Major Jewish Groups Urge Curbs on Investigating Committees

The National Community Relations Advisory Council, coordinating body of six national Jewish organizations and more than 30 local Jewish groups engaged in fighting for civil rights, as well as the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith, today urged Congress to exercise “self-restraint” by imposing uniform rules of fair conduct on its investigating committees “so that the essential process of detecting subversion does not lead to the enduring injury of innocent people.”

Testifying before the Senate Rules Subcommittee which is now holding hearings on the issue, Louis J. Cohen, of Newark, said on behalf of the NCRAC that there is a legitimate need for Congressional investigations, but he deplored the “excesses” of certain members of investigating committees. “Irresponsible individuals, without check by a regulatory standard, “Mr. Cohen said, “can thus exercise profound, often disastrous, influence over the lives of others.”

Judge David A. Rose, of Boston, testifying for the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, said that “a few Congressional investigating committees have caused alarm among even the most ardent supporters of such inquiries through adoption and pursuit of unfair procedures which the sound and commendable legislative purposes of investigation neither require nor justify.” The remedy, he said, is a matter for Congress alone to prescribe because Constitutionally there are no provisions or legal restraints on the procedures of Congressional committees.

Judge Rose outlined a series of “broad principles” which, the American Jewish Committee and the ADL propose as part of a code of procedures for Congressional committees because of “moral and ethical considerations.” These include:

1. That the scope of a Congressional inquiry be clearly defined and the inquiry kept within that scope.

2. That no subcommittee be permitted to function with fewer than two members present, preferably representing both major political parties.

3. That there be a clear definition of the witness’ rights: to submit a statement of reasonable length; to question other witnesses who have impugned his character or behavior; to introduce testimony in his own behalf. Also, that the right of a witness to counsel of his own choosing be affirmed and that stenographic records of testimony be made available to witnesses and to those whose reputations have been called into question.

4. That no motion pictures, television or radio broadcasting be permitted while a witness is testifying. Such publicity, Judge Rose said, has tempted witnesses and even Congressmen to play to the public spotlight so that committee hearings have appeared to become spectacles rather than serious attempts to ascertain facts.

5. That individual guilt or innocence or the meting out of punishment -should not concern an investigating committee except to report possible violations of the law to the proper law enforcement authorities. Hence, no committee should seek to induce an employer to “purge” an employee because the committee, or one or more of its members, reacts unfavorably to his testimony.

NCRAC PRESENTS “GUIDING PRINCIPLES” FOR INVESTIGATING BODIES

Mr. Cohen presented a prepared statement, signed by himself and Bernard H. Trager, chairman of the NCRAC, which represents the American Jewish Congress, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish War Veterans, all central Jewish religious bodies and local community relations councils. The statement sets out the following ten “guiding principles” for the regulation of investigating committees:

1. Limitation of the scope of Congressional investigations “to those matters in which Congress may legislate or exercise any other power specifically granted by the Constitution.”

2. Prohibition of one-man subcommittees.

3. “Due notice of meetings and other committee action” to all committee members and adequate provision for minority reports.

4. No release of derogatory material before opportunity for rebuttal, and simultaneous release of both rebuttal testimony and original charges.

5. Right of cross-examination for “persons or organizations against whom charges are made in public hearings” and opportunity for such persons or organizations to “present their side of the case publicly as soon as possible after the making of the charge” and in equally public circumstances.

6. Keeping confidential all material in the files of an investigating committee not previously released in the form of an official report.

7. No public evaluation of a person under investigation until the inquiry has been completed and an official report issued.

8. No radio or television coverage of a hearing over a witness’ objection.

9. “Investigating committees should be empowered to invoke the aid of the courts in compelling answers to questions. Constitutional objections and questions of privilege raised by a witness should be tested through summary judicial procedures rather than by defenses in criminal prosecutions.”

10. Empowering of both Houses of Congress to exercise supervision over their committees.

Affirming the need for Congressional investigations and the “notable contributions” of past legislative investigations to the enactment of legislation and the “detection of corruption in government,” the statement of the NCRAC declares that “the need for Congress to be informed cannot justify or excuse abandoning the fair hearings that Americans traditionally have thought inseparable from any just system of laws.”