and on waterfront facilities. A number of groups and organizations have manifested an interest in testifying before the committee on the proposed legislation itself, but I felt that their testimony should be deferred until this record reflects the existing situation. Therefore, after we have completed the record this week, we will suspend the hearings for a week or so and then resume on the proposed legislation itself, at which time we will receive the testimony of these groups and organizations. Let there now be inserted in the record the resolution, dated April 5, 1960, authorizing and directing the holding of the instant hearings, together with the order dated May 23, 1960, designating the subcommittee to conduct the hearings. BE IT RESOLVED, that hearings by the Committee on Un-American Activities or a subcommittee thereof, to be held at such place or places as the Chairman may direct, on such date or dates as the Chairman may determine, be authorized and approved, including the conduct of investigations deemed reasonably necessary by the staff in preparation therefor, relating to the following matters and having the legislative purposes indicated: 1. All factual material which may be necessary or desirable to assemble to enable the Committee to appraise the bill, H.R. 11580 of the 86th Congress, Second Session, to amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 so as to provide that no individual who willfully fails or refuses to answer, or falsely answers, certain questions relating to Communist activities, when summoned to appear before certain Federal agencies, shall be employed on any merchant vessel of the United States or within certain waterfront facilities in the United States; 2. Strategy, tactics and activities of members of the Communist Party in connection with seamen, shipping, or waterfront facilities; 3. The execution by the administrative agencies concerned of all laws and regulations relating to the Internal Security Act, the Communist Control Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Passport Regulations, and all other laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee, the legislative purpose being to exercise continuous watchfulness over the execution of these laws to assist the Congress in appraising their administration, and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary; 4. Any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee which it, or any subcommittee thereof appointed to conduct these hearings may designate. MAY 23, 1960. To: Mr. Richard Arens Staff Director House Committee on Un-American Activities Pursuant to the provisions of the law and the rules of this Committee, I hereby appoint a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, consisting of Representatives Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, Donald L. Jackson and Gordon H. Scherer, as associate members, and myself, Francis E. Walter, as Chairman, to conduct hearings in Washington, DC., Monday through Friday, June 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1960, at 10:00 a.m., on subjects under investigation by the Committee and take such testimony on said days or succeeding days, as it may deem necessary. Please make this action a matter of Committee record. If any Member indicates his inability to serve, please notify me. (S) FRANCIS E. WALTER, Chairman, Committee on Un-American Activities. Mr. Arens, will you call your first witness. Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir. Admiral James A. Hirshfield, accompanied, if you please, Mr. Chairman, by colleagues from the United States Coast Guard." Admiral, will you kindly come forward with your colleagues and all remain standing while the chairman administers the oath? 57727-60-pt. 1—2 The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Admiral HIRSHFIELD. I do. Mr. HARRISON. I do. TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL JAMES A. HIRSHFIELD, ACCOMPANIED BY CDR. LAWRENCE D. CONNOR, ALBERT E. GREEN, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, AND KENNETH S. HARRISON, CHIEF COUNSEL, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Mr. ARENS. Admiral Hirshfield, before you proceed further, would you kindly identify yourself on the record, and identify, if you please, sir, the names and titles of your colleagues? Admiral HIRSHFIELD. I am Vice Admiral James A. Hirshfield, Assistant Commandant of the Coast Guard. To my right is Cdr. Lawrence D. Connor, who is the Assistant Chief of the Merchant Marine Personnel Division in Coast Guard Headquarters. The next gentleman to my right is Mr. Kenneth S. Harrison, who is the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard. On my left is Mr. Albert E. Green, who is Judge Harrison's principal assistant. Mr. ARENS. Thank you, sir. Admiral, we understand that you have, in the first instance, a prepared statement which you would like to submit to the committee. If it meets with the pleasure of the chairman, I respectfully suggest you proceed at this time to read your prepared statement and then in all probability the committee or I will have some additional questions to submit to you. Admiral HIRSHFIELD. