1950 and some branches of the Maritime Com- mission. I shall not attempt to present a de- tailed case on each one, a case which would convince a jury. All I am doing is to develop sufficient evidence so that anyone who reads the Recorp will have a@ good idea of the number of Commu- nists in the State Department. While I consider them all important, there are three big Communists involved, and I cannot possibly conceive of any Secretary of State allowing those three big Communists, who are tremendously important and of great value to Russia, to remain in the State Department. I do not believe President Truman knows about them. I cannot help but feel that he is merely the prisoner of a bunch of twisted intellectuals who tell him what they want him to know. To those who say, “Why do you not tell the State De- partment; why do you not give the names to the State Department?” I say that ev- erything I have here is from the State Department’s own files. I felt, when the State Department asked for the names, without being willing to cooperate or to work with us, it was saying, “Tip us off; let us know on whom you have the goods.” Case No. 1. The names are available. The Senators may have them if they care for them. I think, however, it would be improper to make the names public until the appropriate Senate com- mittee can meet in executive session and get them. I have approximately 81 cases. I do not claim to have any tre- mendous investigative agency to get the facts, but if I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Commu- nist, I think it would be too bad. How- ever, the names are here. I shall be glad to abide by the decision of the Sen- ate after it hears the cases, but I think the sensible thing to do would be to have an executive session and have a proper committee go over the whole situation. I was very happy to hear the Senator from Massachusetts say that he would move that the Foreign Relations Com- mittee appoint a subcommittee to go into the cases. The man involved in case No. 1 is em- ployed in the office of an Assistant Sec- retary of State. The intelligence unit shadowed him and found him contact- ing members of an espionage group. A memorandum of December 13, 1946, in- dicates that he succeeded in having a well-known general intervene with an Assistant Secretary in behalf of one man who is an active Communist with a long record of Communist Party connections. There is another individual who is very closely tied up with a Soviet espionage agency. There is nothing in the file to indicate that the general re- ferred to knew those two individuals were Communists. That is a part of the usual modus operandi. If there is one Communist in the Department, he will get some other individual to recommend another Com- munist so that the breed can be in- creased. This individual was successful In ob- taining important positions for other CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Communists. They were finally ordered removed from the Department not later than November 15 of the following year. Subsequent to that time, however, both of them still had access to secret ma- terial. A memorandum of November 2, 1946, pointed out that this individual and the previously mentioned Communists whom he succeeded in having placed were con- nected with an alleged Russian espion- age agency. Nevertheless, this individ- ual still occupies an important position in the State Department. I should like to point out at this time, however, that the security group, which was then oper- ating in the State Department, was ap- parently doing a good job. It presented the entire picture to the Secretary of State. This individual who, the inves- tigative agency of the State Department says, is a Communist, got a general in- nocently to bring two other Communists into the State Department, and he is today in the State Department and has access to the secret material. As I say, his name js certainly available to any Senate committee that wants it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Will the Senator tell us the name of the man for the record? We are entitled to know who he is. I say this in all seriousness. The Senate and the public are entitled to know who that man is, as a result of the charge made by my friend. If he is a Commu- nist, the Senator from Wisconsin knows that the Senator from Illinois will go right along with the Senator from Wis- consin. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator can come to my office as soon as I finish and receive the names. I intend to go through all the cases. If it is the judg- ment of the Senate that it wants the names exposed on the Senate floor, which would be a very unusual proced- ure, I shall be glad to expose them. The question is too important for either the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Wisconsin to make the decision. If any Senate committee is actually inter- ested in disclosing the names—— Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LANGER. The Committee on the Judiciary has been investigating commu- nism more than half the year. I think the Senator from Wisconsin ts entirely correct. We have never made a name public unless we had the consent of J. Edgar Hoover. I, for one, want to be recorded as absolutely agreeing with the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- tor from North Dakota. The Senator from Illinois knows there is nothing secret about the names that he cannot have. I do not like this po- litical byplay. If we continue as we have been going, the next war will be lost before we start. I heard a commen- tator last night say that Russia has 1,200 divisions, and he stated that there were 54,000 troops in Albania, indicat- ing that Russia is about to start the fighting part of the next war, 1959 It ts tremendously important that we clean out the espionage ring in our State Department. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yiela?- Mr.McCARTHY. No. I cannot yield at this time. This is a case to which I particularly invite the Senate’s attention. The files show two very interesting facts. A major portion of the file was removed. Papers refer to information in the file which is nonexistent. Upon contact with the keeper of the records, he stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the major portion of the file had been re- moved. He did not mention any name, but he said, ‘“‘He was put in some high- brass job about 2 years ago.” I am inclined to think that this indi- vidual’s name may be known from the information which I shall give here. The file shows two things. It shows, first, that this individual had some of his clothing picked up, with unusual ma- terial in it, and, second—and this is im- portant—it shows that the State Depart- ment and the President had prepared material which was to be sent to a for- eign government. The file shows that before the material left the State Depart- ment it was in the hands of the Kremlin in Moscow. Do Senators follow me? The State Department’s own investiga- tive file shows that some secret material, which was being transmitted to another nation, before it even left this country for the other country, showed up in Mos- cow. So far, that is not too significant, However, the file shows that this particu- lar individual, who has held one of the most important positions at one of the listening posts in Europe, was shadowed, that he was found to have contacted a Soviet agent, and that the Soviet agent was then followed to the Soviet Embassy, where the agent turned the material over to the Soviet Embassy. Do Senators fol- low me? This is what the secret State Department file shows: First, the papers get to Moscow in some mysterious man- ner, and, second, this individual, who is now one of our foreign ministers, con- tacts a Russian espionage agent, and that agent is followed to the Russian Embassy, where the material is handed over. This is no secret to the State De- partment. Incidentally, I might say that I prom- ised the press I would have copies of this material for their use. However, in view of the fact that I have nothing com- pletely ready at this time, and must re- fer to the documents before me, which I cannot turn over to the press, I do not have anything to give them. I am sorry. I shall try, however, to give them now the material I have, and shall try to make the dates and places as clear as I can. Case No. 8. This individual was born in Flushing, N, Y., in 1903. He was em- ployed with OSS in 1942. In 1945 he was transferred to the State Department and assigned to Research and Intelli- gence. The State Department’s file shows that he is a member of a number of Communist-front organizations, and that his pals are known Communists. The file further shows that this fact is admitted by him. The original report in
1960 which this information is contained 1s dated July 3, 1942. The security report of April 18, 1946, indicates that numer- ous witnesses, including college profes- sors and police officers in California, tes- tified he was a radical and a fellow trav- eler. He was very friendly and sym- pathetic toward Harry Bridges, and strongly opposed any move to deport ‘Bridges. The report also shows that he was also a close friend of Ralph Fried- man, secretary of the Communist Party in California. Another security report, dated November 13, 1946, quotes his as- sociates as saying that he favored the Chinese Communists in China and fa- vored Russia in most respects. The State Department officials them- selves, according to this report, describe him as being overly sympathetic to Rus- sia and the Communist experiment. This is all a part of the report. Another Government official said the individual frequently blamed the capitalists for all the trouble in Russia, and constantly praised Russia as the ideal. So far as I know, everything in this individual's file indicates that he is actively working with and for the Communists. Case No. 4. The individual came to the United States from Hungary in 1944. He was employed as a translator and script writer for OWI, and later by the Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs. The report of January 3, 1947, indicates that he is an active member of a Communist front organiza- tion, and that he lost his former job be- cause of his constant arguments in favor of communism. A former employer, ac- cording to the file, stated that this in- dividual boasted of being a member of the Communist Party. A third inform- ant also stated that this individual boasted of his Communist connections and argued that communism was su- perior to democracy. The fourth in- formant said that he constantly argued politics, and that communism was the ideal system for this country. Two of the references on his application for citizenship were members of at least one Communist-front organization and con- tributors to Communist periodicals. An- other reference refused to recommend him, questioning his loyalty, and saying that he was a Communist. Another ref- erence, of April 24, 1947, showed that this employee's supervisor in the State De- partment felt he was a fellow-traveler. This individual has been contributing to the Hungarian Communist magazine, N. O. K. Various memoranda and reports by the State Department Security Agency in the files indicate that no one was found to question this employee’s com- munistic connection and beliefs. Case No. 5. This case serves as a very good example of the failure on the part of the State Department to take any ac- tion even after conclusive evidence of a person's Communist activity was shown by the State Department’s own security agency. He was born in North Carolina in 1900. He was employed by the For- eign Economic Administration from August 1942, to August 1945, and was then transferred to the State Depart- ment and placed on Research and In- telligence. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE I should like to call attention, Mr. President, to the number of these in- dividuals who succeeded in getting into Research and Intelligence. Research and Intelligence, the Voice of America, and Far Eastern Affairs seem to be the three prime targets. The report dated May 4, 1946, in this man’s file shows that eight persons, in- cluding six college professors at Harvard University and the University of Cali- fornia, agreed that this individual has strong communistic leanings, and that in their opinion he was either a card- carrying member of the Communist Party or a fellow-traveler. That is the opinion of six professors at Harvard Uni- versity and the University of California. Some of the opinions expressed by his associates might well be read. A professor at the University of California stated that he was acquainted with this individual since September 1937; that he did not trust him; he con- sidered him in the class of Harry Bridges; that under no circumstances would he hire him, and also that there was some- thing about him that aroused his intui- tion, and caused him to be afraid of his outside connections, and under no cir- cumstances would he recommend him to the Government. A fellow student stated that he had known him since 1939 and that he knew him definitely as a Communist; that he felt that this individual was get- ting money from the Communist Party, and the other students did also, because they would say that this individual was not preaching communism for his health, but that it was a business with him; that he would not recommend this individual to the Government because he feels that he is a Communist. This individual was discharged from a Navy school during the war for bad grades and for Communist activities. A memorandum, dated May 15, 1946, trom CSA to the Office of Controls, states that an “investigation discloses evidence of a material nature tending to affect ad- versely the loyalty to the United States and its institutions.” This report re- veals that this individual is unmistake- ably identified with communistic activi- ties. While the records of the Bureau of Naval Personnel show that he was given a special order discharge in March 27, 1942, under honorable conditions, evi- dence in his file, all of which is, of course, available to the Secretary of State, re- veals that he was discharged because it was found that he was an ardent student of and advocate of communism. A report, dated March 25, 1947, indi- cates that this individual had been re- ceiving mail from the Soviet Embassy, as well as communistic publications. An official of a Washington, D. C. univer- sity stated that he had hired this indi- vidual to conduct a class in Chinese, but later learned that he was closely con- nected with communistic groups on the west coast. Four members of the faculty at the University of California confirmed this individual’s communistic leanings. All of the above information was brought. to the attention of the top officials in the State Department in a memorandum summarizing the case in 1947, with the recommendation that he be immediately FEBRUARY 20 discharged. The State Department re- fused to discharge him because it was not proven that he had committed any overt act. Subsequent to this time, this individual argued often and heatedly in favor of a Communist regime in China. He admitted having been a subscriber to the Daily Worker. Let me repeat for the benefit of the Senate, the State Department refused to discharge this individual because he had not been shown to have committed any overt act, despite the fact that the State Department’s own security agency had in a report stated that he was unmistak- ably identified with communistic activi- ties; despite the fact that he had been dicharged from a Navy school because he was an ardent student and advocate of communistic doctrine; despite the fact that he had been receiving mail from the Soviet Embassy, as well as being a subscriber to the Daily Worker; despite the fact that six professors at Harvard and the University of California agreed that he was a “party member or fellow traveler’; despite the fact that a fellow student who knew him well stated that he would not recommend him for a job in the Government because of his commu- nistic activities. This man, the State Department says, must be kept on be- cause he has committed no ‘‘overt” act. The State Department’s own Security Board then submitted four subsequent reports, the first one dated September 12, 1947, in an attempt to convince the Department that this man was danger- ous and should be discharged. Subse- quently this man’s position was abol- ished. However, he was not discharged. Listen to this. His position was abol- ished, but what happened then? He was transferred to the Division of Research, replacing an employee who, so far as I can learn, had an excellent record, and whose loyalty was in no way questioned. This in spite of the fact that a State Department official who knew him and worked with him in China as well as in this country, said he was—and this is what a State Department official said about this man, whom the Department refused to discharge, whom they shifted over to another job where he bumped another worker—the State Department official said he was mediocre, dull, and incompetent. So his only qualification was his communistic connections. This same State Department official said, “This is the only man in the Government of whom I would speak unfavorably.” Keep in mind that under the McCar- ran bill, a very wise piece of legislation, the Secretary of State has the absolute unquestioned right to discharge a man of this kind. So the Secretary could have discharged him as first recom- mendcd. Four times bluntly they have said, ‘‘Get rid of this man.” His superior officer says he is dull and incompetent, but for some reason or other he is still kept on. Another State Department official said that he considered this individual ex- tremely weak as to ability. I believe it is unnecessary to comment on the atti- tude of the State Department in this case. Certainly it is an attitude which frightens me and bodes ill for the future of the United States.
