character and sources of information furnished, and to protect Government personnel against the dissemination of unfounded or disproved allegations. It is necessary also in order to insure the fair and just disposition of loyalty cases. For these reasons, and in accordance with the long-established policy that reports rendered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other investigative agencies of the executive branch are to be regarded as confidential, all reports, records, and files relative to the loyalty of employees or prospective employees (including reports of such investigative agencies), shall be maintained in confidence, and shall not be transmitted or disclosed except as required in the efficient conduct of business.

Any subpena or demand or request for information, reports, or files of the nature described, received from sources other than those persons in the executive branch of the Government who are entitled thereto by reason of their official duties, shall be respectfully declined, on the basis of this directive, and the subpena or demand or other request shall be referred to the Office of the President for such response as the President may determine to be in the public interest in the particular case. There shall be no relaxation of the provisions of this directive except with my express authority.

This directive shall be published in the Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 13, 1948.

HARRY S. TRUMAN.

REQUEST FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI

Mr. BUSBEY. Have you ever had occasion to request the FBI to make a further investigation in the case of any Department of Labor employee who had been previously cleared either by your loyalty board or by the Loyalty Review Board?

Mr. SHANE. Yes, sir. As I have mentioned, in all cases where we were reversed by the Loyalty Review Board, we asked the FBI report to be brought up to date. I do not recall whether there have been any other employees; I think not, but I would rather check that.

(NOTE. A check shows there was one additional case.)

Mr. BUSBEY. Does the FBI automatically inform you of any new information that comes into their files regarding these employees on whose cases the Loyalty Review Board has reversed your board? Mr. SHANE. Yes, sir; that is my understanding. Actually, of course, the FBI informs us of any adverse information on any employee automatically. I think in requesting that the report be brought up to date we perhaps went a little beyond that automatic process. We asked that they make a further check. But if there is any adverse information that the FBI turns up on an employee that has already been processed, say 2 years ago, still they bring it to our attention.

PROPOSED CHANGE OF STANDARDS

Mr. BUSBEY. For your information and in an attempt to strengthen not only your hand but the hands of all the loyalty boards in all the agencies of the Government, I am asking for time in the House today to make a speech on this loyalty investigation program under the Executive Order 9835 and thereby attempt to point out the weakness of the entire loyalty program. I am asking for the time today because I received information Saturday that the entire Loyalty Review Board is going to have a meeting tomorrow and I am hopeful that they will unanimously make a demand upon the President to change one sentence in the standards under which they now have to operate, which ties their hands in sustaining agencies such as yours. I would like to read the one paragraph under the Executive Order 9835, which is

paragraph 1, part 5, of the standards set up in that Executive order under which the Loyalty Review Board now has to operate.

The standard for the refusal of employment or the removal from employment in an executive department or agency on grounds relating to loyalty shall be that on all evidence reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States.

You will see by that sentence that they use the present tense"is disloyal." And it is for that reason that cases like that of William Remington and others that come before the Loyalty Review Board get by and agencies are reversed. In many cases, like the William Remington case, the Loyalty Review Board said: The case in question or the person in question is not presently disloyal to the Government of the United States.

You can see that a man can be ever so disloyal for years and years and when he brings his appeal to the Loyalty Review Board, if he can at that time prove to the satisfaction of the panel hearing his case that he is presently loyal to the Government of the United States, his past record makes no difference in their evaluation of that man for employment in the Government.

Frankly, it has been my considered opinion that to be an employee of the Government is a privilege, not a right, and I am in hopes that something will be done to correct this joker in the standards established by the President.

I would like to ask Mr. Shane, after my remarks, if he, as chairman of the loyalty board of the Department of Labor, would concur in my efforts along this line?

Mr. SHANE. Congressman Busbey, in my own experience, I have not run up against the kind of thing you mention. Of course, my experience has been rather limited, to one agency. It seems to me there has been a reasonable presumption that if a man has a long history of disloyalty, he is still disloyal. Now, that may be just because I have had a relatively few number of cases in the total, but if a man has a history of being disloyal to his country, it is pretty hard for me to see why he is still not disloyal, unless there is something concrete offered.

Mr. BUSBEY. May I say that I agree with you entirely and if that yardstick had been followed we would not have all these cases that I assure you are coming up within the next 12 months, where the Loyalty Review Board has reversed the decision of agencies and the people are still on the Federal payroll. We would not be in this trouble if they had adhered to the yardstick as testified to by Mr. Arthur S. Flemming, of the Civil Service Commission, before a subcommittee of this Appropriations Committee on December 12, 1940, when he said: "All doubts are resolved in favor of the Government." Now, you know and I know that all doubts have not been resolved in favor of the Government on these disloyalty cases and if they had been we would not be in the predicament we are in today.

Mr. SHANE. May I make one other comment? I think one part of the sentence you read, sir, that was taken seriously by us and, so far as I know, by other agencies, is that "reasonable grounds exist for the belief." The standard is reasonable grounds exist for the belief. It is not that the belief must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the sort of reverse of that. All you have to do in order to find a man disloyal is to have reasonable grounds for belief that he is disloyal. You do not have to prove he is disloyal beyond a reasonable doubt. So that it is weighted in favor of the Government, in that situation.

Mr. BUSBEY. I take it that is the standard under which your Board acted and you must have found reasonable doubt in the mind of your Board on these three cases that were appealed to the Loyalty Review Board?

Mr. SHANE. In any case in which we made an adverse decision, we felt that there were reasonable grounds for that belief; yes, sir. Although, as I say, I am not familiar with the hearing before the Appeals Board.

Mr. BUSBEY. But, do you not see what happens when they appeal to the Loyalty Review Board? In the case of the three individuals out of your Department and also that of Mr. William Remington, they go on this one sentence here.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DENTON. Could you tell us the nature of the work that these three employees did? Would you be able to do that?

Mr. SHANE. I am sorry; under the President's directive I cannot talk about work assignments. I will say this, sir. As I pointed out, the ones we have been reversed on are well insulated.

Mr. DENTON. They are what?

Mr. SHANE. They are well insulated.

Mr. DENTON. Were they major positions or minor positions? Mr. SHANE. Minor to medium.

Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Shane.

BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS

WITNESSES

WILLIAM L. CONNOLLY, DIRECTOR

WILLIAM G. MARKS, CHIEF, DIVISION OF SAFETY STANDARDS
K. VERNON BANTA, TECHNICAL ADVISER, PRESIDENT'S COM-
MITTEE ON NATIONAL EMPLOY THE PHYSICALLY HANDI-
CAPPED WEEK

BEATRICE MCCONNELL, CHIEF, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE STAND-
ARDS AND STATE SERVICES

ELIZABETH JOHNSON, CHIEF, DIVISION OF CHILD LABOR AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

JAMES E. DODSON, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. FOGARTY. The committee has before it the Bureau of Labor Standards. Mr. Connolly, do you have a statement?

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would like to follow the usual policy where I make a very short statement and let each of the chiefs make a statement and then answer any questions which might come up from the committee. We are not asking for any increases in our program as you will note, but we have been working with other agencies in attempting to develop it to the point where it can serve the increased demands made upon it by the stepping up of our defense program.

Now, while we believe that this is a very important peacetime activity, it becomes more important in times such as the present defense emergency.

We have talked to the Defense Department and have made an agreement with them that we will handle industrial safety work between our two agencies.

Mr. FOGARTY. If I may interrupt for the benefit of the new members of the committee, I think it might be well to briefly state just what your activity is in the Department of Labor.

ACTIVITIES OF THE BUREAU

Mr. CONNOLLY. Our activity first is safety under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, and under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act. We have a safety section there.