COMMITTEE PROCEDURE ON NOMINATIONS

[Editor's note: At its organizational meeting on January 14, the Committee decided to require an F.B.I. field investigation of all nominees to the posts of Ambassador, Assistant Secretary of State, and Under Secretary before taking up the nomination. The large number of new appointees incident upon a change of administration posed immediate difficulties in application of the rule, however, and provoked the discussion printed below.]

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a.m., in the Foreign Relations Committee Room, U.S. Capitol, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Wiley (chairman), Hickenlooper, Tobey, Ferguson, George, Green, Sparkman, Gillette. and Mansfield.

Also present: Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Kalijarvi, Mr. Marcy, Mr. Holt, Mr. O'Day, and Mr. Cahn, of the committee staff.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

TRANSCRIPT FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

The Chair will want the authority of the committee to send our former member, Henry Cabot Lodge, a transcript of what took place here in relation to his nomination.

Is there any objection?

[No objection was expressed.]

The CHAIRMAN. If not, it will stand approved.

Senator GREEN. It is made public, then, is it not?

Senator GEORGE. I would not think so, it is only for his own guid

ance.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, it will stand approved.

RESOLUTION ON THE DEATH OF CHARLES A. EATON

I have here a resolution in relation to the death of Charles A. Eaton:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate unites with the many colleagues and friends who mourn the passing of Congressman Charles Aubrey Eaton, former member of the House of Repre sentatives from the State of New Jersey.

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations pays tribute to this great citizen of the republic, whose life was a splendid example of integrity and high moral principles, and who, for twenty-eight consecutive years at a perilous time in our history, served his country with honor and distinction.

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations, in appreciation of the outstanding contribution made by Congressman Eaton as a foremost architect of American bipartisan foreign policy, and as an eminent chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, transmits this resolution to the Committee on foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the family of Congressman Eaton as a token of its respect and affection.

Senator MANSFIELD. I move the adoption.

Senator FERGUSON. Second.

Senator SPARKMAN. Second,

The CHAIRMAN. It has been moved and seconded that the resolution be adopted, and without objection, it is so adopted.

DIFFICULTIES WITH THE NEW NOMINATION PROCEDURES

The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, we come to the main purpose of this meeting.

We find, as many folks find who outline a course that many times looks plain, and the mechanism looks wonderful and all at once, we find that the course is not so unrugged, and the mechanism does not work-in other words, we will have some 150 nominations up here.

We laid down a pattern which we thought was a good pattern, and is a good pattern, if it would work, and that was that there should be first a check, and if that seemed to be all right, then after that there should be the full field investigation.

Now, we are informed that, in the first place, the field investigation will not come to the chairman of this committee.

Secondly, we are informed that to evaluate 150 field investigations would require exceptional brains for that particular operation, and therefore it does not look as if we can get anywhere with it.

What we are called together for today is to try to get some workable basis that will facilitate the handling of these nominations.

I asked the staff of this committee to get together with some folks from the State Department, and they have come up with what seems to be a feasible plan or method or way to handle this situation, and I will ask Mr. Wilcox to outline the conclusions they came to.

They went over with me their conclusions, and it seemed to me that we must, if we are going to facilitate the matters that come before us, do something on this subject, and that is the principal purpose of this meeting.

Go ahead, Mr. Wilcox.

SIMPLE NAME CHECKS NOT POSSIBLE

Dr. WILCOX. Mr. Chairman, we met yesterday, as you said, with members of the State Department staff, to go over the entire problem and to see if some workable solution could not be found for the difficulty that confronts the committee and the administration with respect to the nomination problem.

We found, as Senator Wiley has indicated, that it would not be possible to get simple name checks upon these individuals because anyone who has served for any length of time in a public position, or who has been prominent in public affairs will have a file in the

FBI, and that the two individuals that we did get name checks on had their files in the Navy or War Department where they were undergoing some work on them. They were not in the FBI files. Therefore, it was possible to get a rather quick check; but in almost all other cases, we cannot expect such a quick check.

Senator FERGUSON. Will you yield?

Dr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. You mean, the FBI files are in such shape that you cannot get a name check?

Dr. WILCOX. The difficulty is, Senator, that everyone, such as Mr. Conant, Mr. Aldrich, Mr. Phleger, almost anyone who has been in a position of considerable importance in the community-Mr. Phleger, for example, has been with the Nuremberg tribunal, and worked in Nuremberg, and consequently there was an FBI file on him. In that file there would be, in almost all cases, some derogatory comments. They would not, therefore, be able to say there were no derogatory comments. If there is one slight derogatory comment, they would hesitate to send any letter such as they sent with respect to Mr. Morton, and consequently in such cases you would have to go forward then with a full field investigation. That would normally take, if we get out in the clear, say in April and May, when we don't have this big log jam, it would normally take at least 2 to 3 weeks for Presidential nominees. That speed is possible, if we have a Presidential nominee that we can give high priority to.

Senator FERGUSON. Why should not the FBI give high priority to Presidential appointments that are to be confirmed by the Senate? Why should they be out investigating other people that are not to be approved by the Senate?