1950 Another one is case No. 6. This indi- vidual is with the Division of Central Services. A security report dated De- cember 81, 1946, describes her as being “pink” and as advocating that we substi- tute conditions in Russia for those in the United States. She takes a very active part in the conferences of the UPWA, which has been picked up by the CIO, actively opposed the President’s loyalty order, but has been given top secret clearance. This individual has a right to see all the top secret documents. Case No. 7. This individual was an associate business economist to August 1944; with FEA from August 1944 to August 1945, and then transferred to the State Department as an economist. This individual is a member of the Young Communist League. He was affili- ated with four other organizations which are named by the Attorney Gen- eral as having been Communist fronts. This individual admits membership in the Young Communists, and in the other Communist-front organizations, but claims to have changed his view since that time, and therefore was given top secret clearance by the State Depart- ment. I may say incidentally I am using the pronoun “he” in all these cases, al- though some of the individuals are not of the male sex. Case No. 8. This individual was born in New York City in 1918. He was em- ployed as an economist and analyst with the OSS in the State Department from June 1945. Previous to that time he worked for the War Production Board. He was assigned again to Research and Intelligence in the State Department. This man, according to the State De- partment files, was an active member of a@ number of Communist-front organiza- tions, was a very close friend of several men who are under suspicion by the FBI of being connected with Russian espio- nage cases and has two brothers who have been openly working for the Com- munist Party. I may say that I know that some of these individuals whose cases I am giving the Senate are no longer in the State Department. A sizable number of them are not. Some of them have transferred to other Government work, work allied with the State Department. Others have been transferred to the United Na- tions. But I think the cases are im- portant whenever we find that an indi- vidual, despite his Communist connec- tions, has been given top-secret clear- ance. That gives an idea what is going on, Here is one which I think the Senate will enjoy: Case No. 9. This individual, after in- vestigation, was not given security clear- ance by the State Department. After failing to obtain clearance by the State Department he secured a job in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. And where do Senators think that man is today? He is now a speech writer in the White House. That is case No.9. I will secure a little more information on that case if I may. So that there may be no question about this, we will refer directly to the investi- gative file. I think Iam doing Mr. Tru- man a favor by telling him this, I do CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE not think he knows it. Ido not think he would have this individual there writing speeches for him if he knew it. Both the individual referred to and his wife—this is in the file of the investi- gative agency—are members of Com- munist-front organizations. He has a relative who has a financial interest in the Daily Worker. But in any event the State Department used good judgment not to clear this individual. Case No. 10. This individual is in the Biographical Information Division of the State Department. Her husband signed -a Communist Party election petition, stating he was a member thereof. She is active in the UPWA. The mere fact that her husband was a Communist may not make her a Communist, but she also has been given top secret clearance. Case No. 11. This individual was an analyst in OSS from July 1943 to August 1945, and was employed in the Division of Map Intelligence in the State Depart- ment after August 1945. He is a close pal of a known Communist and has stated it would be a good idea if the Communists would take over in this country. He isa regular reader of the Daily Worker. This individual is not in the State De- partment at this time, but has a job in the CIA as of today. Here is what we find. Such individuals use the State Department as a stepping stone to some other agency. This man, who pals around with Communists, who is satis- fled, according to the files of the State Department, that Communists should take over this country, is now in the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency. Case No. 12. This individual started as a corresponding secretary at the White House. From there he moved over to the Soviet Embassy and obtained a job as assistant editor. From there he transferred to the State Department and, so far as I can discover, transferred from there to a section of the Commerce De- partment, with which the State Depart- ment works, where he remained until several months ago. Where he is as of today I frankly do not know. I think this is a rather interesting shift, however, from White House to the Soviet Em- bassy, to the State Department, to the Commerce Department. Case No. 13. This individual is a for- eign reserve officer under the informa- tion and cultural program. He was ap- pointed to this position in September 1947, and assigned to Milan, Italy, where he took part in the educational program. This individual spent time in Soviet Rus- sia in 1927 as a member of the trade- unions delegation to Soviet Russia, which delegation was repudiated by Wil- liam Green, president of the A. F. of L. He was the sponsor, organizer, and mem- ber, respectively, of various Communist- front organizations. He has been cited by the Daily Worker a number of times for his work. The records of the indus- trial detail of the Chicago police depart- ment list him as a Communist as early as 1930. This man’s file shows that mem- bers of the churches in Italy and high officials of the National Catholic Welfare Council objected to his being assigned to educational duties in Italy, basing this objection upon his communistic activi- ties, Lt. Col. Gayre, of the British Army, 1961 who was this individual’s supervisor in Italy, indicated that he was a “wild left- ist theorist,” who would veer entirely to the left if given the opportunity. This in- dividual is described as a pedantic, tedi- ous, conceited, impractical, pompous man, and this applies to so many of them, a man who would enjoy the pleas- mes of the right, but popularity with the eft. Case No. 14. This is a case of pressure from a high State Department official to obtain security clearance for an indi- vidual with a bad background from the standpoint of security. He was ap- pointed in December 1945 as a translator in the State Department. This is an interesting case showing the extent to which some of their superior officers will go when they find that some of these very unusual individuals are go- ing to lose their jobs. He was appointed in December 1945 as a translator in the State Department. A report from an- other Government investigating agency under date of January 9, 1946, advised that the subject should be dismissed as a bad security risk because he was flagrantly homosexual. He had ex- tremely close connections with other in- dividuals with the same tendencies, and who were active members of Communist- front organizations, including the Young Communist League. I think this is interesting, Mr. Presi- dent. I asked one of our top intelligence men in Washington, one day, “Why do you find men who are so fanatically Com- munist? Is there something about the Communist philosophy that attracts them?” He said, “Senator McCartHy, if you had been in this work as long as we have been, you would realize that there is something wrong with each one of these individuals. You will find that practi- cally every active Communist is twisted mentally or physically in some way.” The State Department’s own security agency recommended the discharge of this employee on January 22, 1946. On February 19, 1946, this individual's serv- ices were terminated with the State De- partment. Subsequently on April 1, 1946, the action discharging this indi- vidual was rescinded and he was rein- stated in his job in the State Depart- ment. In this case a CSA report of September 2, 1947, is replete with infor- mation covering the attempt of a high State Department official to induce sev- eral individuals who had signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employee to repudiate their affidavits. The file shows that that high State Department employee even went out and personally contacted the individuals who signed the affidavits, and asked them, “Won't you repudiate them?” This individual, according to the secu- rity files of the State Department, was a very close associate of active Soviet agents. As to whether he is in the State Department at this time or not, I frankly do not know, but in view of the fact that he was reinstated, I assume that he is. A while ago the Senator from Nebraska asked whether I would yield while he suggested the absence of a quorum, I shall be glad to do so now, However, if
1962 the Senator thinks it is not possible to obtain a quorum at this time—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me at this time, let me say to the majority leader that I do not wish to disrupt the program. I wish to cooperate with the majority leader 1n carrying on the session. I said then, and I say now, that these charges are very serious. If there is a desire to have a quorum call now, I shall be glad to have one. Mr. McCARTHY. I may say that I have just received a note that the ma- jority leader—I am not criticizing him for doing so—has informed all Senators on his side of the aisle that there will not be a vote tonight, and that there is no reason for Senators to remain here, and that there will be no quorum call. I assume he did not do that because he did not want Senators on his side of the aisle to hear the charges. I assume he merely wanted to give them an oppor- tunity to go to dinner. However, I have no desire to present what I regard as important information before a half- empty Senate. On the other hand, if the majority leader thinks there is not a possibility of obtaining a quorum, because of the advice given to Senators on his side of the aisle, I shall be glad to yield for a motion to take a recess until tomorrow. In other words, I do not agree to hav- ing the majority dismissed by the ma- jority leader. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, I told Senators that there would not be a vote tonight upon the cotton bill which is the pend- ing question. Had I known that there would have been any question about a quorum call, I certainly would have had Senators remain here, to be present to answer to a quorum call, if not to listen to the Senator’s address. We have now continued until 7:30 in the cvening. In view of the statement about having a night session and in view of the work that is before us, I had hoped that the Senator from Wisconsin would conclude his remarks tonight. If he does not conclude his remarks tonight, but expects to resume them to- morrow, he certainly will not have any time then, because of the unanimous consent agreement which has been en- tered in regard to a vote at 3 o’clock on Senate bill 75. Mr. McCARTHY. Let me inquire of the majority leader whether the infor- mation I have received is correct. Did the Senator advise Senators on his side of the aisle that there was no reason for them to remain, that he would assure them there would be no quorum call and no vote? Mr. LUCAS. I did not assure them that there would be no quorum call, All that Senators on this side of the aisle asked me was whether there would be a vote tonight. I said, “No,” that the Senator from Wisconsin was going to take the floor, and probably would occupy the floor for 4 or 5 hours, as I had been informed; and I said, “I will stay here, and I hope everyone else who wants to hear the Senator will stay here as he dis- cusses this very important question.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE But so far as a vote was concerned, I advised all Senators who asked me, and I advised the minority leader so that he could advise Senators on his side of the aisle, that there would be no vote on the pending question tonight. But I certainly hope the Senator from Wisconsin will proceed, because he is making a very important address, and the country is interested in it, and what few Senators are here now are interested in it; and I doubt whether there will be more Senators here day after tomorrow than are present now. At this time I see another Senator returning to the Chamber after having had his dinner. I know he is very much interested in the question the Senator from Wisconsin is discussing. The Sen- ator from Oregon has just reentered the Chamber, and I know he is trying to swell the attendance of Senators here @ little. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr, But- LER | 1s also reentering the Chamber now, I observe. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Wisconsin will yield once again, 10 or 12 Senators are in the Chamber at this time, several on the other side, and some on this side, who are staying here to be helpful to the Senator from Wisconsin. But I appeal to the Senator in regard to what I regard as the only logical thing to do. I do not wish to be in the position of forcing the ma- jority leader to call a quorum. I do know that the majority leader has told Members on both sides of the aisle, in my presence, that there would not be a@ vote tonight on the pending question. He did so with good intentions, namely, to state that there would not be a vote tonight on the potato issue. But he knows, as I do, that when such statements are made, attendance in the Senate Chamber decreases, and 1t is very difficult to proceed with a night session under such circumstances. I do not feel in a position to instruct the majority leader, in view of the other announcement. However, we are to have a vote tomor- row at 4 o’clock; and after that, of course, we can take up anything that it is desired to take up. This is an important matter, and there might be a demand to learn all the facts. I think the Senator from Wisconsin is presenting a serious challenge, and I think it desirable to have all Senators present, if possible, to hear his remarks. I do not insist upon having a quorum call. I doubt very much whether we could obtain a quorum, and I do not want to take advantage of the parlia- mentary situation. But I say, in all fair- ness, that as soon as the Senator reaches a point where he can conveniently sus- pend his remarks until tomorrow—— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I shall not be as careful of the majority leader’s feelings as the minority leader is. I shall suggest the absence of a quorum, unless the Senator wishes to move that the Senate take a recess until tomorrow. I think it is very unusual, in view of the Senator’s declaration of his interest in this subject, for the majority leader to FEBRUARY 20 dismiss Senators on his side of the aisle or encourage them to leave the Chamber. I think the subject now under dis- cussion is one in which the Democrats should be especially interested. As the Senator from Ilinois knows, unless something is done to clean up the State Department, the Democratic Party is going to be identified with that group. I think that is wrong. I think there are too many fine Democrats in this country and too many fine Democrats in the Sen- ate, on the Democratic side of the aisle, to permit the Democratic Party to be identified with the group I have been dis- cussing. I think Democratic Senators should be as much interested as we on this side of the aisle are in cleaning up that situation. But I do not like the information I have received, namely, that the Senator from Illinois has advised all Senators on his side of the aisle to leave. If the information I have received is not cor- rect, I should like to know it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. LUCAS. It is customary here, as the Senator from Wisconsin knows, that when Members of the Senate inquire whether there is to be a vote on the pending question at a certain time, if it is known that there is not to be a vote at that time, the reply is “No.” Of course, immediately such Senators leave, es the Senator knows; and no doubt the Sen- ator from Wisconsin himself has done that many times since he has been a Member of the Senate. Whenever the minority leader tells Senators on his side of the aisle that there is not going to be a vote on the pending question, they do not usually remain to hear the speech of the Senator from Wisconsin or the speech of the Senator from Illinois on any subject, regardless of how important it may be. The Senator from Wisconsin should not think he has any monopoly on fight- ing communism in this country, and he cannot by implication or by innuendo attack the Senator from Illinois with re- spect to cleaning out the State Depart- ment. I have told the Senator before, and I repeat it now, that whenever the Senator names names and presents con- clusive information before the proper committees, or if he will do it now before the Senate, if he desires, and if what he says is substantiated, I will go arm in arm with my good friend the Senator from Wisconsin in assisting in cleaning out any Communist nests in the State Department or in any other branch of the Government. The Senator from Wisconsin knows me well enough to know that I was fighting communism long before the Senator from Wisconsin was, because I am several years older than he is. But the matter is so important that it seems to me we should have this entire story now. Let us get all the information and all the facts in the Recorp at this particular time; and the Senator can, by unanimous consent, offer and introduce into the ReEcorp anything he wishes to. Let him put all of it in, and then ask for a meet- ing, either before a special committee of some kind or before the Foreign Rela-
1950 tions Committee or the Judiclary Com- mittee, and go thoroughly into the things the Senator is talking about. I am all for that, I say to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator agree with me that in view of the facts that I have presented, it is absolutely necessary that we have a com- plete and thorough investigation of this matter by a Senate committee? Mr. LUCAS. Iam in favor of a com- plete and thorough investigation of what the Senator has said; and I hope the Foreign Relations Committee or some other committee will bring the Senator immediately before it and will interro- gate him under oath with respect to what he has presented here. The Senator should name names before that commit- tee, because he has said-— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Sena- tor yielded to me. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. LUCAS. I will get a quorum, if that is the case. Mr. McCARTHY. If the Senator feels that he will embarrass Senators on his side of the aisle by calling a quorum, I will yield while he moves that the Senate take a recess until tomorrow. Let me say this, Mr. President, in view of the attitude of the Senator from Illinois, who last week, before he knew any of the evidence, went to Chicago, where he said, “Senator McCartny is lying; there is not a single Communist in the State Department.” Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I—— Mr. McCARTHY. Wait a minute, let me finish. He said there was not a word of truth in what I said. He said if he had said what I said about there being 57 Communists in the State De- partment, he would be ashamed the rest of his life. He now seems to think this should be made a trial of the man who is digging out the Communists, instead of the Communists. If we are to in- dulge in such tactics I want the entire Senate present to hear it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I will move to recess until tomorrow, if the Senate wishes that to be done. Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. DWORSHAK. So far as the junior Senator from Idaho is concerned, he has been glad to remain on the floor to listen to these important revelations of the Senator from Wisconsin, because the Senator from Wisconsin, in his re- marks, has shed some light upon the rossible reasons for the State Depart- ment’s foreign policy in China during the past few years, which possibly justi- fied the infiltration of communism with- in China, to such an extent that it may now be too late to present this very vital information to one of the committees of the Senate. It is too late now to counteract and nullify that insidious State Department influence, through scores and scores of Communists and fellow travelers who have been respon- sible, even under Secretaries of State like General Marshall We realize that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE only recently J. Edgar Hoover made the public statement that in this country today there are 540,000 Communists and fellow travelers. So I think, the Amer- ican people are entitled to have a com- plete exposure of the forces within the State Department. If there is no truth or justification in what the junior Sena- tor from Wisconsin has been telling this body this evening, then the American people should know the truth. But at a time when every American recognizes that we are at the mercy of sabotaging by those who have been placed on high levels in the State Department and other branches of the executive department, it behooves us not only to spend $13,000,- 000,000 or $14,000,000,000 annually on the national defense, but it is the duty, the obligation—I believe the American people join with me in making the state- ment that it is the obligation—of the President of the United States, who is alone responsible for the selection of these officials, through the Secretary of State, to make a housecleaning, so that we may proceed to build up the security and defenses of the country, to the end that we may be prepared, in case we should be the victims of Communist aggression in the months ahead. I wish to compliment the junior Sen- ator from Wisconsin on the revelations he is making at this time. Notwith- standing the fact that there are entirely too few Members of this body present, it is encouraging to note that so many members of the press and radio galleries are present. I believe they recognize that the American people want the facts, though, even now, it may be too late to clean our house of the rats and saboteurs who are a constant menace to the safety of the Republic. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- tor. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. No; I do not yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator declines to yield. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I have decided it may be well to complete the presentation of the case tonight, but I am not going to speak to an empty chamber. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum, and then proceed to develop all the facts. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Secretary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hayden McClellan The Anderson Hendrickson McFarland Butler Ives Murray Cordon Johnson, Colo Robertson Darby Kerr Smith, Main Donnell Lehman Sparkman Dworshak Lucas Wherry Ecton McCarthy Williams The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is not present. The clerk will call the names of the absent Senators. The legislative clerk called the names of the absent Senators: and Mr. CarE- Hart, Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. Hory, Mr. Hot- LAND, Mr. Morss, Mr. RusseLi, and Mr. ScuorppPer answered to their names when called. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is not present. 1963 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, much as I dislike to do this, I presume that I shall be compelled to make a motion to ad- journ. I have not made it yet-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that debate is not in order. Mr. LUCAS. I shall not debate; I shall only make a statement. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, un- less I can make a statement also, I shall call for the regular order. If the Sena- tor from Illinois is going to make a state- ment, I want an opportunity to answer him. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Sena- tors. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. After a little delay, Mr. LANGER, Mr. Cain, Mr. Lonc, Mr. STENNIS, and Mr. Ki.GcorE entered the Chamber and an- swered to their names. Mr. LUCAS. I move that the Senate adjourn until 11 o’clock a. m. tomorrow, Mr. CAIN and other Senators re- quested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered; and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KILGORE. I find from reading the newspapers that the wet season is driving the pintails north. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, what is the result? Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. President, what is the result of the vote? Mr.CORDON. Mr. President, how am I recorded as voting? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recorded as vot- ing in the affirmative. Mr. CORDON. I vote “nay.” Mr. IVES. What is the result, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk is still tallying. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp], the Senator from Ihnois [Mr. Dovuctas], the Senator from North Caro- lina [Mr. GraHam], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey], the Sena- tor from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers], the Senator from Florida (Mr. Peprer], and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typ- INGS] are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas) is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senators from Connecticut [Mr. Benton and Mr. McManon], the Sen- ators from Kentucky IMr. CHAPMAN and Mr. Wituers!l, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. CuHavez], the Senators from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY and Mr, JOHNSON] the Senator from California (Mr. Downey], the Senators from Mis- sissippi {Mr. EastLanp and Mr. STENNIs], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr, ELLEN- pER], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Frear], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GrorcE], the Senator from Iowa IMr, Guerre], the Senators from Rhode
1964 Island (Mr. Green and Mr. LEaHy],.the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Hitu], the Senators from Wyoming [Mr. Hunt and Mr. O’Manoney], the Senators from South Carolina (Mr. JoHnston and Mr. Maygank}, the Senators from Tennessee (Mr. Kerauver and Mr. McKetrar], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNU- son], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran], the Senator from West Vir- ginia |Mr. NeEeLy], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O’Conor], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. TaYtor], and the Sen- ator from Utah [Mr. Tuomas] are un- avoidably detained. Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BripcEs! and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YounG! are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HicKeEn- LOOPER] is absent on official business. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG | {is necessarily absent. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Brew- STER], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Bricker], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Butirr!, the Senator from Vermont (Mr. FLanpERs], the Senator from Cali- fornia [Mr. Know.anp], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Matonel, the Senator from Pennsylvania {Mr. Martin], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIx1n], the Senator from South Dakota IMr. Munpr], the Senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. SaLTONSTALL], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SmitH], the Sena- tor from Minnesota [Mr. THyE], and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] are detained on official business. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. FEr- Guson]1, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Gurney], the Senator from Indiana (Mr. JENNER], the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem], the Senator from Massachu- setts {Mr. Lonce], the Senator from New Hampshire |Mr. Tospey], and the Senator from Utah [Mr. Watkrns] are absent on public business. The result was announced—yeas 16, nays 18, as follows: YEAS—16 Fulbright Kilgore Murray Hayden Lehman Robertson Hoey Long Russell Holland Lucas Sparkman Johnson, Colo. McClellan Kerr McFarland NAYS—18 Alken Dworshak Morse Cain Ecton Schoeppel Capehart Hendrickson Smith, Maine Cordon Ives Taft Darby Langer Wherry Donnell McCarthy Williams NOT VOTING—62 Anderson Gurney Mundt Benton Hickenlooper Myers Brewster Hil Neely Bricker Humphrey O'Conor Bridges Hunt O'Mahoney Butler Jenner Pepper Byrd Johnson, Tex, Saltonstall Chapman Johnston, 8.C. Smith, N. J. Chavez Kefauver Stennis Connally Kem Taylor Douglas Knowland Thomas, Okla. Downey Leahy Thomas, Utah Eastland Lodge Thye Ellender McCarran Tobey Ferguson McKellar Tydings Flanders McMahon Vandenberg Frear Magnuson Watkins George Malone Wiley Gillette Martin Withers Graham Meybank Young Green Millikin CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mo- tion to adjourn is rejected. Mr. TAFT. A point of order, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. TAFT. If there is not a quorum present the vote is obviously invalid. Mr. LUCAS. Not on this motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. May the Chair state that no quorum {fs needed on a motion to adjourn. Mr. LUCAS. I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to compel the at- tendance of absent Senators. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. After a further delay, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. McKe.zar, Mr. BREWSTER, and Mr. ELLENDER entered the Chamber and an- swered to their names. Later, Mr. BENTON, Mr. Bricker, Mr. Downey, Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. FLANDERS, Mr. Frear, Mr. GILLETTE, Mr. GREEN, Mr. Hitt, Mr. Hunt, Mr. JouNnsoN of Texas, Mr. KNOWLAND, Mr. LeaHy, Mr. Magnuson, Mr. MarTIN, Mr. McManon, Mr. Munopt, Mr. NEeEty, Mr. O’Manoney, Mr. SmitH of New Jersey, Mr. STennIs, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. THOMAS of Utah, Mr. THYE, Mr. WatKINS, Mr. Witey, and Mr. WITHERS also entered the Chamber and answered to their names. The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, do I have the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I be- lieve I have the floor. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. LUCAS. Was there unanimous consent given to the Senator from Wis- consin {Mr. McCartHy] to occupy the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no unanimous consent granted. Mr. LUCAS. Then, Mr. President, I demand recognition. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. McCARTHY. Do I not have the floor? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that so long as a point of order is not made against the Sena- tor from Wisconsin, he would be entitled tg the floor. Mr. LUCAS. I make the point of or- der, Mr. President, and I ask for recog- nition. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. McCARTHY. Is it not too late to make the point of order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the Sen- ator from Illinois is recognized, Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I appeal from the decision of the Chair, - President, a FEBRUARY 20 Mr. MORSE, Mr. SMITH of New Jer- sey, and other Senators asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I will withdraw the point of order if the Sen- ator from Wisconsin wants the floor. Mr. McCARTHY. I should be glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. I shall speak on my own time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order has been withdrawn. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Fresident, for the benefit of those Members of the Sen- ate who were not present earlier in the evening, I have given detailed records of certain individuals in the State De- partment who have very definite com- munistic connections. I explained to the Senate earlier in the evening that I would not take the time to make out a court case against each person referred to. Iam pointing out facts so that there may be a convening of one of the appro- priate committees to make a thorough investigation. As I explained earlier, there is a serious question whether I should disclose names to the Senate. I frankly feel, in view of the number of cases—there are 81 cases—that it would be a mistake to publicly disclose the names on the floor. I shall be willing, happy, and eager to go before any committee and give the names and all the information available. I shall refuse to give the source of the information, however. I know the State Department is very eager to know how I have secured all this information. I know that the jobs of the men who helped me secure this material would be worth nothing if the names were given. If it were not for some good, loyal Ameri- cans in the State Department—and there are many of them—I should not have been able to present this picture to the Senate tonight. The vast majority of the employees of the State Department are loyal, and I think the President should see to it that their good names are not tarnished. I told the Senate earlier this evening that I have what I call the Big Three, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 81. I feel that if those individuals are removed from the State Department we shall have gone a considerable distance in breaking the back of the espionage ring in the State Department. I also told the Senate earlier that I have no way of knowing definitely which of these persons are still in the employ of the State Department. I know they have all been there at some time. A sizable number is still there. Case No. 16. This individual's file is perhaps the largest, physically, of the files in the CSA. Among other things, the file reflects that this individual fur- nished material to known Sovict espio- nage agents and that he had constant contacts with a long list of Communists and suspected Soviet agents. On July 24, 1946, a recommendation of dismissal was made. Nothing was done. In Sep- tember 1946 there was a request for further information, even though at that time the records showed that he was furnishing secret material to known __. Communist agents.
