WHAT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON AN ADVERSE REPORT? Senator GILLETTE, Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question along the same line! Assuming then, as you have stated, that we received a nomination, without this clearance, we conduct this The CHAIRMAN. With this letter! Senator GILLETTE, Yes. We conduct a hearing here. We confirm it. It gets to the Senate, we make our report, the rian is confirmed, and later we receive a report from the State Department, after he has had a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is an adverse report. What is the situation then? The man has been confirmed. What action is to be taken! The CHAIRMAN. The action will be taken by the Executive. He says he will take such action as may be required, probably remove him. Senator GILLETTE. It is out of our hands, then. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Senator GILLETTE, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, this is a constitutional responsibility that is laid on the Senate, and I am not willing to subrogate my responsibility in the matter to any agency. WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR DELAY? Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman. I understood one of the ques tions involved, when we adopted this rule, was to have public confidence in appointees. Now, if we are going to change it and name them with slight examinations here, and not a check, at least, I don't think we are going to win the confidence of the public. I think that we ought to have a talk with the tops of the FBI, and Mr. Dulles, if necessary. I have gone through this before, about these long delays, but I cannot understand why a man like Conant cannot be investigated in days, and not weeks and months. Why cannot Mr. Phleger be investigated out in California, where he has lived, in days? We have thousands of FBI agents all over the country, and in foreign lands. THE RULE HAS ALREADY BEEN ABROGATED Senator MANSFIELD. Will the Senator yield? Senator MANSFIELD. I think, for the record, it ought to be made very plain that we have already abrogated the rule in three instances, Mr. Dulles, Mr. McCardle, and Mr. Morton. Senator SPARKMAN. And Stassen. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Hickenlooper. EXPEDITE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS BUT MAINTAIN THE RULE Senator HICKENLOOPER. I understood this matter was fairly satisfactorily resolved, as far as I was concerned, so far as the original appointments, in getting this new administration underway, as far as that was concerned. It was my clear understanding that I was willing to go along with the certification, name check or something of that kind, and on the understanding that I understood the chairman had that if a later field investigation on these first appointments, in the first few weeks here, in order to get the show on the road, and in order to get them in office and to get things functioning, if they seemed reasonably clear, that we would go ahead and confirm them based upon the assertion of the Secretary of State, which I am perfectly willing to accept, that if a field investigation shows serious derogatory information touching some of these people, that proper action, including the request for the resignation of the individual from the job, would be taken. I thought that was all settled. I thought we had a formula here that would enable us to go ahead with some confidence and confirm people largely on the certification of the appointing officer, that they were not security risks, and we could get this thing on the road; but, - people appointed 3, 4, or 5 months from now, certainly the Department should be ready with an investigation and report on those people at the time they send their names up. Now, I am not willing to destroy the rule. I am willing to make an exception under the peculiar circumstances of a changing administration, and the executive responsibility, but we are all aware, I think, or at least most of us are of at least one case in which they held seven loyalty hearings on one individual and cleared him every time, six times, and on the seventh they finally checked him out on the information they had all the time, in all the six previous hearings, and decided he was no good. Senator SPARKMAN. In the meantime, the rules of evidence had been changed. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Perhaps, although I disagreed with their approach all the way through. The CHAIRMAN. The burden of proof. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, the burden of proof. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I never liked, and never believed in that theory in government employment that they operated on. Senator SPARKMAN. Neither did I. LOYALTY BOARDS HAVE NOT DONE THEIR JOB Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not mean to be so abrupt, but to me the crowning thing was that the evidence against him was bad, and it was bad all the way through and they cleared him six times, as I recall, and only fired him on the seventh. There are any number of cases where they have had two and three loyalty board hearings at various stages on the same individual, with evidence sufficient to call another board, where very serious doubt has arisen, and those boards just have not used the meticulous care in safeguarding the inviolate integrity of Government employees that they think they should have. Now, I might be accused of saying this because it was a Democratic administration. I do not think so at all. I think it was part of the setup. I hope we can change that attitude. I hope we can change, within the departments, within the organizations, the attitude of the people who pass on loyalty. I know one man, for instance, right now-I won't mention his name but I know one man in the State Department employment right now, who I would not keep on 5 seconds. I think his record is bad, and yet I know high officials in the State Department who say that they will keep that man on. Well, I disagree with them. I think his record is lousy. I think he is a bad security risk, very bad. He apparently is going to stay on. I do not agree with that. I would not vote to confirm the fellow with what I know about him in black and white. I would not vote to confirm him in any position of trust; but over there, they have a little different attitude toward him. Now, it is some of those things that concern me. THE DIFFICULTIES ARE PRACTICAL Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I think you are just confronted with a practical difficulty here. I do not think that the committee is in any position, in all cases, it may be in some cases where a special hearing is had and testimony taken, that we will be in a good posi tion to judge, as good a position as the executive branch, but I think as a matter of fact we have got to rely, first on the executive branch of the government, or we have got to assume the responsibility of saying that we, ourselves, from an examination or the examinations that we have made are satisfied about the security risk involved, and the