Why can we not get priority on these things? I cannot understand this delay.

It is beyond my imagination that they could not get a name check in a day.

Dr. WILCOX. You can accept, for the fact, that if you send up a report on a name check, it will have derogatory material in all, almost all cases.

Senator TOBEY. Let us evaluate it.

Senator FERGUSON. Let us find out what the derogatory things are. I think the things, if they are understood down there, can be done in a day.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute.
MAN.

I recognize the Senator from Michigan.

Senator FERGUSON. I think this matter can be taken care of in days. I know that they want to process things, and they want to build up a lot of paperwork and everything else, but here are names coming up to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. They are asking for a name check. I do not understand why it cannot be done in a day, and they know whether this derogatory information is serious or not.

Dr. WILCOX. Senator, I will put it this way: Very few people in the executive branch would like to certify that there are no derogatory comments.

Senator FERGUSON. We are not asking them to certify that there are none. When they certify on a field investigation or examination,

they do not certify that there are or are not; they give you what the facts are.

Dr. WILCOX. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Therefore, why can they not give us what the name checks are?

WILL THE COMMITTEE EVALUATE THE RAW DATA?

Dr. WILCOX. I think you raise a very fundamental question. That is, whether this committee would like to serve as an evaluator for that raw data which the FBI would submit, in some cases. I am told that the file on Mr. Conant is probably that thick [indicating]. I have not seen it.

Senator FERGUSON. Personally, I do not intend to let anyone evaluate evidence for me, on this committee or on any other committee. Dr. WILCOX. That is for the committee to decide.

Senator FERGUSON. I figure it is my job to evaluate evidence.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Who were the members of the State Department you discussed this with.

Dr. WILCOX. Mr. Morton, and Mr. Humelsine.1

I think, of course, Mr. Chairman, that is one of the basic questions which this committee will have to decide, whether they want to sit as a group, or as a subcommittee, to evaluate this amount of raw data which is in the FBI files with respect to each one of these individuals.

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman-Mr. Wilcox, here, you say there is a man coming up before us that has a file inches thick, up to 6 inches thick, and now we are asked not to look at that at all, know nothing about it, but go ahead and approve him and then, some time later have some more evidence obtained, and then we are to evaluate it all, and he will resign or be discharged if we don't like it. I don't think that is a good procedure at all.

ACCESS TO FBI FILES

The CHAIRMAN. The first question is whether or not you can have that file.

The next question is

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Well, there is-go ahead, there is no question involved.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. There is a question of whether or not we can have the file. There is also a question of whether or not we have the sovereignty in this committee to approve or disapprove, based upon certain conditions. If one of the conditions is whether we have the file, we have the right to say whether we will proceed. They can say, "You can't have the file," and we can say, "We won't approve until we get them."

The CHAIRMAN. There is not any question about that. The question is whether we want to get into some kind of operation stalemate, but I again say that the matter of evaluation, gentlemen, is a proposition that requires a tremendous amount of time and judgment, with these

1 Thurston B. Morton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, and Carlisle H. Humelsine, Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration.

files they have in the State Department, and that brings up another issue, the Evaluation Committee or group.1

In the past, they have been very, very delinquent. They have facts that have been brought to my personal attention in hearings, and when I was up to the United Nations, of such a character that it made one feel that those who were doing the evaluating were certainly not awake or alert to their responsibilities, because even the FBI, in one instance, built up some 41 citations against an individual, and yet he passed muster.

However, we are again back to the original question as to the present procedure.

Now, I think you had better carry on with what you arrived at.

I have here a letter which they thought should be sent. In other words, we have before us now, Smith, Conant, Lord, Aldrich and Phleger, and a bunch of them coming.

Now, how are we going to proceed in relation to these?

Will you carry on with what was suggested in relation to the preliminary letter that was to be sent out?

ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Dr. WILCOX. In the discussion yesterday, the staff members felt that there were obviously several alternatives which the committee might want to consider:

One, they might want to waive the application of the rule during this difficult period, until we get in the clear, say, in the next 2 or 3 months, to go ahead and confirm the individuals without any further procedure being necessary.

The second one would be to apply strictly the formula which the committee approved, which would perhaps result in a lot of adverse criticism for the committee, and we felt you might want to think twice before following that course.

A third alternative, which seems to us to be more workable was that the Secretary would write to the chairman of the committee, setting forth the facts in the case, and such a letter is on the desk of the Secretary now. He has not been able to sign it because of the tremendous pressure he is under at the moment, they have not been able to get to him. It should have been here this morning in time for the chairman to present it to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. You can tell them the gist of what that letter would contain.

A STATE DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL

Dr. WILCOX. I think the gist has already been covered in terms of the facts that have been presented: That is, the number of individuals who would be up for confirmation from the State Department; the difficulty involved in securing the kind of report which we need from the FBI in ample time; and the desirability of getting these individuals to their posts without too much delay.

1 This appears to be a reference to the Evaluation Branch of the State Department's Security Division, part of the Office of Security and Consular Affairs. The Evaluation Branch was charged with evaluating the raw data produced by Security Division investigators.