1950 On July 24, the State Department’s own security unit furnished detailed evi- dence showing that this man was fur- nishing secret material to known espio- nage agents. He had top-secret clear- ance. In September further information was requested. As of October 15, 1947, nearly @ year and a quarter later, there was nothing in the file to indicate whether the individual was with the Department or what the final action was in his case. I later learned that 6 months after the original recommendation of dismissal was made, he finally resigned. He was not discharged. He resigned on Decem- ber 13, 1947. For what Federal agency he is working at this time, I frankly do not know. I have attempted to get that information from the Civil Service Com- mission. It has been very helpful, but thcre are so many individuals of the same name that the Commission has had difficulty in furnishing the information. Case No. 17. This individual signed an affidavit saying that he was a member of the Communist Party. He did this on several occasions. This was not a non- Communist affidavit; it was a Commu- nist affidavit. This file is rather signifi- cant, in that the reviewing officer in this case indicated that if this employee had testified to a change of heart, he would have received top-secret clearance. In other words, if this man had said, “I have now reformed,” the security officer felt he was bound to give him top-secret clearance. This, of course, seems un- usual to us, but a Communist, who has, of course, no respect for the oath, which consists of swearing before the Creator that he will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is edu- cated to the idea that there is no Su- preme Being, so, obviously, an oath means nothing to him. I think the re- viewing authority in the State Depart- ment should bear that fact in mind. Case No. 18. This individual was thoroughly investigated before being hired on December 26, 1946. While the file indicates that this woman was a Communist, I am not too sure that she was not a psychopathic case. She was hired when the file showed a great deal of Communist activity on her part. Case No. 19. This file is rather a lengthy one. It shows many Communist Party connections. The individual is working for the Government today. I have been able to secure that much in- formation. Whether he is in the State Department I frankly do not know. Case No. 20. This individual's file shows close connections with a number of Communist-front organizations. The individual, his sister, and his father spent some time in mental institutions, The report, which is dated July 7, 1947, shows that his mental health is un- stable. This man is still in the Depart- ment as of today. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Does the Senator have any information as to the type of responsibility the last-named individual has in the State Department? In other words, does he do janitorial work, or XCVI——124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE supervisory work, or just what kind of work does he do? Mr. McCARTHY. Idonot know, The information was not in the file. I was curious about that particular question myself. I was told that he had top- secret clearance. That would indicate that he was handling rather important documents. Frankly, what he was do- ing, I do not know. Let me check on the actual case, if Imay, so that we may have any information on it that may be avail- able. He is in the Office of Information and Educational Exchange. What he is doing there, I do not know. Cases Nos. 21 to 26 are rather typi- cal of many of the employees in the New York office of OIE. That is the Voice of America broadcast. The picture in the seven cases is substantially the same. First, the character reference is from another known Communist. In other words, the file shows, in effect, that it isa case of ‘‘You recommend me; I'll recom- mend you.” So it is a case of Commies, or persons with Communist connections, recommending each other. There is nothing in the file which indicates the employees’ activities beyond a period several years prior to the employment. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Does the Senator mean that he does not know what the ac- tivities are of these persons in the De- partment of State, or that he does not know their prior activities? Mr. McCARTHY. I know that their activities in the Department were with the Voice of America in the New York branch. Mr. DONNELL. I mean, in what type of work are they engaged? Mr. McCARTHY. As to this particu- lar case, I do not know. I shall come to one, case No. 81, but let me read that now for the benefit of the Senator. Mr. DONNELL. I was wondering whether the Senator would permit me to ask another question. Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr, DONNELL. Will the Senator be kind enough, if he thinks it advisable, to give us from time to time, as he goes through the cases, information as to the type of work or the type of responsibility with which the individual is charged? Mr. McCARTHY. I can say to the Senator that 1t would be extremely diffi- cult to do that, because all the records are completely secret except what I could get from loyal State Department employees. I can tell in a great number of cases what particular branch the in- dividuals are working in, whether in Re- search and Intelligence, or in other activ- ities. Incidentally, Research and In- telligence is a favorite office for fellow travelers to get into. A short time ago I cited the case of one individual who succeeded in going from Research and Intelligence to CIA. He is with CIA today. One of the principal cases is case No. 81. It deals with one of the top officials in OIE, the Voice of America, and I shall reach that shortly. Referring again to the previous case, the individual is still either working in this branch of the State Depaxument, oF bas succeeded in trans- 1965 ferring to some other agency having to do with information. All these individuals try to get into some branch having to do with information or research. Case No. 28. This individual has been with the State Department as a For- eign Service career officer since 1936. He is still holding a high salaried job with the Government, and to the best of my knowledge he is now stationed at Frankfurt, Germany. A report of June 23, 1947, indicates that he is a member of the Communist Party, that he at- tended the Youth International in Rus- sia in 1935. While working in the State Department, the file indicates, he showed an intense interest in getting informa- tion on anything pertaining to Russia, including any figures and _ records, whether or not the information had any connection with his particular job. He had been discharged previously from the AFL Federation of Government Em- ployees, on the charge of communistic activity. Both he and his wife have been members of a number of Commu- nist-front organizations, and he has been very closely associated with known Com- munist-front workers. The file discloses the interesting information that he is a member of the central group, whose task it is to spearhead an attack on J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. These fel- lows do not like J. Edgar Hoover at all. The man is a member of the central group which is the spearhead of such an attack. This is all in his file. He is still working for the Government. Case No. 29. This individual, accord- ing to the State Department's own Se- curity Division, is a known Communist member. A file dated April 13, 1947, shows that he is a member of an under- ground Communist group in Washing- ton, D. C. Both he and his wife have been in close touch with a functionary of the Soviet espionage ring in Washing- ton, D.C. I want to be sure about this. He is still working in Government work. Whether he is in the State Department or not I have not been able to find out, but I know he was in the State Depart- ment not too long ago, and he is still in the Government service. Let me repeat that for the benefit of the Senate. The intelligence agency’s file shows that this man is a known Communist Party mem- ber, and another file, dated April 13, 1947, shows that he is a member of an underground Communist group in Wash- ington, D.C. Both he and his wife have been in close touch with a functionary of the Soviet espionage ring in Washing- ton. His brother, who either was or is in the State Department, was a member of the Jackson Heights, Long Island, N. Y., branch of the Communist Party. There was considerable additional ma- terial in the file of this individual which I cannot give to the Senate this time, because it is all tied up with the source of the information. The file indicates that this man is not only very active as a Communist, but is a very dangerous Communist. Case No. 30. This man was a produc- tion supervisor of motion pictures for the OIE; that is, the Voice of America. He also had previously signed an affidavit to the effect that he was a member of the Communist Party. That is pretty,
1966 much the picture of all that OIE crowd in New York. I might say that there has been some cleaning out. As we get down to case 81, Senators will see that one of the top people was temporarily transferred, and while away something else happened, and there are some good loyal people in the office in New York. Otherwise, I would not be able to get the information I am giving the Senate. Case No. 31. This individual has been in Government service since July 1942. He was stationed in the Office of Infor- mation and Education of the State De- partment. The information was not in the file, but the hearings before the Un-American Activities Committee showed that he had signed a petition in New York in 1940 to the effect that he was a member of the Communist Party. Case No. 32. This individual has been with the Government since July 1942. He was stationed in the Office of Educa- tion and Information in the State De- partment. It will be noted as I go through that the highest percentage of these individuals were stationed in some information branch of the Government. According to the Un-American Activi- ties Committee, he had signed a petition in 1940 to the effect that he was a mem- ber of the Communist Party. The State Department took no action whatsoever upon this case, and so far as I know, the investigative unit there conducted no further investigation as to him, unless it was fairly recently. Case No. 33. This man has been in the Government service since July 1942. The picture is pretty much the same as in the last case, except that he is in a high-salaried position at the present time in the Office of Information and Edu- cation. This man, I know definitely, is in the Office of Information and Educa- tion of the State Department. He signed an affidavit in 1940 that he was a member of the Communist Party. He has been in the Government service since 1942. Apparently no check was made on him as to his other Communist activities, pnd I have no further information about im. Case No 34. This individual was born in Russia in 1896, and became a natural- ized United States citizen in 1938. From July 1934 to April 1940 he worked for Amtorg Trading Corporation. The Senate will recall that that is the cor- poration that was visited by the FBI shortly after the last session ended, and they picked up five or six of the Amtorg officials in connection with espionage activities. This man worked for that corporation until 1940. He worked with the Maritime Union from June to Au- gust 1941, was with the OWI from Febru- ary 1945 to February 1946, then was transferred to the State Department. His file shows that he has very close con- nection with the Communist espionage agents. As to this man, I frankly do not know whether he is still in the State Department or not. He went with the State Department some time after Feb- ruary 1946. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HILu in the chair), Does the Senator from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Mis- souri? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator referred, ® moment ago, I think just before the last case, to one individual as being a high-salaried employee. Does the Sena- tor have information as to what the man's salary is? Mr. McCARTHY. I have not. I think he was a CAF, class 9 or 10. He was up in the $7,000 or $8,000 bracket. I did not pay too much attention to that. He was in a fairly high-salaried position. I could get the information for the Sena- tor, I think. In looking over the papers I have I do not find information as to the salary he receives. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen- ator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. I notice in several of the cases the Senator has mentioned it was not clear whether or not the officials mentioned were still employed by the State Department. The State Depart- ment issued a news release last week in which Mr. Peurifoy stated that 202 Com- munists and security risks have been dis- missed from the State Department since 1946. I wondered if the Senator has asked the State Department to let him see that list of those who may have been dis- missed because of disloyalty reasons, which would greatly simplify the Sena- tor’s task in determining whether they are still there? Inasmuch as so much has been said about making informa- tion available, it would seem to me to be proper to make a direct request of the D2partment for a list of those whom the Department has dismissed for disloyalty reasons, to which the Department could not very well make any other than an affirmative reply. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator from South Dakota know whether Mr. Peurifoy said that they were dismissed for disloyalty reasons, or dismissed and allowed to resign? Mr. MUNDT. I think Mr Peurifoy’s statement said that their relationships with the State Department were severed because of security reasons. I think fre- quently they are permitted to resign after they have been singled out and their attention has been called to the fact that the State Department has caught up with their disloyalty records, but whether they have been permitted to resign or whether they have been severed, since he has given us the definite figure of 202, there would be an ideal check list for the Sena- tor from Wisconsin to use in finding out whether these persons are still with the Department of State. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. I agree with the Senator, but I think it makes a difference whether they have resigned or are dis- charged and obtained employment in other departments of the Government, Mr. MUNDT. One of the great diffi- culties we confront in trying to get Com- FEBRUARY 20 munists out of Government is that ap- arently once they have been removed rom one department there is no alert given to the other departments so they simply drift from one department to another. So if there were some such list made available to all the employment chiefs, then, assuming that the employ- ment chiefs do not want to hire Com- munists, they could use that list as a screen. Mr. FERGUSON. In the subcom- mittee of the Appropriations Committee dealing with foreign affairs, I may say it was indicated that these persons in the majority of cases were permitted to re- sign rather than to be discharged. Mr. MUNDT. They were permitted to resign after, I believe, they had been told that the State Department had made an examination of their loyalty status and found it questionable. Mr. McCARTHY. And permitted to resign so they would find it easier to secure another job. Mr. MUNDT. Perfectly true. Mr. McCARTHY. I may say in that connection, Mr. President, that the whole picture seems to be—and you recall I cited some cases along that line—that where they can get one top man in an important position, that then very shortly we see them dragging in their fellow Communists. When that is done we may be sure they will not be dis- charged for Communist activities. They are allowed to resign so they can be taken over by another department. The dis- turbing thing is that they are resigning from the State Department and then going into the other branches which, while not technically under the State De- partment, are to all intents and purposes under the State Department. When they are allowed to resign it does not give them a bad record and they can move into another position. Mr. MUNDT. I think the Senator fs putting his finger on a very important deficiency in the President’s so-called security program, because if a Come- munist is found to be guilty in the eyes of the State Department or any other department of Government and then permitted to resign so as to secure em- ployment in some other department of Government or in some other bureau, or a place in private employment, the gen- eral public has had a fraud launched against it, and it is the policy of giving the benefit of the doubt to the Com- munists instead of the benefit of the doubt to the Government. Certainly when we come to the place where we have discovered a Communist I see no reason why all the departments of Gov- ernment should not be alerted, and for that reason, when the evidence is com- plete, the general public might well be alerted so the individual cannot sneak his way into some college faculty, some farmers’ organization, some labor organ- ization, or some women’s club. Once the security check has pointed out that here is a man attempting to sabotage freedom in this country and trying to sell us out to a foreign tyranny, Government de- partments are notoriously weak, in my opinion, if they fail then to alert the gen- eral public to that fact,
1950 Mr. McCARTHY. I think that is an excellent idea. I may say that merely alerting the new potential boss some- tumes does not do too much good. The Senator was not present when I recited @ very unusual case, the case of a man who is now one of our foreign ministers. The case was that of a man who is one of our ministers. His file suddenly dis- appeared, that is, the vast majority of it. An attempt was made to find out where the file went. The keeper of the file, if one can call him that, said it went to one of the top brass, and it is in his safe, and has been there for 2 years. However, he did not obtain all the ma- terial. Some of the remaining material shows that certain secret material was prepared for transmission to a foreign government. The material was prepared for a foreign government. It showed up in Moscow before it even left Washing- ton. Does the Senator follow me? Of course, the Security Agency was very much concerned with that. They ap- parently had suspicions ahead of time. Their report—and their report of this matter is all in the file, the Senator understands, was to the effect that this man who is now one of our ministers, was shadowed by the Security Agency; their men physically saw him make con- tact with a known espionage agent. The agent was shadowed to the Soviet Em- bassy, and that is where the material disappeared, and then showed up in Moscow. When this man’s superior officer cleans out his files, I am very cumous what that man’s file contains. Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. I left the Senate Chember at 7:30 p.m. What number of case is the Senator now on? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam now on case No. 34. Mr McMAHON. In the cases the Sen- ator has recited, has the Senator simply read the derogatory information that was in the files or has the Senator attempted to give the full contents of the file in each case? Mr. McCARTHY. I may say that I am only giving the Senate cases in which it appears clear that there is a definite Communist connection. If there is evi- dence in the file to show that a man was not a Communist, frankly, those files have not come to my attention. I am not sure that I get the Senator’s thought fully. This man may have been good to his wife and children and all that sort of thing. What I am inter- ested in is: Does the file confirm what we felt we knew about him? In other words, does the investigative agency’s file show that this man was in contact with Communists? Did he belong to Communist-front organizations? Did he belong to a Communist organization? Was he a foreign agent? I assure the Senator that this is not a game. I am trying to give the Senate as clear a picture as I can. I do not give the Senate anything that would indicate the source of the information. As I said earlicr this evening, I think ‘t is impossible and very unwise for us to pass any legislation providing that we CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE could subpena, for example, the files of the FBI. I think if we did that we would set the FBI back 10, 20, or 30 years. The only way we can safely use these files is with complete cooperation and under- standing. So, for example, when the FBI has cleared the staff of the Senator's committee, they can work with the Sena- tor's committee and give the committee the benefit of its investigation. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, I am glad to. Mr. MCMAHON. The Senator under- stands that what I am trying to find out is whether the Senator has in his posses- sion the complete file that is in the State Department, either the original file—I take 1t the Senator does not have that— or a copy of it. Has the Senator both the derogatory information and any good information that is in that file? Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator asks whether I have complete State Depart- ment files. The answer is “No.” Mr. MCMAHON. Has the Senator the complete files in any one of the 34 cases? Mr. McCARTHY. Highty-one cases. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator said he had presented 34 cases so far. Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. McMAHON. I take it the Senator is going through all 81. I merely say that when the Senator reaches case No. 81 I hope to be home in bed. That is beside the point. I want to find out from the Senator if in the cases he has read or in the cases that are to be pre- sented, the Senator is able to give the Senate both the derogatory information that is in the file and any contradictory information that indicates that the de- rogatory information may be in question. Mr. McCARTHY. Let me answer the Senator. Mr. McMAHON. That is a yes-or-no question. Would the Senator give this information if he had it in his posses- sion? Mr. McCARTHY. Does the Senator want the answer? Mr. McMAHON. Yes. Mr. McCARTHY. The answer is that I obviously do not have photostats of all the files. Mr. McMAHON. Has the Senator got—— Mr. McCARTHY. Let me finish. I do not have a counterespionage group of my own. All I can do is pick up the in- formation, check, and make sure it is confirmed by something in the State De- partment file. The Senator understands I do not have complete State Depart- ment files in these matters. I very greatly wish I did. That is one of the things I hope one of our committees will succeed in getting. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. In a moment, if I may. If we are going to have a staff to work on these files the FBI should clear the members of that staff first to make sure that we do not have Communists among its members. When that is done, I hope the State Department will co- operate fully, and will say, “Here are the files. Take a look at them.” I do not have that now. 1967 Mr. McMAHON. At last, that is the answer. Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator does not have in his possession any informa- tion which will indicate that that derog- atory statement is true. Does not the Senator realize that if I were to send investigators into his State, perhaps I could obtain 105 or perhaps 1,005 wit- nesses who would make statements about the Senator that would be totally untrue and incorrect, and the same investiga- tors might go to 2,000 other persons who would say, “Those 105 people are not tell- ing the truth at all. They are very an- gry with the Senator because he voted for this bill or that bill that they did not like.” Did the Senator ever think of that? Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Connecticut had been in the Senate Chamber earlier this evening, he would have heard that ques- tion answered. The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the in- formation about these individuals. I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they are giving great aid to the Communists. Imay be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate de- manded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committec—the Senator’s committee or any other Senate committee—and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health. I know that some of them will not. Mr, McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator has made my point for me, however, namely, that 1n the files that he has, there is only derogatory information. Mr. McCARTHY,. No. Mr. McMAHON. And that he is not able—— Mr. McCARTHY. No. Mr. McMAHON. That he is not able to give to the Senate the information which contradicts the derogatory infor- mation. Mr.McCARTHY. That is not true. Mr. MCMAHON. Because if the Sen- ator has it and if he is not giving it to the Senate at this time, it would appear to me that he is trying to present a one- sided picture. I say to the Senator that there is no desire on my part to prejudge a single one of these cases. I do not need to tell the Senator that I am as much opposed to communism in the State Department or in any other Department as he is. But I tell the Senator that in the course of my career I have examined many Government files and many in- vestigation records, and I have scen in the files statements that, “This man McCarthy” or “This man-——— Mr. McCARTHY. Make it “Jones.”
1968 Mr. McMAHON. Or “This man Smith is a terrible person. He is not to be trusted. He defrauds his creditors. He even beats his wife. He has been seen going around the corner with sus- picious-looking persons.” And then if we go to other persons in the community, they say, “I am not at all surprised that you have been told that, because Smith had a fight with a man named Jones, who lives down the street. I will bet that you got an inter- view with him, and that in it he said that this fellow Smith is a terrible man.” I call attention to the possibility that if we had the whole file before us, as un- doubtedly the State Department has, the information the Senator from Wiscon- sin is giving the Senate might be con- tradicted to the point where creditable witnesses or creditable evaluators of the files would say, “In that event, we can- not believe that information.” I do not say to the Senator that that is so; I merely point out the possibility of its being so. Mr. McCARTHY. I think I have a fairly good digest of the files. However, in such a case as this, I think we must give the American people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of there being 57 Communists in the State Department, let us say that there are only one or two. If there were one or two Communists who were serving as top officials in our State Department, that alone would be fully sufficient to keep the opposition informed about the operations of the Department. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I ask the Senator to permit me to finish my statement, please. I have said to the Senator that I am not indicting the 81. I have said there is sufficient in the files to show that there is something radically wrong. If the Senator will remain here and will listen to some more of the cases, I am sure he will be convinced. After all, he came to the floor after I had been speaking for some time. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Will the Senator advise the Members of the Senate now present whether he is presenting to the Senate a series of personal opinions about the per- sons or whether he is presenting matters of record? Mr.McCARTHY. Iam not presenting anything except what is confirmed by the files of the individual concerned. In other words, in one case the intelligence department said, “Get rid of this man. Six professors, some at the University of California and some at Harvard, say this fellow is a fellow-traveler, a Communist, a close friend of Friedman, secretary of the Communists in California, and a close friend of Harry Bridges.” But the “top brass” in the State De- partment say, “No, because he has not committed any overt act.” Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. MCMAHON. I certainly would not Judge the case upon the basis of what the Senator has just said, I certainly CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE think—and I think it is the American system—— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I yield for a question, not for a speech. Mr. MCMAHON. Does not the Sena- tor think it is the American system that when a man js accused, he shall be given a hearing, that all witnesses for him and against him shall be heard and ad- judged; and then, upon that Judgment and upon that evidence, does not the Scnator think the judgment should be rendered? Mr. McCARTHY. I say to the Sena- tor—— : Mr. McMAHON. Isay to the Senator, if I may continue my question—— Mr. McCARTHY. Certainly. Mr. McMAHON. I say to the Senator that what we have to be careful of is that we do not imitate the very thing we are against. Star chambers are not for the United States of America, nor are trials ex parte, on the basis of part of the files of the persons concerned, on the floor of the United States Senate, the way to handle this matter. That is my question. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I ask the Senator from Maine to permit me to answer the Senator from Connecticut first. If the Senator from Connecticut had been here a little earlier, he would have heard the majority leader demanding that we do exactly that. He demanded that I present the names and indict these people before the country, without giv- ing them a chance to be heard. I said, ‘“‘No, I will not do that unless the Senate demands it.” I said, “I have the information. I want to present it to any Senate committee, and have the committee decide about it.” . This information is nothing new. It has been there a long time. If the Sen- ator or anyone else who is interested had expended sufficient effort, he could have brought this to the attention of the Senate. I do not fancy at all this condemnation of an attempt to bring this matter be- fore the Senate. I intend to give all the facts. From the information which I have before me, I agree with the intelli- gence agencies which have said, “These men should not be in the State Depart- ment.” I agree with the intelligence agencies who said, “Do not give these men top-secret clearance.” I may be wrong. That is why Iam not naming them. But I think that soon— tomorrow—the proper Senate coinmit- tee that is actually interested, not in in- vestigating people who may be Comimu- nists, but in investigating as to whether or not the State Department is overrun with Communists, should examine into these matters. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. Is not the essence of star-chamber proceedings that the public are not permitted to know the facts? Is not the essence of the kind of government which we here are fighting the Kind of executive government which refuses to permit the legislative author- ity to know the truth? FEBRUARY 20 After the revelations in the Hiss and the Fuchs and some other cases would it not seem that the Congress should be permitted to exercise its historical au- thority, never denied until recent years; and does it not seem strange that the Executive would refuse to permit those in the Senate and in the House of Repre- sentatives the right to know what is going on in Washington? I do not see how any defenders of democracy, in view of the Hiss and the Fuchs cases, can still maintain the right of the executive department of govern- ment to refuse—as has been occurring repeatedly in recent years—information from the files to be authorized to be seen by the committees of Congress. Mr. McCARTHY. I may point out to the Senator that the Constitution gives the Congress the right to get the infor- mation which we have been demanding for some time. Under the Constitution, of course, the Congress has a right to that information. How we can force the President to give the information to Con- gress I do not know. On August 4, 1948, the day Hiss was ex- posed by the House committee, and the day of the President's famous “red her- ring” statement, the President signed an order saying, ‘‘No more departmental in- formation shall be given to congressional committees.” At that time there might have been a reason for it; at that time the Congress was controlled by the Republican Party, and I can see why the President, with an election coming along, might have felt that the information might have been used for some political gain. However, the President’s party has had control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives for over a year now, and it seems that the President should be able to trust his own party. His party is in control. He should be able to say, “This is information to which the Congress is entitled, under the Con- stitution. My own party is in power. I will let them have it.” Frankly, Mr. President, I think the President is making a terrible mistake. If I may suggest something to the Sen- ator, let me say that I think he and I certainly should be on the same side in this matter. The Democratic Party cer- tainly is going to suffer because of this, but it should not. I think the Demo- cratic Party has lost control of the exec- utive branch. An unusual group of people—a group of twisted-thinking in- tellectuals—has taken over in the State Department, in recent years. They think they are right, that is what makes them dangerous. If the Democratic Party, as we see it represented here in the Senate, had con- trol, I do not think this sorry situation would exist. So the Senator should work with us in trying to clean house. Mr. McMAHON, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. McMAHON. The Senator's ob- servation is entirely beside the point, as was the observation just made by the Senator from Maine. I do not stand here to defend anyone. I simply wish to point out to the Senator that there was
1950 @ complete file on these persons, and the Senator obviously was giving only the derogatory information. Mr. McCARTHY. That is not correct. Mr. McMAHON. I pointed out to the Senator that fairness demanded that the full files be made available, and certainly that should be done before Judgment of the case is had. That is my position, and nothing else. Mr. MUNDT, Mr. CAPEHART, and other Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. McCARTHY. moment. First, Mr. President, let me say that the Senator from Connecticut just in- dulged in an erroneous assumption when he said I was indicating only the deroga- tory information. This is a résumé of the file. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this time? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. I hope the Senator will not follow the suggesiion of the Senator from Connecticut and discontinue his ef- fort to purge Communists from the Gov- ernment. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut made no such statement. Mr. MUNDT. The Senator should wait until I finish. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I de- mand the regular order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor. A Senator who has the floor can yield only for a question. Senators who wish to ask questions must first be yielded to for that purpose. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, may I first make it clear that I will yield to every Senator present, as often as he wants me to yield, but for the present I am yielding to the Senator from South Dakota, and I will yield to no one else until he has finished his question. I shall be glad then to yield to the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. MUNDT. I want the Senator from Connecticut to listen to this statement. I think I am quoting him exactly. I think he suggested that the Senator from Wis- consin should not continue with this ef- fort of his, until the full files are made available to him. Is not that correct? Was not that the Senator's statement? Mr. MCMAHON. That is exactly cor- rect. Mr. MUNDT. I thought it was cor- rect. Mr. McMAHON. It is. Mr. MUNDT. Ihope the Senator from Wisconsin will not yield to that kind of argument, because, had the argument of the Senator from Connecticut been fol- lowed, Alger Hiss would never have been convicted, for Alger Hiss was convicted after the President gave his freeze order denying us the right to see the full file. That would be a complete way to cover up every Communist in the Government. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Let me answer first, and then I will yield. I say to Sen- ators, let them take their time, I will I shall yield in a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE yield to everyone here, and all night if necessary. I want to say I definitely will not follow the suggestion offered by the Senator from Connecticut that I do noth- ing until I have the complete file of the case. The President said, “You shall not see the file.” In fact, I never know when I have the complete file. I have infor- mation from the State Department files, information to which we are entitled. I am giving it to the Senate. The Senator from Connecticut has said something about my convicting someone. Although even the leader of the Sena- tor’s party has said, ““You must give us the names,” I have refused to do so. I have said, “I will give it to any commit- tee. I will go before any committee. I will be sworn. I will do anything.” I want to get some action, and I may say to the Senator, I think he is the type of man who should be working along with me on this matter. I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield. Mr. McMAHON. I am not trying to work against the Senator. What did I point out to the Senator and to the Senate? I pointed out that the Senator apparently has been giving the deroga- tory iniormation contained in files of which he has secured possession. I fur- ther pointed out that in those files, if there was information which disproved the derogatory information, it was the duty of the Senator to present it to the Senate. Certainly no investigation of these persons could be consistent with American methods unless there were an evaluation both of the derogatory in- formation and the information which went to disprove it. If we adopt any other theory than that, I claim we aban- don one of the fundamental guaranties which underly our form of government. And if we are going to take the attitude that simply because someone says s0- and-so is a Communist, or was seen talk- ing to a Communist, it therefore, ipso facto, settles the matter, then I say we have adopted a theory which I do not understand to be in consonance with our form of government. Mr. McCARTHY. I Senator. Mr. McMAHON. I want to further point out to the Senator that, in fair- ness—— Mr. McCARTHY. Is this a question? Mr. McMAHON. The Senator has listened to speeches from some of his other colleagues. I am sure he will in- dulge me in this observation. Mr. McCARTHY. Go ahead. Mr. McMAHON. I thank the Sena- tor. If he wants to be fair, and has full and complete files on a man, he ought to read not only the derogatory informa- tion but anything else that is said. After it is read I might agree, especially if I could hear the witnesses, with the Senator’s contention that a certain individual ought to be kicked out of the Government and perhaps be put in jail. What I do not see is how anyone can form an intelligent judgment simply by reading what a half dozen people say, because perhaps they are rogues, scoun- thank the 1969 drels, and thieves. Perhaps they have some ulterior motive in making the state- ments they do. I do not know. I do not judge this case and say the Senator is not right, that the Senator does not have derogatory information, which, if true, would warrant the full penalty of the law. He may be entirely right about it. What Iam pointing out is that there may be other facts which we ought to hear in connection with those cases. That is my point. Mr. McCARTHY. I think the Senator flatters me when he says it is my duty to present the entire file to the Senate and to give the Senate all the informa- tion. The President has said we shall not get that file, and, as of the present moment, we are not on a “Dear Joe, Dear Harry” basis. I cannot go to the White House and say, “Harry, give me this file, because Senator McManon insists that you give me the information.” All I can do is to give Senators what I can dig up. I have given Senators the fullest, most complete, fairest résumé of the files that I possibly could. For the Senator to speculate that I have other information which I will not give him, is, I think, completely unfair. I have already asked for the complete files. I sent the President a telegram. I said, “Mr. President, here are 57 names, You may have them. But, in fairness to the Senate and the country, let us get the information on these people.” Mr. BREWSTER rose. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Let me yield to the Senator from Maine, first. Mr. EREWSTER. Is the issue not as to who is to do the evaluating of which the Senator from Connecticut speaks? Is it to be done by the executive agen- cies that demonstrate in every way a determination to refuse what has always been considered the constitutional right of the legislative body to find out, or is the evaluation to be made in the historic method, by a duly authorized committee of the Senate? I do not understand that the Senator from Connecticut is denying the right of a senatorial group, nor do I understand him to be admitting it. I am very much interested to know whether he agrees with the executive viewpoint, asserted for the first time, so far as I know, in any substantial way in very recent years, that the executive would not give to committees of the Con- gress the right to look at files. The first case I knew of was when, during the war, President Roosevelt re- fused Senator Truman, then chairman of the Truman committee, the right to examine the so-called Stettinius report. The first action which I took as chair- man of the committee afterward was to ask President Truman for it, and he turned that report over, which conclu- sively demonstrated that we had been very much misled during the course of the war as to the mobilization, and the records thereof, demonstrating that Senator Truman was right in cemending the records, and the President was wrong. The new doctrine by which the President has now directed his subor- dinates to refuse records is novel, unfor- tunate, and menacing, and is at the very