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I feel privileged to appear before you today in connection with your consideration of H.R. 11580, a bill "To amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 so as to provide that no individual who willfully fails or refuses to answer, or falsely answers, certain questions relating to Communist activities, when summoned to appear before certain Federal agencies, shall be employed on any merchant vessel of the United States or within certain waterfront facilities in the United States." The Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Richmond, is presently in Europe and expresses his regrets in not being able to serve this committee personally in its consideration of this proposed legislation. Since my statement was originally prepared Friday afternoon we received two copies of proposed amendments to H.R. 11580. While I have not had time to make a detailed study of the amendments, they would seem to supply the deficiencies noted in the letter of the Secre tary of the Treasury relating to the bill which was delivered to the chairman of this committee on Friday. Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could interrupt to request at this time that the record now reflect the body of the letter which was received by the chairman of the Committee of Un-American Activities from the United States Department of the Treasury on the proposed legislation so that the record will reflect the comment of Admiral Hirshfield with reference to these suggested amendments which were first developed in my conversations with the Coast Guard. Mr. MOULDER (presiding). Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows:) MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: JUNE 3, 1960. Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 11580, a bill to deny employment to certain persons who do not respond to agency subpena or order. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to deny employment aboard United States vessels or on United States waterfront facilities to any person who willfully fails or refuses to appear before any Federal agency, when subpenaed or ordered to appear, or to answer under oath before such agency questions relating to his or any other person's membership or activities in the Communist Party. Although the Department favors the effective security screening of merchant seamen and waterfront workers, and accordingly endorses the apparent objectives of the bill, it is doubtful that the consequences of Federal court decisions in Parker v. Lester and Graham v. Richmond would be overcome by passage of the bill in its present form. In order to be effective with respect to any particular agency's program, the provisions pertaining to failure or refusal to appear, in response to subpena or order, or to answer, would require authority in the agency to issue the subpena or order. The Coast Guard does not have such authority in connection with the security screening program which it conducts under the Magnuson Act and Executive Order 10173, as amended. Hence the bill would not appear to broaden the power of the Coast Guard to deny employment through its screening program, except to the extent that employment might be denied to a few persons for lack of response to the process of other agencies. The bill does not relate denial of employment to the grant or denial of security clearance by the Coast Guard. Nevertheless it would appear that this latter program could provide the machinery for a partial enforcement of the provisions of the bill. With respect to employment which does not require Coast Guard security clearance, however, it does not appear that the bill would provide either machinery or sanctions for enforcement. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your Committee. Very truly yours, A. GILMORE FLUES, Acting Secretary of the Treasury. Admiral HIRSHFIELD. In my statement today I shall endeavor to cover the four broad topics upon which the committee has expressed interest and has requested Coast Guard views. These topics are as follows: (1) The 1950 merchant seaman screening program; (3) The potential threat to internal security posed by Communists on ships or waterfront facilities; and (4) Procedures contemplated in the event that H.R. 11580 is enacted. The first topic of my discussion relates to the 1950 merchant seaman screening program. HISTORY OF SCREENING PROGRAM Although H.R. 11580 is addressed both to merchant seamen and workers in waterfront facilities, this discussion is directed to that phase of the screening program dealing with merchant seamen, since it is in this area that the courts have directed their attention. Waterfront Exclusions World War II; termination of During World War II there was in effect a so-called Waterfront Exclusion Program based on the Espionage Act of 1917. This program ended in July 1947 at the termination of the state of war and national emergencies. During World War II, when we were allied with Russia, the Communists made their greatest infiltration into seafaring and waterfront unions. In a few of these unions Communists obtained complete control and domination. As Communist aggression in South Korea grew, so did the realization that Communists and Communist sympathizers on vessels carrying critical supplies presented a grave threat to national security. Magnuson Act and Executive Order 10173 The Act of August 9, 1950, popularly known as the Magnuson Act, amended Title II of the Espionage Act of 1917 and enabled the President to institute such measures and issue such