TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Exchange of correspondence between the Subcommittee on Con- A. September 12, 1959, to the Department of Defense. Page 1916 1916 1917 1917 1918 II. Excerpt from Presidential news conference, July 1, 1959, following 1919 1920 1924 A. Atomic Energy Commission: 1. Correspondence from the Atomic Energy Commis- 1924 2. Criteria and procedures for determining eligibility 1924 3. Criteria and procedures for determining eligibility 1934 B. Department of Defense: 1. Correspondence from the Department of Defense___ 1946 1949 3. Industrial personnel access authorization review fact 1979 4. New standards and procedures adopted for clearing 1981 C. Federal Aviation Agency (correspondence from the Federal 1983 D. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 1. Correspondence from the National Aeronautics and 1984 1985 2. Industrial security policies and procedures. V. Statements submitted to Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights VI. Newspaper editorial comments on Executive Order No. 10865: B. Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 1960.. C. New York Post, February 24, 1960.... D. New York Times, January 23, 1960 E. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 29, 1960 F. Washington Post and Times Herald, February 22, 1960. 1998 2001 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 VII. Texts of bills relating to industrial security, introduced in 86th C. H.R. 11151, a bill to amend the Administrative Procedure D. H.R. 11155, a bill to amend the Administrative Procedure VIII. Joint press release by Congressman Roosevelt (California) and IX. Texts of selected articles regarding industrial security: A. Anderson, Richard G., "Security Clearance Revocation as a B. Hart, Henry, M., "Supreme Court 1958 Term," excerpt Page 2008 2009 2010 2010 2011 2013 2023 C. O'Keefe, Daniel F., Jr., "Due Process and the 'Right' to a 2028 D. Rauh, Joseph L., Jr., "Nonconfrontation in Security Cases: 2042 E. Wise, Robert W. and Nancy Lou Provost, "New Procedures 2058 X. Texts of briefs for the parties in the case of Cafeteria and Restaurant A. Brief for appellants in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 2077 B. Reply briefs for appellants in the U.S. Circuit Court of 2093 C. Brief for respondents in opposition filed in U.S. Supreme XI. Opinion of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CIO v. McElroy, on rehearing en banc, decided April 14, 1960 2165 2186 XII. Memorandum by Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights staff member: "Staff Analysis of Department of Defense Directive No. 5220.6". 2228 XIII. Exchange of correspondence between Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights and Loyd Wright: A. October 28, 1960, to Loyd Wright- C. December 5, 1960, to Loyd Wright.. 2241 2241 2242 APPENDIX SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS A Study of Methods of Providing Due Process of Law in Federal Loyalty-Security Programs THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. (By order of the Chairman, Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., the following materials were ordered printed, without objection, as an appendix to the hearing held by the subcommittee on the above date:) Before his death, Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., who served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, planned that certain materials relating to the subject of the hearing conducted by the subcommittee on July 2, 1959, respecting constitutional issues involved in government security regulations, be printed as an appendix to the record of that hearing. Those materials have now been assembled and I have arranged for publication. Since I assumed the chairmanship of the subcommittee, I have been confined for a major portion of the time in the Naval Hospital at Bethesda, Maryland, where I have undergone surgery. I have now returned to my home but I have not had opportunity to study personally the materials which will appear. I have, however, been most willing to honor the request of our late colleague. JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. November 1, 1960 1915 I. EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The Honorable NEIL H. MCELROY, The Secretary of Defense, the Department of Defense, SEPTEMBER 12, 1959. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On June 30, 1959, and again on July 13, 1959, I wrote you a letter inviting you to appear before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to present the views of the Department of Defense concerning methods of obtaining due process of law in hearing procedures under the Federal loyalty security programs, particularly the industrial personnel security program. On July 10, 1959, Deputy Secretary of Defense Thomas S. Gates replied to my initial letter, stating that the Department of Defense, together with other interested agencies of the Government, were engaged in an intensive study of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Greene case to determine its significance and effect on the future operations of the industrial security program. Secretary Gates stated that until such time as that study was completed, it would be inappropriate for any Department of Defense official to testify before this subcommittee, but that upon the establishment of an executive branch position he would communicate further with me regarding such an appearance. In the light of Secretary Gates' letter, and a letter of similar import sent to me on July 16 by George W. Vaughan, assistant to the Secretary for Legislative Affairs, it was highly disturbing to read in the Friday, September 11, edition of the Washington Evening Star a news dispatch reporting that the White House intends to issue an Executive order in the near future dealing with the industrial personnel security program. I trust that this news dispatch was in error, and that no such definitive action formalizing procedures in the industrial personnel security program will be taken before the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee has the opportunity to hear the testimony of appropriate Government officials, including representatives from the Department of Defense. I shall appreciate hearing from you immediately whether the study of the Greene decision referred to in Secretary Gates' letter has been completed, and if so, when it would be convenient for you and other appropriate officials of the Department of Defense to testify before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. Sincerely yours, THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Chairman. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary of Defense has asked me to reply to your letter of September 12, 1959, with regard to the problem of establishing hearing procedures under the industrial security program of the Department of Defense to meet the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the Greene case. The effect of the Greene case upon the future operation of the industrial security program has been the subject of study not only by this Department but by the executive branch of the Government as a whole. We are not aware of the source of the story in the Washington Evening Star of September 11, which you enclosed. I am informed that a decision with respect to this matter has not in fact been made. You may be sure that upon the establishment of an executive branch position we will communicate with you further. Sincerely yours, J. VINCENT BURKE, JR. OCTOBER 26, 1959. Hon. J. VINCENT BURKE, Jr., General Counsel, Department of Defense, DEAR MR. BURKE: I am taking the liberty of writing you in connection with your letter dated September 22, 1959, which was a reply to the letter addressed to the Secretary of Defense dated September 12, 1959, by Senator THOMAS C. HENNINGS. JR., chairman of the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, concerning hearing procedures under the industrial personnel security program. I believe there is apprehension that hearing procedures will be established by Executive order for an industrial personnel security review program without legislative authorization because of a statement made on the floor of the House on Friday, September 11, 1959. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 105, No. 161, daily edition (p. 17587, cols. 2 and 3): "RELATING TO SECURITY PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO DEFENSE CONTRACTORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES (Mr. WALTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) "Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, there has been scheduled under suspension of the rules H.R. 8121. I have just been informed that the matter involved in this bill will be treated with administratively, and therefore I wish to announce that there will be no motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill." Senator HENNINGS is expected to return within a few weeks and I merely wish to remind you that the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee wanted to be able to receive the views of the Department of Defense and, if necessary, the Department of Justice, before any industrial personnel security review program is established. As soon as a printed record of the public hearing held by the subcommittee on July 2, 1959-shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Greene case is available, we shall be happy to send you immediately as many copies as you desire. Your continuing cooperation will be appreciated. CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr., Chief Counsel and Staff Director. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Mr. CHARLES H. SLAYMAN, Jr., Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. SLAYMAN: This refers to your letters of October 26, 1959, with respect to action to be taken by the Government as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the Greene case. I have reviewed the previous correspondence between the subcommittee and the Department of Defense and I believe it has been indicated that the executive branch as a whole has had under consideration since the issuance of that decision appropriate action to bring the industrial security program into consonance with the decision of the Court. Both the possible issuance of an Executive order and the submission of proposed legislation to the Congress have been under consideration, but no final decision with respect to these has been made. I am sure you are aware that the decision to issue an Executive order is that of the President. In addition, any recommendation for legislation submitted by any branch of the executive department can be made only with the approval of the President, usually |