1970 essence of this entire issue. As I under- stand, the Senator from Wisconsin {is presenting what he feels to be credible evidence that the Executive is not exer- cising due care. We have no other way, as I understand, to find out, unless some committee will demand the records, and unless the President will release them. How the Senator from Connecticut, him- self, as chairman of the Atomic Energy Committee, could determine regarding many matters, unless he had the files from the executive department, it 1s im- possible for the Senator from Maine to understand. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. McCARTHY. Let me answer the question first, if Imay. I thank the Sen- ator from Maine very much for his state- ment. He is 100 percent correct. Unless we can obtain cooperation from the Ex- ecutive, there is no way in the world of cleaning house. I am not giving my evaluation of the evidence, I want it un- derstood. If Senators will listen, they will note that what I am doing is to re- cite the facts, which the State Depart- ment’s own security agency dug up, and which information acted as the basis for their recommendation that the individ- uals in question, because of being secu- rity risks, be discharged and not re- tained in the service. I know the Senator from Connecticut has not been present all the time. He has been away this evening. Some of the most incredible cases I have read and some that I shall read of giving a man top secrecy clearance, when the Depart- ment’s own agency says “He is a bad risk; he is a Communist,” have been un- covered. I may say to the Senator, if the investigative agency is overly eager, if they are doing a bad job, if they are per- secuting individuals, if they are naming as Communists individuals who are not such, then it is up to the State Depart- ment and the President to get a new agency. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MCMAHON. My. President, will the Senator yield for a moment, that I may make a final observation? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, I shall be glad to yield; and after that I will yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. McMAHON. It will only take me aminute. I understand the junior Sen- ator from Massachusetts earlier said that at the next meeting of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee he would move for an examination of these cases. I may say to the Senator, I shall be glad to second and to support the motion, because I should like to see developed not only the facts the Senator has been able to get, but also other facts that we as a com- mittee may be able to develop. I should like to see that done. It would be quite all right with me, but I again emphasize, as I now take my seat—and I shall not participate in the debate again, so far as I know, and I shall not disturb the Senator further—that perhaps it would have been better had the Senator pre- sented his complaint to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, in which committee I am sure he has full confidence, in order that the derogatory CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE information might be weighed against any information which would tend to contradict it, so that we could have the benefit of that searching information be- fore the Senator decided to come to the Senate floor with it. It is simply a per- sonal observation. The Senator is with- in his rights. He has decided to do it differently. It is the Senator’s responsi- bility. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator need not worry about disturbing me, because there is nothing I am more willing to do than to yield toa Senator. If I may have the Senator’s attention, I will answer his question. I assume it was a question. The Senator suggested a course of ac- tion which he thinks I should have fol- lowed. As I explained earlier this eve- ning, I thought of that. I thought there was some possibility of accomplishing the desired results in that fashion. However, keeping in mind that the members of the Foreign Relations Committee and all the Senators have had substantially the same knowledge and opportunity that I have had, I questioned whether anything would be gained unless the President changed his mind and said, “I will give you the information.” Then, when the leader of the Democratic Party, before seeing any of the evidence, made a speech in Chicago and said, “What the Senator from Wisconsin says is all untrue,” I thought the only thing to do was what I have done, namely, to let the people of the country know what is going on, and then hope that the pressure of public opinion would be great enough to force the President to clean house. Frankly, I think he will not clean house until he de- termines it is politically inexpedient for him to do otherwise. I think the Presi- dent is one of the cleverest politicians this Nation has ever had. I think when he discovers that the people of the coun- try do not want a continuation of what is going on, there will be a housecleaning. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. Is the Senator familiar with the rule as laid down by the President that not only will he not permit any Member of the Congress or a congressional committee to have access to loyalty files, but that he will not per- mit the person in charge of them to tes- tify before a committee as to any facts relating to a person’s loyalty? That was true in the Remington Case, in which he told an admiral of the Navy, who had charge of one of the files con- taining disloyalty information, that the admiral was not permitted to testify in relation to it. Is the Senator familiar with that? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam. Mr. FERGUSON. Therefore, it seems impossible for the committee which might be named to be successful unless the President of the United States should change his order. Does not the Senator feel that the proper committee to in- vestigate the matter is the Appropria- tions Committee, which has to appro- priate the money to pay those persons? The State Department’s appropriation is now before that committee. I under- stand that Mr. Acheson will appear be- fore the committee. That will be the place for the Benate actually to obtain FEBRUARY 20 information on those particular persons, not only as to whether they are now in Government employ, but information as to the entire record of the State Depart- ment, the FBI, and other departments as to their loyalty. Mr. McCARTHY. I will say that any committee that looks into the matter will have all the cooperation I can give it. I shall be more than happy to go before the Appropriations Committee and give it all the information Ihave. I think the Appropriations Committee should certainly look into the question especially so in the case of the Voice of America. I think the Voice of America program jis a very important program if properly conducted. I think it is almost impos- sible to spend too much money on it if the money is wisely spent, but I think the picture which we find in connection with the New York office of the Voice of Amer- ica should be examined by the Appro- priations Committee and that that com- mittee should use a bright light and find out exactly what is going on. I shall cover that matter in some detail when I get down to the final case. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it not a fact that if it had not been for a congressional committee Alger Hiss would not have been convicted? Mr. McCARTHY. I think there is no doubt about that. The Senator will re- call that at the time the House Un-Amer- ican Activities Committee turned up the information on Hiss the President said, in a public statement, ‘‘We had all this information already.” I do not know whether he had it, but if at that time the Un-American Activities Committee had decided to quit, Hiss might have been in Calcutta, instead of Service which might not have been too bad. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it not reasonable to assume that in the file of Mr. Hiss there are possibly some good points as well as derogatory evidence? Mr. McCARTHY. I think even the most fanatical Communist may treat his wife and children well; he may provide for them well. I do not think that is the question. The question is whether these persons are a threat to the United States. No matter how much good information there may be in the file regarding them, so long as they are loyal to Russia and to the Communist Party, and disloyal to this Government, I think they have no right to hold Government positions. I think it is a privilege to have a Govern- ment job, not a right. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it not a fact that every man who has been convicted pos- sibly had some good points about him, and there were some persons who would testify that he was a kindly and an honest man? t Mr. McCARTHY. That is certainly rue. Mr. CAPEHART. I did not quite understand the argument which was used a little earlier, that there might be some good points in the files. What difference does it make how many good points there are if the persons involved are Communist sympathizers and fellow
1950 travelers? Our jails are filled with per- sons who were perfectly honest up to the time they performed the acts or deeds which got them convicted. Is not that true? Mr. McCARTHY. I take the position that it is not my task to take 81 cases and try and get all the evidence and then determine whether the intelligence unit which evaluates it was doing a good or a bad job. All I am doing is pre- senting enough of the picture so that I hope both the Democratic side and the Republican side will forget politics and help clean house. I think this is something in which we cannot think of politics as usual. If I were to give my Democratic friends some advice, it would be that I think we should get together and do some house cleaning. I notice the Senator from Mississippi frowning. I do not think he was present when I made it clear that if the Democratic Party as represented in the Senate had control of the executive branch I thought we would not have the sorry picture we have today. My. WHERRY. Mr. Fresident, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Certainly. Mr. WHERRY. Is it not a fact, to boil this all down, that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is simply ask- ing that an appropriate committee of the Senate make a thorough investiga- tion not only of the files but of any other source of information possible, and let that committee determine whether there are any disloyal persons or Com- munists, or what have you, such as the Senator has listed in these 81 cases? Is not that the whole crux of the mat- ter? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. Whether there are good things or bad things to be said about them, all the Senator is doing is asking that, an investigation be made by an appropriate committee of the Senate. Whether that 1s correct pro- cedure or not, the Senator is within his rights in asking it Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. I do not think ga Scnate committee can do a complete job unless the President will make the facts available. Mr. WHERRY. Whether an investi- gation will accomplish the very thing which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut |Mr. McMauon] labored about will depend on whether all the information in the files is forthcoming to the investigating committee. Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. I do not claim that all the cases I am re- porting to the Senate refer to persons working in the State Department, but in view of the fact that most of them were in the State Department and had top- secret clearance, I think the Senate could call them before a committee and find out in what Government work they are now engaged, or, if they are not engaged in Government work, what they have been doing in private employment, and whether they are members of espionage rings. I am not concerned with the numbers over which the Senator from Illinois labored all night long, whether there are 205 or 57. It is a question of whether there are Communists in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE State Department. As to three of them the record is so bad that I can find noth- ing good regarding them. I cannot con- ceive of the Secretary of State keeping them on. Under the McCarran law the Secretary of State has the absolute right to clean out any debris he cares to. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Has the distinguished Senator contacied the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations relative to the files which he now has? Inasmuch as the distinguished Senator mentioned that fact, I certainly should like to pay a compliment to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and other members of the committee, who have done a pretty good job in insisting upon the departments making reports as to the progress which is being made relative to the subversiveness of persons who are in the departments, and they could do a better job. I should like to state that if all other committees fail, I believe the Committee on Appropriations would be a very good place to start, because if appro- priations are withheld from a depart- ment or an agency, 1t can be brought around very quickly. Mr McCARTHY. I have unlimited respect for the ability of the distin- guished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKEL ar], and I should lke him to know now that at any time at all, tomorrow or the next day, or whenever he wants me to do so, I shall be glad to come to his committee and give him all the information I have. I believe the committee should decide after further and complete investigation, and after they have asked the President for the files, which of the names they wish to make public Mr. DONNELL Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. I understood the Senator to say that he had made an offer to the President of the United States. Will the Senator state what that offer was and how it was made? Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to do so. From Nevada I sent a telegram to the President. i was out there mak- ing a Lincoln Day speech. I sent a tele- gram to the President teHing him that I had names in my possession and that they were available to him. I have a copy of the teleg:am here. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. WITHERS. What kind of speech was the Senator moeking? Mr. McCARTHY. A Lincoln Day speech. Mr. WITHERS. I thought the Sena- tor said it was a Republican speech. Mr. McCARTHY. We call it a Lin- coln Day speech, Mr. WILEY. The appellations are synonymous. Mr. McCARTHY. I sent a telegram to the President saying, in effect, ‘‘Mr. President, I have the names of 57 in- dividuals in the State Department who are Communists, and those names are available to you.” XI suggested, however, 1971 that he dissolve the order for secrecy. Otherwise, just getting the names would be of no benefit. I heard nothing from the President, except that I read his statement at a press conference to the effect that the Senator from Wisconsin was not telling the truth. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. When did the Sena- tor send this telegram to the President? Mr. McCARTHY. It was approxi- mately a week ago. Mr. DONNELL. And the Senator has received no direct response whatever from the President or from the Presi- dent’s office? Mr. McCARTHY. I have received no response from the President, and no ac- knowledgment. All I know is that ac- cording to the newspaper account the President is reported to have said that the Senator from Wisconsin was not telling the truth. Mr. DONNELL. Did the Senator in- form the President in the telegram that the 57 persons are or have been in the State Department? Mr. McCARTHY. I did. Mr. DONNELL. Notwithstanding the notice given to the President by a Mem- ber of the Senate a week ago by telegram, there has been no response received by the Senator from the President? Mr. McCARTHY. None whatever. Mr. DONNELL. If these persons are Communists—and we are not deciding that question at the moment—they have been allowed, so far as the Senator knows, to continue in whatever official positions they occupied during the intervening ap- proximate week. Is that correct? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. I might say that I read the telegram into the Recorp. I shall be glad to hand a copy of it to the Senator. Since that time the majority leader also joined with the President in reflecting upon the truthfulness of the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, wil] the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Has the Senator al- ready placed in the Recorp a copy of the telegram which he has just handed me? Mr. McCARTHY. I have. Mr. DONNELL. I missed that part of the Senator’s address. Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, the telegram is in the Recorp. . I believe I was on case No, 34. This in- dividual was originally cleared for em- ployment in the State Department on June 2, 1946. Since that time, according to the State Department’s file, he has admitted his communistic sympathies. I understand that he has resigned in order to take other Government employment, He was not discharged. Case No. 36. This individual is 43 years of age. He is with the Office of Information and Education. According to the file, he is a known Communist. I might say that when I refer to some- one as being a known Communist, I am not cvaluating the information myself. I am merely giving what is in the file, This individual also found his way into
1972 the Voice of America broadcast. Appar- ently the easiest way to get in is to be a known Communist. Case No. 37. This individual has been in the United States since 1930 and was employed by the Office of Information and Education on April 22, 1947. He worked for the Russian Embassy in Tur- key for 3 years. From 1944 to 1947 he was with a Russian welfare society. This individual is a very close associate of a known Communist now also with the Voice of America broadcast. The note says that this individual is still with the Voice of America broadcast. Case No. 38. This individual is em- ployed in a very responsible position in the Broadcasting Division of the Voice of America. As early as December 10, 1946, investigation by the State Department's security agency showed that this man was a fanatical Communist, that he was anticapitalistic, and definitely followed the Communist Party line. In this case there were reports from two different Government investigative agencies. An- other Government investigative agency advised that a reliable informant re- ported that a well-known Communist in Newark, N. J., gave him the unqualified information that this individual was a paid-up fellow party member. While acting as a newspaper reporter prior to his present employment with the Voice of America broadcast he was reported by his superiors to have colored his news reports with Communist theory, and did not give complete and unbiased coverage to such reports. That is important be- cause it is this Individual who is now handing out news reports on the Voice of America program. A very close friend of this individual and his brother stated that both are definitely communist. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. WITHERS. What is the gentle- man’s name? Did the Senator call his name? Mr. McCARTHY. No. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator did not call any name? Mr McCARTHY. Oh, no. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator does not know who it is? Mr. McCARTHY. I have called no names. The Senator from Connecticut, I think, gave the best reason why, namely, that we should not attempt to try to con- vict a man, that that should be done by a committee. I am submitting the evi- dence without giving the names. I have avoided that in every way possible. Mr. WITHERS. Does the Senator think all the employees in the State De- partment are Communists? Mr. McCARTHY. No. I think the vast majority of those employees are being done an almost irreparable wrong by having them painted with the brush of communism. I have been a lawyer, end out of 100 lawyers there may be 99 honest lawyers and 1 shyster; 1 crook, and the 99 get a bad name. That has happened in the State Department. If there were not some good, honest, loyal men in the State Department, men who were willing to risk their positions, I would not be able to give this report CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE here tonight. I think the vast majority of those employees are loyal, protecting the security of the country for the time being, and in honesty to those employees the shady characters should be removed. Mr. WITHERS. Will the Senator per- mit another question? Mr. McCARTHY. Certainly. Mr. WITHERS. How does the Sena- tor feel about attacking these men with- out calling names? How does the Sen- ator feel the other employees who are straightforward feel about it, when he reflects on all of them and does not call names? Mr. McCARTHY. I think the condi- tion today is so fraught with danger, I think we are in a period so definitely close to war, that even if we do damage some of the honest employees, I must take the only method I know of whereby I think we can secure a house cleaning. This information is nothing new. This has been known to the Secretary of State, or should have been—it is in the files—for a long time. I have decided that this is the best way of forcing the President to give the Congress the in- formation so that it can clean house, as he apparently is not going to. Whether it is wrong, the Senator can decide for himself. I personally feel that this is the most effective way I can do this all-im- portant job, and I intend to continue attempting to do it in this fashion, until the Senator or someone else shows me that there is some more effective, fairer way. In that connection, I might say that I am very happy that there are so many Senators on the other side of the aisle who so thoroughly disagree with the ma- jority leader. The majority leader has been condemning me rather vigorously for not giving the names of the people. I have been making every effort possible to keep the information in such form that no one can detect the names, until a full hearing of each case has been held. Mr. WITHERS. I should like to ask the Senator what reason he has for not calling names. Does not the Senator think it would be a fine thing to let the public know who the guilty are? Is not the Senator privileged? Mr. McCARTHY. Earlier this eve- ning the Senator from Illinois said, “You are privileged if you make a mistake. If out of the 81 there are some innocent, if you malign them,” the Senator from II- linois said, “you are protected.” I made the statement then that when the day comes that I ever say anything on the floor of the Senate which I will not be willing to state off the floor of the Sen- ate, on that day I will resign from the Senate. Mr. WITHERS and Mr. LUCAS ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. McCARTHY. I still yield to the Senator from Kentucky. Mr. WITHERS. If the Senator does not call names, has he not refiected on the whole Department of State, every one of the employees? Mr. McCARTHY. That is entirely pos- sible, I will say to the Senator, FEBRUARY 20 Mr. WITHERS. The Senator has the right in the Senate to call those names. Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct, Mr. WITHERS. But the Senator re- fused to do so. The Senator asked if I could state a better way. I will say a better way is to give the Senate, the pub- lic, the press, and everyone the name of every person the Senator says labors under any suspicion. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- tor for his suggestion. I do not think I will follow it, however, but J thank the Senator very much. Mr. WITHERS. I would be better sat- isfied if I could go along with the Sena- tor in that way. I would hate to follow the Senator only in part. Mr. McCARTHY. I was not trying to be humorous. I respect the Senator’s judgment. I have given the matter a great deal of thought, however, and the way I am presenting the matter is the way I think it should be done, and I in- tend to present it in that fashion. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator simply tells us there are persons who are Com- munists but does not tell us who they are. Is that correct? Mr. McCARTHY. I believe the Sena- tor was not on the floor of the Senate all evening. I have stated repeatedly that I would go before any Senate committee and divulge names. I have said further that if it were the feeling of the majority of the Senate that they did not want it done in that fashion, that they feel we can do it in a better way, that we can do a better job by making the names public on the floor of the Senate I will be glad to abide by that decision. However I think that would be a mistake. I have dug out information which I think is of the ut- most importance and I think we should get down to the job of trying to clean out these unusual people. Mr. WITHERS. Does the Senator in- dict or accuse or what is he doing in this speech? Mr. McCARTHY. I did not under- stand the Senator’s question. Mr. WITHERS. Is the Senator in- dicting those whom he claims are guilty of the charges he makes? Mr. McCARTHY. Am I indicting those who are guilty? Mr. WITHERS. Yes. Mr. McCARTHY. I am not indicting those who are guilty. I am giving the Senate information about persons whom I consider to be Communists in the State Department. Mr. WITHERS. In other words the Senator is suspicious that something is wrong without calling the names? Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator is a smart man. I know the Senator is. I have had many conversations with the Senator and I respect his intelligence. The Senator knows exactly what I am doing. The Senator knows I am giving the Senate what the State Department's investigative agency has said about these investigations. When the State Depart- ment’s investigative agency has said that this man is a Communist, and that agency says he should not be working in the State Department, I am telling the Senate that. When the officials of the State Department say they will not
1950 ‘discharge the individual, anyway, I am giving that to the Senate. I am giving all the information I can to the Senate. The Senator from Kentucky knows ex- actly what I am doing. Mr. WITHERS. Does the Senator know that I, like all others, am curious to know the names? When the Senator gives the cases, the press and country at large would like to know who they are. Mr. McCARTHY. First let me say that this matter is too important for me to use it as a utensil whereby I can satisfy someone’s curiosity, no matter how much I would like to see his curiosity satisfied. I do not intend to satisfy anyone's curi- osity. I intend to do everything I can to try to clean up what I consider to be a bad mess. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, does the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it not possible that the Senator from Kentucky might Icarn the names of these people sooner than he might like to? Mr. WITHERS. I would like to know them if the Senator would tell me. I will make this observation. The Senator from Kentucky certainly could not learn the names too soon. If the individuals in question are guilty, I should like to say to the Senator from Indiana that no American could learn their names too soon. Mr. McCARTHY. If I may suggest to the Senator, he is a member of the majority party, and I trust he ison much better terms with the President than I am. All the information I have given the Senate is in State Department files. There are several ways the Senator can obtain the names. No, 1. He can go to the President and say, “Mr. President, how about this case number so-and-so? Let me obtain the further facts on it.” Another way is to sit in when the proper committee asks for the names. A third way, I will say to the Senator, is simply to come over to my office to- morrow morning and he can see the names, and I will satisfy his curiosity. Mr. WITHERS. I shall be glad to. Does the Senator object to my divulging the names, if I see them? Have I that privilege? Mr. McCARTHY. I think it is up to the proper committee—— Mr. WITHERS. I think we should tell the people who they are. Mr. McCARTHY. I think it is up to the proper committee to decide whether it wants to divulge the names. Let me make myself clear to the Senator. If the majority of the Senate want me to divulge them in that fashion, yes. But I am not going to follow the Senator’s advice and say, “Here you are, Senator, divulge them.” Period. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator divulged four names in his speech in Reno, Nev. Why does the Senator refuse to divulge others before the Senate? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MCCARTHY. The Senator knows that he is not stating the facts correctly. I read the speech I made. Mr. LUCAS. Oh Mr. McCARTHY. Let me finish. ¥ read the speech I made. Mr. LUCAS. Oh—— Mr. McCARTHY. Do not read to me from the Washington Post. Mr. LUCAS. I have the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and a few other newspapers. Mr. McCARTHY. I read to the Sen- ate the speech I made at Reno, Nev. That speech was recorded. If the Sena- tor wants a copy of that record I shall be glad to write to the Republican com- mittce there and ask them to send the Senator a copy of the record. I think it will cost about $3 or three and a half. The Senator can play that record if he wants to. Otherwise, he can read what I read today into the CONGRESSIONAL REcorp. I said there was a man, John Service, and I did not say he was one of the 57. An AP reporter called me and asked, “Were you naming the 57?” I said, “No. I did not say these people were Com- munists. They are not part of the 57.” I said, “Here is John Service.” I gave his record. Now I may think he is a Communist, but I do not have his file. His file for some mysterious reason has disappeared and is locked up in the safe of the top brass of the State Department. I discussed Service, who was picked up by the FBI when turning over State Depart- ment documents. I pointed out that while he was in China he recommended that communism was the hope of China. I commented, as I recall—and it is all in the Recorp here—on the fact that he was now on his way to Calcutta, India, to establish an Indian policy. I made it very clear that he was not one of the 57. Then I took two other names and I said, “Here is what happens when you clear them out of the State Department.” I gave the name of Mrs. Kenney, who had been listed by the FBI as a courier of the Communist Party while working for the Government. I pointed out that when she was forced out, because of pub- lic pressure and the FBI statement, that then she ends up where she jis today, in one of the educational organizations or in some part of the UN Organization. I pointed out that the other one—and the Senator was present, and I should not have to repeat this again—who had been in the State Department as secretary to an Assistant Secretary of State. He was labeled as an outstanding Communist. When he was forced out of the State Department he went to work for the UN. I think both those individuals are Com- munists. Certainly if they are not, they look like them, they talk like them, and they walk like them. As one of my farmer friends once said, if a fow] looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and eats like a duck we can assume it is a duck. Those two individuals certainly answer that requirement. Then I referred to a fourth one. I made it very clear that he had never been with the State Department. He is a man 1973 called Shapley. He headed up the peace conference in New York. I pointed out to the Senate that Shapley had headed up this outfit that the State Department called a tool of Russia and a sounding board for Com- munist propaganda. That was in April. The State Department issued a press re- lease in July, to the effect that they ap- pointed this man on the advisory com- mission—I do not know the name of it— which advises the State Department on UNESCO. So I wish the Senator from Illinois would not plead ignorance of that. He knows it. I went over all this for the Senate earlier today. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes, I am glad to yield. Mr. LUCAS. The only reason I ask about these four is that it is my under- standing the Senator did name them in his speech at Reno, Nev., and that the Senator said definitely—and I am now quoting only from the newspapers, and that is all I have been able to find out other than what the Senator has said tonight—in reply to a question by a reporter if he called these people traitors, he said, “I did not. I did not call them Communists either.” Is that what the Senator said? Mr. McCARTHY. If the Senator wants to argue about the four, I will say, so that his mind will be at ease, that if he wants me to make it 59 instead of 57 I shall be glad to include two individuals who were named, one by the FBI and the other by the Un-American Activities Committee as being a courler for the Communist Party. I do not get the Senator’s argument. Does he say these people are Simon pure and that I maligned them? I talked about them publicly. If anything I said was not true, they can sue me for libel and slander. if it will make the Sen- ator happy, I will be glad to say that all of them except Service are part of the 57. The only reason I do not include Service is that his file has disappeared, and I am trying to confine myself solely to in- formation which is confined by the State Department’s own investigative agency. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I do not have any quar- rel with what the Senator says. The only thing I am trying to do is to recon- cile the Senator’s speech here with the speech reported in the newspapers, and Ihave not received a satisfactory answer. Mr. McCARTHY. What would the Senator like to know? Mr. LUCAS. I should like to know how he reconciles what he has said in the speeches he has made at Republican rallies with what he is saying here to- night. In other words, he named four persons when he was in the West. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that the sooner the Senator can name these persons, the better off we will all be. So far asI am concerned, it will not be in executive session. If I have any- thing to say about it, it will be in the
1974 open, where every individual in America, every newspaperman can attend, so that they will know definitely, as soon as pos- sible, just who is being charged and who is not being charged with being Com- munists. That is only fair, as the Sena- tor from Kentucky has so ably pointed out, because every individual in the State Department tonight is under a cloud, he is under a shadow as the result of what the Senator from Wisconsin is doing. I want to get the honest-to-goodness Americans from under that shadow, and whatever Communists are there, the ma- jority party on this side of the aisle will be found to be just as strong in demand- ing that we clean house, if the Senator has the proof, as is anyone else. The Senator does not need to worry about that. But the Senator has been moving around here-—— Mr. McCARTHY. I ask the Senator to wait a minute, please; I do not yield any further at this time. The Senator from Illinois says it is my job to prove these things. Since when has it been the job of a Senator who is a member of the minority, Mr. President, to clean house for an exccutive depart- ment? That is the task of the majority, and I hope they take that task on their shoulders. Nothing the Senator from Illinois has done here tonight indicates that he even remotely realizes the seriousness of this problem. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let me say that when he makes that statement, he simply does not Know what he is talking about. I appreciate the seriousness of the situa- tion the Senator is discussing. No one understands it better than the Senator from Illinois and the country as a whole do, as a result of the speeches the Sen- ator from Wisconsin has made upon this question. If the Senator thinks there is anything frivolous about this, or that we are not trying to cooperate with him in this matter, he simply does not under- stand the situation. We are going to help get the facts, and the Senator from Wisconsin is going to help us get the facts. He says he has the evidence there. All that needs to be done is for the Senator to come forward, along with the persons in the Intelligence De- partment from whom he has been able to get the information in the State De- partment. We will havethem here. The Senator will have to tell us that, of course, and we will ferret this out, from top to bottom. Mr. McCARTHY. Do I correctly un- derstand that the Senator from Illinois now demands that the President allow the State Department to bring to a Sen- ate committee all the information in the files on these individuals? Or does the Senator feel that that should be kept secret, and that it is my job to probe be- hind the iron curtain and get the in- formation? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Wis- consin has already been behind the iron curtain. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator from Nllinois says it is my task to get the in- formation. Does not he realize that is the task of the majority party and the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE majority leader? Does not he agree with me that the President should say to the Congress, in all honesty and fairness, “Here is a serious situation. I will open the files and let the proper committee examine them and learn what the facts are’? Mr. LUCAS. That is the old argu- ment which has been advanced ever since the days of John Marshall in respect to controversies between the executive and legislative branches of Government re- lating to the opening of the files. We have had that question over and over again. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I de- cline to yield further. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, does the Senator decline to yield to any Sen- ator? Mr. McCARTHY. No; I simply do not wish to prolong what is completely point- less on the part of the Senator from Hlinois, Mr. LUCAS. The whole evening has been rather pointless. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I understood the Sen- ator to say, in referring to two men, that they walked like Communists, looked like Communists, and talked like Com- munists. I think if we could spot Com- munists by their looks—— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, if the Senator from New York is asking a question, I yield; otherwise I do not yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I will come to the question in a moment. I think that if we could spot Commu- nists by the manner in which they walk, our task in fighting communism would be far simpler than it is. I would very much appreciate it if the Senator would tell us—and he would make a real contribution if he would— how he could spot any man as being a Communist, by his looks or by his walk, If he can do that, he certainly must have powers of perception which go far be- yond anything known in human history. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I think it is a great mistake to take something that is so very important and try to make a farce of it. The Senator from New York is intelligent enough to know that if I say a man looks like a duck, eats like a duck, and walks like a duck I mean that in a figurative sense, The Senator like- wise knows that if I say a man looks like a Communist, walks like a Commu- nist, and talks like a Communist I mean that if a man associates with Commu- nists and talks as Communists do and is very friendly with Communists, praises communism, attacks and belittles Amer- ican democracy, joins Communist-front organizations, contributes money to them, and praises the Russian Commu- nist system above our own, he probably is a Communist. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, let me observe-—— Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I call for the regular order. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I think I should let the Senator from New York observe what he has in mind, FEBRUARY 20 Mr, LEHMAN. I wish to point out that the Senator’s answer certainly is not responsive to my question. He tried to identify these men as Communists—and they may be Communists—because, as he described them, they walk like Commu- nists, they look like Communists, and they talk like Communists. That is an issue that is not new in politics. The ac- cusation is made by the Senator—— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, let me make clear that I have not seen them physically walk; I have not looked upon their faces; but when I speak of their looking like Communists and acting like Communists and walking like Commu- nists, I am speaking of the record of those men and how they look in that record, The Senator from New York knows that. I do not know whether those men are tall or short or fat or lean. Mr. LEHMAN. I did not think the Senator could describe a Communist by the way Communists look. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield. Mr. DONNELL. Referring to the re- quest for secrecy in regard to these names, I ask the Senator whether he has tried to keep these names secret from the President of the United States? Mr. McCARTHY. No; I have not. I have offered the names to the President. Mr. DONNELL. I ask the Senator whether in the telegram he sent from Nevada about a weck ago to the Presi- dent, there appears this language: In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling, Thursday night, I stated that the State Do- partment harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 67 Communists who are in the State Depart- ment at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. Then, omitting some intermediate por- tions of the telegram, does not the tele- gram to the President resume as follows: Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a lst of 57 Communists in the State Department. This Ust 1s available to you. Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. DONNELL. Did the Senator so telegraph the President? Mr. McCARTHY. I did. Mr. DONNELL. Did the Senator then continue in his telegram to the President, as follows: But you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as be- ing disloyal, and who are still working in the State Department. Is that a part of the telegram the Sen- ator sent? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator re- ferred to having spoken at Wheeling on Thursday night. That was Thursday night, February 9; was it not? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. DONNELL. Where did the Sena- tor speak the next night? Mr. McCARTHY. I did not speak anywhere the next night. The telegram
