that our studies today in

the subcommittee would support very strongly a

constitutional right of the people to know.

One Washington editorial writer prefers not to be named told me that the present administration

is government by withholding information which you comment on has.

Well I think that this whole problem of control of information by

government is an example of. Evolution

has evolved from the very beginning of the republic and as any evolutionary

process the most recent example probably represents the most extreme

example. However the withholding of news is not new to this

administration and one of the things that we've tried to do in our study

is to point out that this is not a partisan political question. It's a matter of

grave national concern and we're going to try to keep politics out of it.

So far my candidate in Washington whenever there is anything obviously there

steps on constitutional protections such as I don't want users or

indefinite charges or the suppression of information. It seems to be done

primarily in the name of national security.

Is this just an observation of my own wonder but you see it seems to be a situation on a

ledge a convenient cloak and it immediately places the whole question

of withholding or of employment about American tactics

under the very colorful banner of patriotism.

I am of the opinion that we can't continue to copy some of the

methods of dictatorship. The methods of totalitarian

government and preserve a free democracy. It is after all the

method itself which distinguishes between the various forms of

government. The methods that we have in our nation at

here do we should adhere to unless there is a very compelling reason

and one of real national importance

to cause us to make any changes.

Would you care to color on how insecure we might be nationally today.

Well whenever we give up our freedoms and our rights we impair our security as

individuals and ultimately as a nation. Our strength has been

derived from the freedom of the individual and the collective freedom

of a strong and active people.

Just as Harlan made a statement to me other day that it's not easy curity or our nation to be measured

in the security of the individual and his rights as essentially which I can think of no

better measurement. Well this next question my last

as a comparatively long one but I think it affects people more outside of Washington

and here is a lot of people in Washington are not quite aware of this.

Less than 5000 teachers are opposed to a half million federal employees have been investigated and drop a

security risk. To my knowledge we are probably the least sabotages nation in history. Still

we have closed hearing secret sources and definite charges and then accuse or Young was

deep restrained use of such words as a version of espionage sabotage as Ed..

Other very terrifying and extreme terms and methods of cloak and dagger suspicion and

particularly secrecy and just a title like offices to DZIEDZIC information would be

an example of that.

How might always be affecting the obviously loyal but concerned American. Of

course the most important question is how does it affect the morale of the men

and women who have to perform the many services of government. If their moral is

low their efficiency is going to be impaired and the cost to government indirectly can

be extremely happy.

You cited 5000 cases as security risks I think it would be well for

our listeners to understand that a security risk may involve a simple

question of suitability. A man who drinks too much. A man who doesn't

pay his bills. The one who habitually gets tickets for parking

violations a security risk does not deal with the individual

who is subversive or who might sell out the government of the United States

on the record. I doubt if there's a handful of such individuals who have been

separated from federal service and many of these cases represent a

constellation of post auditing evaluations of personnel

files rather than actions most of these people were separated under regular civil

service procedures. Some of them resigned without any idea that they had any clout over them at

all. Figures therefore are somewhat meaningless.

Certainly however when a man is discharged. On the basis of a

tape from some undisclosed source I think it violates very

fundamental American rights the constitutional right to be

faced by your accuser to know specifically the charges that have

been made against you. All of those things are violated in the procedures presently

followed in Washington. I think it poses a real threat to the

public servants the men and women who make a career of

working for government. And I hope that sometime in the

not too distant future the Congress will review this rather ludicrous situation

and devise a better system one more consistent

with American traditions for the evaluation of those who

might be charged with failure as employees of the government.

I would just like to restate that question.

Preppers the abstract I think your answer is very important but there is the element of

individual reading about these kind of investigations and reading

about subversion and sabotage in the rest of it. It disturbs them. Certain

words are un-American that if you're interested in racial problems you see

this inverse of I know this is occurring back in Minnesota I swim in

California where people are criticizing some of the different point of

view as subversive and I'm not sure that this is

a tradition that we're used to.

Well of course I'm not a sensitive that to that probably as some people might be as

a Democratic officeholder I've been accused of almost everything under the sun and my

height has become just a little time and I think however that unnecessarily

disturbs people it gives them a distorted picture. And certainly one greatly

at variance with fact and the sooner we get back to a proper

respect for the right of people to disagree without having to

question their loyalty as Americans they still are we're going to be on

a safe road.

That was Congressman John Moss of California chairman of the House Subcommittee

on Government Information. Our first guest was Senator Hubert Humphrey of

Minnesota. Next week at this time security and civil rights presents

the personal and psychological aspects of security loyalty programs through an exclusive

interview with Dr. Maria Hoda professor of psychology and assistant director of the

Human Relations Center at the New York University. Security and civil rights

is produced by the University of Minnesota radio station. Under a grant from the

Educational Television and Radio Center. For distribution by the National Association

of educational broadcasters. The interviews on today's program were

conducted by the producer of the series Philip gold. The consultant commentator

for security and civil rights is a professor of law. Read Paulson. Your

announcer Charles Brehm.

The preceding tape recorded program was the presentation of the end E.B.

Radio Network.