character of the man and so forth who is appointed. This is purely a practical matter. It seems to me that if the Secretary of State, at the time he submits the name to the President for Presidential action, should send us a letter, in substance, in tenor and in effect like this letter, presumably the Secretary of State would want to change his letter in certain respects and no doubt will, but if he sent this sort of a letter, then in the absence of any objection filed with this committee, or in the absense of any facts developed in the hearing which the committee itself might hold, regardless of the fact that the letter had come along with the nomination, I would be willing to go ahead and act on the nomination. I think it is the only practical thing you can do, when you have got to change over from one administration to another, with possibly 100 or 150 names coming before this committee within the first 60 days of the new administration. Now, after that, you will of course have more time, and I agree with Senator Hickenlooper that thereafter, after you have gotten away from this log jam, the State Department ought to complete all these examinations and inquiries so as to be able to advise us when the nomination comes in, of the facts in each case. However, as a practical matter, I think the practical way out of this matter is along this line of having the Secretary submit to us a statement that he knows of no reason that would question, or bring up any question as to the loyalty of the appointee he is recommending to the President, but that he will have any check made that this committee desires to have made, and thereafter act on it. It is not a happy way of doing it, of treating some man who is nominated here and subsequently a check shows up a bad record. I grant you that, but it is a practical question we are facing here, and I would be willing to go along with this, for the purpose of getting rid of this large number of appointments that necessarily will come before this committee within the next 30, 45, or 60 days. It seems to me it is a practical approach, and I would be willing, if the Secretary would send us down a letter of this kind, when he sends a nomination over to the White House, and then left it up to this committee as to whether or not on the facts in the committee, we know of some reason why we should hold a public hearing, or not, to act upon the nomination if it reaches us. I don't know how you are going to assert that the responsibility is on the legislative branch of the government, when we are only advising, of course, and consenting to these appointments; because, after all, when the FBI goes out and brings us in a large file here of 2 or 3 inches, maybe, there is a whole lot of stuff in it, a whole lot of hearsay, a whole lot of just ordinary rumor, and some things that look like direct testimony, I don't know how we are going to determine whether or not the examination made by the FBI is one on which we can speak with any more certainty than we can on the statement of the Secretary of State who, presumably, will do the very best he can to send up good citizens, of good character and loyalty records, so that we will not be blindly led into recommending the confirmation of someone who ought not to be confirmed. I think you will find that in many, many instances, there would be lodged with this committee objections to these appointees, and demands for hearings. Of course, it is up to the committee as to what sort of hearing he has. Generally speaking, where there are objections filed, my feeling is we should have a hearing, whether open or executive is for the committee to decide; but as a practical way out of it, it seems to me this is a very good solution, or a possible solution of the matter for that period of time in which we will be called on to consider so many nominations. Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gillette. PROPOSED LETTER ADDS NOTHING TO THE NOMINATION Senator GILLETTE. May I make just a brief additional comment. I see nothing whatever in the discussion that was just made by Senator George that adds to the sending up of the nomination in the first place. When the nomination is sent up here to the Senate, the nomination is sent up here for consideration and confirmation or rejec Are we to take the position that the mere fact that he now has sent up the nomination, and that he knows nothing derogatory of this man, and the fact that he writes a letter saying, "I believe this man is all right," does not add one particle to the responsibility, as far as the mechanics are concerned. I agree that it is a practical situation that we face because of this large group of names that will be sent in, with the changing administration, but as far as the mechanics are concerned, I see no reason why we cannot proceed as we did with five of these nominations that have come to us and when they come before us, if we see fit to waive the rule, and confirm, that is a matter within our jurisdiction and a matter within our judgment. I again say I see no reason why we are bound to action here by the mere fact that a letter accompanies a nomination, when the nomination itself carries sufficient burden of proof that he has been approved by the nominating authority. These appointments are made on the advice and consent of the Senate. We are not asking advice, but as a practical matter, they come up here and are judged to be proper nominations and then our responsibility is in our own methods, with hearing or without hearing, to proceed to consent, if we see fit to consent, and I repeat that if we see fit to waive it, as we have done, that is a matter of responsi bility of ours. Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Ferguson. Senator FERGUSON. I might add, I think if we let the rule stand as we passed it, and if a name comes in here, then we could decide what we want to do on that man's name, instead of changing the rule; but I still come back to the proposition that I think a name check, proper name check, can be made immediately. Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes? BACKING DOWN NOW MIGHT ROUSE SUSPICIONS Senator SPARK MAN. Of course, I recognize the practical difficulty. and I think we have to do something to work out of it. I expressed the feeling, from the beginning, that I would be willing to take the check made by Secretary Dulles. However, it seems to me that we have maneuvered ourselves into a pretty difficult situation now. For instance, people are already asking why we held up those, why Senator Knowland held up those nominations yesterday afternoon. where Phleger was involved. They are asking about Conant. They are asking about Aldrich. They are asking about Bedell Smith. They are suspecting something. Now, if we change our method of proceeding, it seems to me that we are backing away from something. I know nothing about any of them, except as I have heard about. them from time to time; but someone told me yesterday that when the full information came before us with reference to both Winthrop Aldrich, and also Conant, that there were going to be memberships |