1950 was sent on Saturday, the 11th, in the afternoon. Mr. DONNELL. So 9 days have elapsed since the sending of that tele- gram to the President of the United States, signed by the Senator from Wis- consin, I assume. Is that correct? Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct. Mr. DONNELL. And the Senator has not yet received any response? Mr. McCARTHY. I have not. Mr. DONNELL. Did the Senator ever at any time indicate to the President of the United States that he would not re- veal the names of the 57, upon the Presi- dent’s request? Mr. McCARTHY. In order to keep the Recorp absolutely clear, let me say that the telegram places no conditions upon my offer to reveal the names. However, in talking to some members of the press several days later, I told them I did not think I would feel free to give the President the names {if he were going to maintain the iron curtain of secrecy, and merely say, “57 more red herrings,” and claim that the men were simon pure, with no investigation made. At that time I did indicate that a con- dition in connection with giving him the names would be that he draw back the iron curtain of secrecy. That condition was not stated in the telegram, but in fairness to the President I say that I assume that the condition was brought to his attention. Mr. DONNELL. And if it does draw back the iron curtain of secrecy, of which the Senator from Wisconsin spoke, the Senator from Wisconsin 1s perfectly will- ing to give the President the names of every one of the 57 persons; is he? Mr. McCARTHY. There is no ques- tion about that. Furthermore, I urge that the proper Senate committee con- venc, and I shall be glad to give the com- mittee the names. Mr. DONNELL. And the Senator from Wisconsin will give that committee every name; and the Senator offered a few moments ago, did he not, to give to the Senator from Kentucky, himself, personally, the names, tomorrow morn- ing. if he wants them. Mr. McCARTHY. I withdrew that, however, because the Senator said he wishes to make the information public. I have been a lawyer for a long time, as the Senator from Missouri has; and I am convinced of the communistic con- nections of these persons—although it 1s true that some of them might not have paid dues to the Communist Party. But the reports are so convincing that I am confident those persons are working closely with the Communist Party. Nevertheless, I do not think that, as a general proposition, one Member of the Senate should rise on the floor of the Senate and should make public the names of 81 persons in that way. If the matter were so urgent that that would be the only way to proceed, the names could be gotten, that would be another matter. But all of us will be back tomorrow, a committee can be convened tomorrow, and I am perfectly willing to give the names to a committee. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator from Wisconsin is perfectly willing to give the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE names to a Senate committee. Is that correct? Mr.McCARTHY,. That is correct. Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator. Mr. McCARTHY. If the majority of the Senate thinks it is proper to make them public on the floor of the Senate, I shall be glad to do so. Mr. NEELY. Will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. NEELY. A moment ago the distinguished minority leader {Mr. Wuerry!, demanded the regular order. I second that demand. The Senator from Wisconsin is discussing an unsur- passably important question. He should be permitted to conclude his address without further interruption, and we should be permitted to hear all that he has to say without being required to sit up all night like wild cats and having to sleep all day tomorrow like hoot owls. Therefore I purpose to object to any further yiclding by the Senator to any- one, for any purpose except that of ask- ing a question, and I shall demand the strict enforcement of the rule. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield only for a question. Mr. WITHERS. two questions. Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield for as many questions as the Senator wishes to ask. Mr. WITHERS. The Senator from Wisconsin stated a short time ago that he would not disclose the names of the persons to the President unless the Pres- ident would use the names and would pull back the iron curtain; the Senator from Wisconsin said he would give the names to the President if he would start to work on them. Mr. McCARTHY. No, Senator, this is not a game. Mr. WITHERS. Wait a minute. I asked the Senator a question. Let him answer it. Mr. McCARTHY. May I answer the Scnator? Mr. WITHERS. Yes. Mr. McCARTHY. It may not be the answer the Senator wants, but it will be an answer. I may say to the Senator, this is not a game. I have told the President he could have the names, and subsequently I indicated I felt it would be useless to give him the names and let him issue a whitewash statement, saying “57 red herrings.” I felt that the mini- mum the American people could ask for was that he revoke the rule which, so far a3 I know, had never been in existence before he enforced it. He should not be worried about a Congress which has a majority of his own party, and when he does that, he can have the names. But I do not want the names buried behind a curtain of secrecy. I have enough con- fidence in the Senate however to feel that any committee of the Senate, when it gets the information and takes the trouble to go over it, together with the names, will insist that the President give them the information to which they are entitled. I believe perhaps the American people, both Democrats and Republi- cans—and I do not think, Mr. President, I wish to ask one or 1975 there will be found any party line of division—the 150,000,000 American peo- ple will say to the President, “Mr. President, you cannot hide these Com- munists behind an iron curtain. Give the Congress the information which is in the files; let them know; let them decide whether or not a house cleaning is in order.” I am sure that if the Senator sits in on the hearings—and I hope they are extended—I am sure before he gets through he will agree with me 100 percent. Mr. WITHERS. I want to ask the Senator this question: If I understand the Senator, he would not give the names to the President, unless the President would use them. Now, I asked the Sena~ tor for the names. The Senator said he would give me the names. I told the Senator I wanted to use them, and he would not give them to me, because I was going to use them. In other words, the Senator refused to give them to the Presi- dent, because he would not use them, and he refused to give them to me, be- cause I intended to use them. Does the Senator find himself in an inconsistent attitude in that respect? Mr. McCARTHY. I wonder whether we have understood each other. I told the Senator if he came to my office to- morrow morning he could have all the names. As I understand the Senator— and I may have been mistaken—he said he would make them public. Mr. WITHERS. Yes, that is using them. Mr. McCARTHY. That is using them. Mr. WITHERS. Yes. Mr. McCARTHY. Then the Senator from Kentucky is correct; the Senator from Wisconsin will not give him the names in the morning. To continue. We were on Case No. 38. This individual is employed in a very responsible position in the Broadcasting Division of OIE, the Voice of America. As early as December 10, 1946, an in- vestigation by the State Department’s own security agency was to the effect that this man was a fanatical Commu- nist; that he is anticapitalistic and defi- nitely follows the party Communist line. Another investigative agency advised that a reliable informer reported that a well-known Communist in Newark, N. J., gave him the unqualified information that this individual was a paid-up party member. I believe I have commented on the fact that here we have two Federal security agencies, each reporting the same thing. I believe I have read this, in regard to his activities as a newspaper reporter. At the time he organized a strike and picket line, he had repeated conferences with a well-known New York Communist whose name is, of course, in the State Department's report. The State Depart- ment’s own security agency recom- mended that this individual not be re- tained. However, as of today he is in the extremely important position in the broadcasting division of the World-Wide News Unit of OIE, in New York City, thereby to at least some extent con- trolling information which we are giving to the balance of the world. Do Sen- ators follow this? This is a man who in
1976 1946 was reported, not by one agency but by two, and the security agency recom- mended that he be dismissed. That was 8 or 4 years ago. The man is still in that very important position. This seems to be one of the most dangerous cases we have. In view of the Secretary's state- ment that he would discharge before sundown any Communists now in the State Department whose name was brought to his attention, I suggest that he immediately take action on this indi- vidual. He can start on him. The Sec- retary has about 12 hours more or less, in fact, about 18 hours, before sundown. He can show his good faith by discharg- ing thisman. He should have no trouble whatever finding him. He will find that two Federal investigative agencies said, “This man is a Communist, do not keep him; get rid of him.” He will find that the man is still working. The Secretary, in case he has not acquainted himself with the McCarran bill, will note that he has the absolute right to terminate this man’s services tomorrow. I should like to hope that we would get word from the Secretary to the effect that he had done so. Case No, 39. This individual was ap- pointed on January 2, 1947, as an eco- nomic analyist in Research and Intelli- gence. Again we find the old pattern back in Intelligence. He had been em- ployed by the Soviet Purchasing Commis- sion for a period from 1932 to 1945. In other words, he worked for the Soviet Purchasing Commission for 13 years. It was established by the State Depart- ment’s own investigator that this indi- vidual could not have qualified for a position with the Soviet Purchasing Com- mission unless he were a member of the Communist Party. Despite this fact, this individual was given a job in Intelli- gence; which, as may have been noted, seems to be a favored spot for the Com- munists. As to this individual, I frankly do not know whether he is now in the State Department or not. Case No. 40 is that of another indi- vidual in Research, in the State De- partment since 1947. I do not have too much information on this, except the general statement by the agency that there is nothing in the files to disprove his communistic connections. He is still with the Government. Case No. 41 is that of an individual born in 1910 in Cleveland, Ohio, ap- pointed to a high position with the State Department, drawing the sum of 68,478.75 as an Assistant Chief in the Division of Occupied Areas. He 1s still in a high-paid position in the State De- partment. Investigation by the State Department’s own security agency dis- closed that most of his close associates and friends have records as fellow- travelers and Communists. He admitted having contributed money to a Com- munist-front organization. There is a memorandum in the file to the effect that Joe Panuch had made considerable efforts to get this man out of the State Department. He was un- successful, however, and, incidentally, the information I get—and this is not so much from the files—is that this man Panuch tried to do a job of houseclean- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ing and was given somewhat of a free hand under Jimmy Byrnes in starting to accomplish the job. However, when Byrnes left and Marshall took over— Senators will recall Acheson was then Under Secretary—the first official act of General Marshall was to discharge the man, Panuch. Obviously, General Mar- shall did not know anything about the situation. Some one of the underlings said, “Get rid of this man.” It would seem to be only the logical thing that he would not, as his first official act, dis- charge a man, unless the Under Secre- tary said, “Get rid of him;” which is rather unusual. Here is one man who had tried to do the job of housecleaning, and the ax falls. Case No. 42. This individual came to the United States in 1940, and was nat- uralized in Alabama in 1943. He re- turned to Germany as a civilian employee of the War Department in November 1946. He was appointed by the State Department to one of our intelligence departments. Both his brother and sister are listed as possible agents of the Comintern, and are active in Communist circles. There was evidence recom- mending dismissal. The report is that the evidence is sufficient to recommend dismissal. There is no information that indicates anything other than close Com- munist connections. Despite this fact, this man was never fired, but finally resigned in June 1947, Case No. 48 is that of an individual who is a research analyst in the Division of Research for the Far East. He was recommended for the position by an in- dividual who was listed by the FBI as a principal in a Soviet espionage case. The record indicates he is running very closely with a pack of Communists. This again is the old pattern—one Commu- nist gets into a department, and he rec- ommends another. In this case the FBI said the man who was trying to get him in is a principal in a Soviet espionage case. Case No. 44. This is a rather interest- ing case of an individual who was sent to Paris to represent the State Department. A note dated September 15, 1947, listed him as cleared for Unesco placement. He was described in reports by various wit- nesses as interested in communism and by his roommate at the International House as a Communist. He pals around with a friend of two individuals known to be either Communists or fellow trav- elers. There is something in his file which I think is rather interesting. A note addressed to “David” and signed “M” inquires as to whether there is dan- ger of this individual having another mental breakdown, which he had at one time in the past. While I do not have the exact wording of the note it, in effect, says get rid of this man, otherwise he may break and cause embarrassment if Con- gress gets ahold of him. The note is con- tained in the man’s private file. It is a pencil note. Reading such stuff as this, one is not surprised at the President’s action in signing the order, lowering the curtain. Case No. 45 is the case of an individual who was a ranking official in the Office of Financial Development Policy. He was appointed in August 1946, Investigation FEBRUARY 20 indicates that he was very closely tied up with at least three individuals who have been naméd as Communists. He also recommended for appointment an individual very closely tied up with a Communist, who has been named as an espionage agent. So far as I can dis- cover, this man was never discharged, but apparently resigned later, whether to take other government employment or private employment, I do not know. Case No. 46 is the case of a man who holds a high position in the State De- partment. He had been affiliated with the magazine Amerasia from May 1937 to November 1941. This magazine con- sistently followed the Communist Party line. It was under the direction of Philip Jaffe and William Vanderbilt Field. Field has been a leading Commu- nist and was one of the heads of the American Peace Mobilization, which the President and the Secretary of State publicly labeled as a tool of communism. Jaffe, as Senators will recall, was con- victed and fined in connection with the John Service incident. It will be re- called that the FBI picked up Service for having delivered secret State Depart- ment documents to Amerasia. The State Department files show that this in- dividual has been working very closely with these two men. On March 22, 1946, the State Department’s own secu- rity agency recommended as follows: It is recommended that action be insti- tuted to terminate subject’s service with the State Department. It is suggested to achieve this purpose that an appropriate officer of the Department should inform him that his continued presence in the Department is em- barrassing to the Department and that he be given an opportunity to resign. If he should not resign voluntarily, action should be instituted under Civil Service Rule No. 12, to terminate his services with the De- partment. The Department, however, took no ac- tion upon this recommendation. After that recommendation, the files show that this individual requested a fellow traveler to seek a position with the Board of Economic Warfare. The file further shows that this individual has been visited on several occasions by an alien fellow traveler. He has also rec- ommended two former employees of the Amerasia Editorial Board to positions with the State Department. In other words, Mr. President, the usual tactics of getting into an important position and then bringing in fellow Communists. A report dated August 18, 1947, re- corded an interview with a former mem- ber of the Editorial Board of Amerasia who labeled this individual as “far to the left—awfully close to a fellow traveler.” This individual was a subscriber to the Daily Worker. The file names a Commu- nist Party member who has twice worked for this individual. The Biographical Register of the State Department shows him to be still in a position of importance there. Case No. 47. This individual was em- ployed in March 1944, as Division Assist- ant in the Division of Internal Security. The House Un-American Activities Com- mittee advised on August 18, 1947, that an admitted former Communist Party member was formerly associated with this individual in Communist activities
1950 in Washington, D. C. This individual’s husband admitted having been a mem- ber of the Communist Party. The hus- band now has a highly confidential posi- tion with the Navy Department. The file indicates that this individual has been associated with a group of known Com- munists. Keep in mind, Mr. President, that she was given a job in the Division of In- ternal Security. A report dated July 16, 1947, states that in 1941 a Senate investigating commitice had found that both this individual and her husband were members of the Com- munist Party. A report dated September 15, 1947, by a Government investigative agency, advised that a reliable informant reported this individual as a Commu- nist, and that she has been recently contacting a member of the Soviet es- pionage ring. This individual is still in a highly paid job in the State De- partment. Cases Nos. 48 and 49. One of these in- dividuals is in the State Department wn the Division of Occupied Areas. The wife is with the State Department in the Division of Research and Intelli- gence. The file shows that both the hus- band and wife are known to be close associates of individuals linked with Soviet espionage activities. Nevertheless, the wife was approved for top-secret ma- terial on the 11th of February 1947, The order approving her is rather unusual, in that it states, in effect, that the reason for her being approved for top secret material was that there was insufficient information to warrant her discharge on grounds of disloyalty. Case No. 50. This individual is an executive secretary in the State Depart- ment. He has been reported by another Government investigative agency as hav- ing been 1n contact with a Soviet esp1o- nage agent. He is also a close friend of two employees of the State Department who are under investigation because of Communist associates. Case No. 51. This individual agreed that he was responsible for the State Department’s having employed an in- dividual in one of the cases which I cov- ered earlier today. It will be recalled that No. 14 was the case of an individual having furnished material to a known secret espionage ring and who had con- sistent contacts with long lists of Com- munists and suspected Sovict agents. He is still holding an important position in the State Department. Case No. 52. This individual works for No. 16—I think that is the correct num- ber—who, the State Department files indicate, was one of the most dangerous espionage agents in the Department. This individual was also temporarily employed as a correspondent of another individual listed as a Soviet agent by a Federal investigative agency. He and his wife are also close associates of two other alleged espionage agents who are named in the State Department files. He is presently holding a high-salaried and important position in the State Depart- ment and has been given top-secret clearance. Hore is a rather important case. In fact, they are all important. This is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE case No, 53, involving an individual who has been named by a confessed Communist spy as part of his spy ring. Prior to that time, on August 19, 1946, another governmental agency received information to the effect that he was a recognized leader of the Communist underground. This individual is, in my opinion, Mr. President, one of the most dangerous Communists in the State Department. Case No, 54. This individual has been connected with a number of Communist- front organizations and was active in attempting to secure the issuance of a nonimmigration visa to a French Com- munist leader. This individual is pres- ently employed in the State Department. Cases No. 55. This individual was a close friend and associate of an indi- vidual cescribed earlier in the day. It will be recalled that he was a very close associate of Soviet agents. A previous employer of this individual described her as having been “wrapped up” in commu- nism and that she later married a man who was also a Communist. The files of the Department show that “she and her husband are contacts of a subject in the —— espionage case.” The case re- ferred to 1s a recent and very important Communist case. Case No. 56. This individual was born in Russia and naturalized in San Fran- cisco in 1929. Two former supervisors on non-Government jobs had recommended him unfavorably. The only favorable reference he had was from three Russian individuals, all in Government employ- ment. He roomed with one of the Rus- sians who had recommended him. The Navy Department informed the State Department that this individual had secret State Department documents in the room shared by him and the other Russian An investigation was institut- ed, the outcome of which I do not know. However, this individual was still in the State Department as late as Decem- ber 1949 Case No 57. This individual was em- ployed by the State Department in 1946 as a P-7 consultant. On June 7, 1946, a Government investigative agency ad- vised that this individual was the contact man for a Russian espionage ring. This report also included information to the effect that he had played bridge and exchanged language lessons with persons in the Soviet Embassy. On June 7, 1946, the same investigative agency reported that a known Soviet espionage agent was arrested with his wife in Fin- land in the 1930’s and that while in cus- tody this espionage agent’s wife has re- quested the American Consul] to forward on her behalf a request for funds from this individual. This individual had been in charge of the training of Soviet marines at one time at a Russian port. Nevertheless, this individual, on Septem- ber 11, 1947, was given top secret clear- ance. The clearance officer in this case said: In the absence of additional highly deroga- tory information I feel that top secret clear- ance should be given. I have been unable to find out whether this individual is working with the State 1977 Department at the present time, and, if not, whether he is in private or Gov- ernment employment. Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Certainly. Mr. LEHMAN. I should lke to ask the Senator from Wisconsin whether he has submitted the names represented by the reports he has read and the other approximately 250 names to which ref- erences have been made? Has he sub- mitted those names to the Secretary of State? Mr. McCARTHY. I do not follow the enator’s question. Have I submitted 250 names? Mr. LEHMAN. I asked whether the Senator had submitted to Secretary Acheson the names represented by the reports which he has read, as well as the other approximately 250 names to which references have been made. The reason I mentioned 250 names is because I am adding the 57 names to the 205 names which have been mentioned on several occasions. I ask whether those names or any substantial number of them heve been submitted to the Secretary of State? Mr. McCARTHY. I have given Sec- retary Acheson nothing—period. Mr. LEHMAN. I did not understand the Senator’s answer. Mr. McCARTHY. I said I have given Secretary Acheson nothing—period. So that there may be no confusion, and I think I have explained it twice to the Senator—the Senator is not dull and knows what I am talking about—the 205 persons who were mentioned in Sccre- tary Byrnes’ letter were those whom the State Department refused to fire after the Security Agency had recommended that they be fired. I told the Senator that I did not have those names. All I have is the total number. The Secre- tary of State has those names, however. All he needs to do is to go to his files. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator for conceding that I am not dull, but I still do not understand why these names have not been submitted to the Secretary of State. I can understand the Sena- tor’s unwillingness to submit to this body or to any other public body the names of men accused on somewhat unsubstan- tiated charges, but I do not understand his unwillingness to submit the names to the responsible official, the head of the State Department, whom he is accusing of laxness. I wonder whether the Sena- tor will make some further explanation in order that the matter may be clear to me. Mr. McCARTHY. Iam afraid that if it is not clear to the Senator now I shall never be able to make it clear to him, no matter how much further explanation I make. I told the Senator that the Sec- retary of State has the names as to which I am reading the numbers. They are in the files of the Secretary of State. Iam giving the Senator information which is confirmed by information in the files in the Office of the Secretary of State. It should be clear to the Senator that all the information which I am giving on the floor of the Senate has been available to the Secretary of State for a long time. If the Secretary of State does not know