rules and regulations as necessary for security of vessels and waterfront facilities, whenever, by Proclamation or Executive Order, the President declares an emergency to exist. Acting under this Act, the President, on 18 October 1950, issued Executive Order 10173, which declared in part that the security of the United States was endangered by reason of subversive activity. Presidential regulations followed which implemented the Executive Order, and authorized the Commandant of the Coast Guard. among other things, to require the issuance of specially validated documents as evidence of security clearance, and to deny the issuance of such documents to individuals whose character and habits of life were such as to authorize the belief that his presence on vessels and waterfront facilities would be inimical to the security of the United States. Provision was also made for the right to appeal before appeal boards appointed by the Commandant. Penalties were also provided for failure to comply with any regulation promulgated thereunder. Coast Guard Regulations (33 CFR 121) The Coast Guard Regulations for the security of vessels and waterfront facilities were published in December 1950, after public hearing, and further implemented the Presidential regulations by supplying the details necessary for the operation of the Program, such as: validation of documents; vessels to which the regulations applied; the criteria or basis of rejection; and appeals procedure. Validation was accomplished by stamping on the document the legend "Validated for Emergency Service." The criteria or basis for rejection is: (a) advocacy of the overthrow of government by unconstitutional means; (b) espionage, sabotage, sedition or treason (c) serving interests of other governments to the detriment of the United States (d) unauthorized disclosure of classified information (e) membership in, or affiliation or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, movement, group or combination of persons designated by the Attorney General pursuant to Executive Order 10450. The first four categories are comparatively rare and rejection is generally based on convictions of record. The fifth category (e), represents the criteria applied to the bulk of the rejectees, and the most difficult to prove. The hearings are conducted before local tripartite boards, with further appeal to the National Appeal Board in Washington. These boards make recommendations to the Commandant, whose decision is final. The Parker vs. Lester Decision In October 1955 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the screening regulations fell short of furnishing the minimum requirements of due process in respect to notice and opportunity to be heard, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction against further enforcement of the regulations. The Court criticized the Coast Guard's use of "confidential information," the failure to afford confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and the fact that the Commandant made an initial determination prior to any hearing. It was urged that the Supreme Court be petitioned for certiorari, but the Solicitor General decided against this action. New Regulations as a result of Parker vs. Lester The Coast Guard's procedures had been designed as they were because it must rely on information obtained from other agencies, classified as confidential by them, in determining whether persons are poor security risks. These agencies normally will not reveal the names. of informants, and therefore they cannot be produced at the hearing. Even if the agencies would disclose the names, the informants are generally persons (often itinerant seamen) who furnished the information years before, and it would be an all but impossible task to locate them, and without funds for paying expenses, produce them at the hearing. Despite these obstacles, the Coast Guard on May 1, 1956, adopted new regulations designed to meet the Court's objection. Under these regulations: No determination is made before the hearing; they do not, on their face, prohibit the disclosure of the source of derogatory information; they do not deny the right to confrontation. and cross-examination; and they cannot be interpreted as placing a burden on the person involved to clear himself. Interpretation of Regulations by District Court The new regulations were effective prior to the issuance of an injunction by the District Court pursuant to Court of Appeals opinion, and in the argument before the Court, the Government contended that the new regulations eliminated all features of the program which gave rise to the adverse decision. The District Court did not accept this contention. Instead, it issued an extremely broad injunction, the effect of which is to require the Coast Guard to permit plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated to go to sea notwithstanding determinations. of the Commandant that they are security risks. As a result of the decree of the Court, a new security stamp was adopted bearing the legend "Validated. Issued pursuant to decree of DC ND Cal 7/12/56 and to be given same effect as all similar documents issued without such order." Currently the issuance of documents to 327 seamen formerly found to be security risks has been authorized. To date 298 of these seamen have been issued documents bearing the above legend, |