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.

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.

Those would be the facts the Secretary would set forth, and the hope would be expressed that the committee would find some way of meeting the present situation by adopting some kind of a compromise procedure which would get us over this difficult initial period.

The second document was to be a draft letter of the type which the Secretary of State might send to the chairman of the subcommittee whenever a nomination is presented to the Senate for confirmation. and this is simply a draft. It is presented for the consideration of the committee and in general lines, indicates the kind of procedure which might work under the circumstances.

The letter reads

Will you give the Senators copies of the letter, please?

[Copies of the letter under discussion were distributed to the committee members present.]

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead and read it, get it into the record.
Dr. WILCOX The draft states:

DEAR SENATOR WILEY: There has been sent to the President, for transmission to the Senate, the nomination of , to be Ambassador Extraordi

of

nary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to To the best of my knowledge and belief, Mr.

position and a loyal citizen.

The CHAIRMAN. And, a good security risk.

is well qualified for the

Dr. WILCOX. That could be inserted, "and a good security risk." It then continues:

However, I have requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to make a full investigation of Mr. and report their findings to me. Upon the receipt of this information, I will examine these findings and submit to you the required security clearance or take such action as may be required.

This nomination is in accordance with existing law, and for your convenience in considering it there is enclosed a biographical sketch of Mr.

Letters have been sent to the appropriate Senators notifying them of this appointment.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN FOSTER DULLES.

That is a draft which is submitted for the consideration of the committee.

It has been suggested that there might be some time limit inserted, 30, 45, or 60 days, within which the procedure might be completed. and if it is not completed, the Secretary can so notify the committee at the end of that time.

THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE QUESTIONED

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, what does he mean by, "I will examine these findings and submit to you the required security clearance"?

Are we to go through the same thing as we have been going through in the past?

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know just what, Senator-you mean that we should

Senator FERGUSON. We get nothing?

The CHAIRMAN. We get this. Let me say

Senator FERGUSON. We get the word of the Secretary that the man is a good man. We know that, in his opinion, when he sends him up. Senator SPARKMAN. Which is, in turn, based upon the examination of the file by the Evaluating Committee, and the chances are the Secretary himself will never go through it.

Senator FERGUSON. That is right. He will never see it at all. It will be the Evaluating Committee that passes on it. I cannot accept that. The CHAIRMAN. There is this difference, in this respect: That if the Secretary, through his committee, who examines this evidence, clears him, you have then the action of the executive department; whereas, if we attempt to examine these files we have got an interminable job and should have a separate group of specialists set up to examine them. They have done that in the Department down there, and they have not been very good, I will admit it, but I think it is a question of-where do we go from here, and what are we going to do?

Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, is it to be assumed from this suggestion that the nomination is to be sent up here, we are to act on it, and subsequently in their good time, he receives a report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he evaluates it and sends it up. Are we to hold the nomination of those folks up until we have had that report?

Senator SPARKMAN. No, it is to go on their

THE PROBLEM IS DELAY

The CHAIRMAN. This is the basis: The parties come up here, and we would examine them as we have been doing, and take whatever steps we want to take to determine our own judgment as to his capability and security risk, and proceed to either turn him down or approve him for the calendar.

It is impossible to get the FBI reports at this time, so we are in

formed.

Now, I lay the thing in your laps, gentlemen. It is a matter that I have not been able to resolve, heretofore. The matter came up before in this committee, and the party would appear, or if there were any great objections filed, we would have hearings and let it go at that, one way or the other; but we thought, because of what has developed in the last few years in relation to security risks, that we should adopt another course, so we adopted the rule.

We found that the rule did not work because, in the sense that it would delay confirmation of important representatives of this Gov

ernment.

Now, as said by Mr. Wilcox, this might mean for instance, if we get somebody here, a man of good repute, if we delay 3 or 4 months on his confirmation, what is the committee's answer to the public? What does the public expect us to do?

Those are the things that caused me to call this meeting, and caused me to ask the staff to get busy and see if there was some way out of it.

72-194-77-vol. V