1978 that the investigative agency has rec- ommended that certain individuals be discharged, he can easily check and find out. The files are all in his possession. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield for a ques- tion Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator know, or can he tell Senators, whether or not the loyalty board has checked any of these persons whom he is describing here by numbers? Mr. MCCARTHY. I have just told the Senator I do not know. Mr. LUCAS. I thank the Senator. I do not believe that the name “loyalty board” has come into the debate as yet. But Iam not sure. I was not clear as to what agency the Senator was referring to. Mr. McCARTHY. The name I used was “investigative agency.” When em- ployees from temporary war agencies were transferred to the State Depart- ment, a board was set up to screen them. Whether that was called the loyalty board, I do not know. It was an investi- gative agency. I do not know that at any one time there were two investiga- tive agencies. There may have been. Mr, LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. If I understand the Senator correctly, the persons who are represented by the numbers which he has now given to the Senate, without giving any names, have been recommended to be discharged by the loyalty board se- lected by the President of the United States. Mr. McCARTHY. I do not know whether that is correct. I have tried to make this clear. I do not have the names of all the individuals the loyalty board recommended be discharged. I found in the reports, however, a sizable number whom the investigative agency has recommended should be discharged. Let me make that clear. There was one group of 205, back in 1946. Since that time the investigative agency recom- mended that other groups be discharged. The treatment which was given to those recommendations was substantially the saMe as was given to the recommenda- tions in 1946. In 1946, Secretary Byrnes said, out of 285, 79 were discharged. That is the first group. With subse- quent groups the same action was taken. I have never had the names of all the groups. I do not even know how many there are. I know 206 is the definite number in the first group, because the Secretary of State has said there were 206. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Is the Senator familiar with the personnel of the loyalty board? Mr. McCARTHY. Frankly, I am not. Mr. LUCAS. If it should turn out that some of the individuals whom the Senator has named by number have been cleared by the loyalty board, would that affect the Senator's opinion with respect to those persons? Mr. McCARTHY. I would have to know something of the personnel of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE loyalty board. When Communists are able to get their men into the Central Intelligence Agency and into the highest spots in the State Department, I assume that a prize target would be the loyalty board. So I cannot tell the Senator what I would think of this board’s recom- mendations. If I had an FBI report on the loyalty board, and if it were a good, competent board, certainly that would mean something to me. However, when I find that some individuals who have been reported by the _ investigative agency to be Communists were given top- secret clearance, and if the loyalty board is in charge of giving top-secret clear- ance, it would indicate that the loyalty board is not too competent. Mr. LUCAS. I do not know what part the loyalty board has played in this in- vestigation. Mr. McCARTHY. Nor dol. Mr. LUCAS. But I am sure they will be in it, because undoubtedly they have checked and double checked these indi- viduals who are now identified by num- bers. The Senator will find that the President’s loyalty board is headed by a very capable and competent lawyer by the name of Seth Richardson, who is a very representative Republican and a tremendously loyal American. I see two Senators on the Republican side rising. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. NEELY. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maa- NUSON in the chair). Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question? Mr. LUCAS. All I say is that I hope the Senator will look at the names of the members of the Loyalty Board. Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any Senator making a speech in the time of the Senator from Wis- consin. I made that statement before. He will either hold the floor or lose it. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I might say that I thank the Senator from West Virginia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Sen- ator from Michigan for a question? Mr. McCARTHY. I will yield in a moment. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. The hour is getting late, and I am very willing to yield for a question, but if I am to finish these re- marks tonight, I do not care to yield for any more speeches. I yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. I merely desired to ask the Senator whether he knew that Seth Richardson was the head of the loyalty appeals board, and not the board which might be operating in the State Department. Mr. McCARTHY. I understand that Mr. Richardson has no _ jurisdiction whatsoever over any State Department employee, unless a State Department em- ployee feels he has been badly treated, and appeals to Mr. Richardson’s board. But Mr. Richardson does not pass upon any of the cases originally. If the State Department fails to fire a man who should be discharged, then nothing comes to Mr. Richardson, Mr. FERGUSON. Js it not true that the Senator is speaking about a security FEBRUARY 20 committee, composed of State Depart- ment employees, rather than a loyalty board, and that he jis speaking about a committee that was in existence prior to the loyalty board? Mr. McCARTHY. I might say that I do not know what the technical name of the investigative agency is. I know that within the State Department in- vestigations are conducted. Some of thoSe investigations may be conducted by the FBI; I do not know. I find, how- ever, that in some cases information is received from several investigative agen- cies. What the technical names are, J frankly do not know. Case No. 58. This individual was a re- search analyst with OSS from July 1944 to September 1945, when he was trans- ferred to the State Department, where he is presently in the Research Division. He has been a member of at least one Communist-front organization. For many years he has been a close friend of an important subject in a Russian es- pionage case, both residing in the same apartment building. A Government in- vestigative agency reported on July 11, 1947, that he was a member of the Com- munist Party. Now I ask the Senate to listen to this. He is holding an important position in the State Department today even though he was reported on July 11, 1947, to be a member of the Com- munist Party. Case No. 60. This individual was em- Ployed by OSS, in the Division of Re- search, from June 1942 to September 1945, at which time he was transferred to the State Department. He is now a branch chief in Research and Intelli- gence. One of his former suprevisors stated that he was a Communist. For some time he has resided with an- other State Department employee, pre- viously mentioned herein, whose investi- gation was requested because of com- munistic activities. Nevertheless, this individual has been cleared and is still working in an important position where he handles top-secret material in the State Department. Case No. 61. This individual {s em- ployed in Research and Intelligence in the State Department. He has been very active in UPWA, and one of his refer- ences has been closely affiliated with Communist-front organizations. A Gov- ernment investigative agency has indi- cated the very strong possibility of a close tie-up between this individual ahd another Communist. The file indicates that additional investigations in this case are necessary. He jis still in the State Department. Case No. 62. This file is not important insofar as communistic activities are concerned, but rather is important be- cause 1t sheds light on some rather unu- sual mental aberrations of certain individuals in the Department. In this connection, it perhaps should be men- tioned that the types of individuals de- scribed in this file are regarded as bad security risks by most investigative agencies for the reason that they are rather easy blackmail victims. This file I recommend to the attention of any com- mittee that cares to investigate it. It goes into some detail in regard to the peculiar—how can we put it—the pecu-
1950 liar mental twists. I was trying to han- dle this matter delicately. I think this will be of interest to the committee in that it gives a rather interesting picture of some rather unusual mental twists of these gentlemen who are tied up with some of the Communist organizations. Also it is confirmation of what I be- lieve I mentioned earlier this evening when I was talking about one of the top investigators in Washington. I said to him, “Why do you find so many people fanatic about communism? Is_ there something that is so inviting about it? Is there something mentally wrong?” He said, “You will find if you search deep enough that there is something mentally or physically wrong with every one of them.” ‘There is certainly some- thing wronhg with this group. I meght say that the new security cfficer has rec- ommended that they get rid of all that type of individuals regardless of whether they are shown to have any communistic connection or not. Case No. 63. This individual is em- ployed by the State Department in Re- search and Intelligence. He was with Army Intelligence from 1944 to June 1946. In April 7, 1947, he was given a security clearance from the State De- partment. The files of the State De- partment investigative agency show that he is a very close associate of a former War Department employee who was dropped because it was believed he passed information and material to Soviet agents. One of his associates at the War Department, with whom he has since been in contact, is an individual who has been very active with commu- nistically inclined groups. He has been a@ very close associate of another known Communist sympathizer. He has been given top secret clearance despite asso- ciation with other known Communist sympathizcrs. Case No. 64. This individual is pres- ently employed in Research and Intelli- gence in the State Department. Again we find them in Research and Intelli- gence. The investigative agency files show that informants stated that he and his wife maintained a communistic and un-American attitude. The file indi- cates that the wife admitted being a member of the Communist Party. The file further shows that he is a close friend of a number of Russian agents connected with a major espionage case. The investigation of this case was held up because the investigation at that time might have upset the investigation of what was considered a major espionage case, which was in the process of inves- tigation. This individual apparently still enjoys clearance to top-secret docu- ments, Case No. 65. This individual is also still in the State Department in the Of- fice of Information and Education and holds an important position. It would appear from his activitics that he is very detinitely communistically inclined. However, it is entirely possible that this individual is merely a left-winger who has been dominated by No. 81, who will be covered later, and a group of Com- munists and fellow travelers who have surrounded No. 81, to the extent that he CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE has received credit for many of the Com- munist activities of No. 81. By No. 81 I refer to the case which I shall cover shortly. For that reason, while the work flowing from his office would indicate that he is sympathetically inclined at least toward Communists, I would hesi- tate in labeling him as such. In any event, however, I feel that he certainly is a bad risk in that position. Case No. 66. This individual is also employed by the State Department as a music director in the Voice of America. He was listed on the draft classification as 4—F because of being a psychoneurotic. He and his mother, with whom he lived, provided a coffee kitchen for communis- tically inspired protest groups. He also worked for a time for a Communist-dom- inated organization. He studied for a time in the New School for Social Re- search under Hans Eisler, who, Sena- tors recall, appeared before the House Un-American Committee. This individ- ual is mentioned principally because he seemed to be representative of the group which accumulated around No. 81, whom I consider one of the big shots. Case No. 67. This individual was em- ployed by OWI 1n March 1942, and trans- ferred to the State Department when that agency was taken over by the De- partment. After a meeting of Com- munists and Communist sympathizers, he was arrested for disorderly conduct. Two members of the Soviet underground attempted to get him out of difficulty and hush up matters so he would not lose his position in the State Department, which indicates that he is of importance to the Sovict underground. This in- formation was set forth in detail in a memorandum, dated June 17, 1946, by an investigative agency, and brought to the attention of the State Department. How- ever, this individual was still with the State Department in June 1947, and still had top-secret clearance. On July 16, 1947, a hearing was finally held. I am not aware of the outcome of this hear- ing. However, my best knowledge is that he is no longer with the State Depart- ment, but whether he resigned, was dis- charged, or whether he received a job with some other Government agency I do not know. I feel this case is im- portant, Mr. President, for a number of reasons; one of them being that after it was definitely proven that the Com- munist underground had a deep interest in this man, and wanted to help him out, he still was given access to top-secret material for more than a year. Case No. 68. This individual was with the OIE. He signed Communist Party petitions in which he alleged that he was a member thereof, as did his parents also. On November 4, 1941, the Civil Service Commission recommended his removal from the Government. This was never acted upon. He is still in the State Department and has been given top clearance. Case No. 69. This individual was also employed by the OIE. However, little information was available on him ex- cept that he is a Russian, and that his sister is a known Communist and that he associates closely with Communists, 1979 Case No, 70. This individual again is the typical Voice of America employee. The investigative agencies have indi- cated that he is affiliated with Commu- nist-front organizations and has com- munistic sympathies. He is still with the State Department. Case No. 71. This individual was em- ployed by OIE in February 1943. He entered the United States in 1942 ille- gally. He is a Bulgarian. He lived 6 months with the editor of a Communist- controlled Bulgarian newspaper. He is a close associate of known Communists. The Government investigative agency reported that the subject was reluctant to bear arms during the war, and that he faked inability to understand or speak English so as to avoid the draft. He was issued a certificate of naturalization on October 8, 1945, on a false petition which stated that he entered the United States on May 6, 1941. He is still working for the State Department, despite a rule that aliens shall not work therein, and while I have not been able to go into the matter completely, I have been informed that he also has top-secret clearance. Case No. 72. This case, Mr. President, is interesting in that it is the direct op- posite from the cases I have been read- ing. I cite it to show that unless one has a communistic backsround one cannot qualify for a position with the Voice of America, at least in the New York office. This man applied for a job with the Voice of America. He was investigated in the fall of 1946 for a position on the Russian desk of OIE. Investigation showed he was a refugee from the Red revolution. He was naturalized in 1927. He has a reputation as an expert in Russian af- fairs, having studied them for a period of many ycars. He was employed with OSS from February 1942 to December 1942, and then was requested to resign. He was forced to resign because of Com- munist pressure. A known Communist and a NKVD agent in the United States openly stated, according to the Intelli- gence files, that he was too anti-Commu- nist to be employed by OSS. This man’s immediate superior with OSS told him he was forced to fire him because of cir- cumstances beyond his control. A high State Department official confirmed the reason for this man’s dismissal from oss. This individual was very highly rec- ommended by several witnesses as a high type of man, a democratic American, who supported democracy for Russia and opposed communism. However, he was turned down and was never em- ployed by OIE. This was at a time when they were taking on all the other debris I have just described. Fortunately, how- ever, his services are being presently made use of by McCloy in Germany, where he is acting fiscal adviser and, I understand, doing a good job. I believe I overlooked stating that he was born in Kiev, Russia, in 1877. I do not con- fuse this man, as I said, as being a Com- munist. The reason I cite the case is to show that the one good, sure way not to get into the Voice of America is that one is a loyal American and not an ante Communist.
1980 Case No. 73. This individual is in the Foreign Service. He was born in 1913, practiced law from September 1936 to September 1942. He was with the Board of Economic Warfare from November 1942 to September 1943. He has been with the State Department as a senior economic analyst from September 1943 until the present time. He was an ap- plicant for a position as Foreign Service career officer. An investigative report dated June 1947 disclosed that he has always associated with known leftists and was highly recommended by four well-known fellow travelers. While in California his closest associates for sev- eral years were two active Communists. A former law associate for this individual refused to recommend him for Federal employment, stating he was extremely far to the left. A memorandum in his file dated December 12, 1946, requested investigation of black-market activities on his part in Spain. No report on this point, however, has been made available. A superior court judge in California, who has known the subject well, stated that under no circumstances would he recom- mend him for a Government position, because of his extreme leftism, and that he would not have him in any respon- sible Government position. Another California judge said this individual as- sociated closely with fellow travelers, and he would definitely not recommend him. This individual, to the best of my knowl- edge, is still in Foreign Service, stationed in Madrid, Spain. Case No. 74. This individual was em- ployed on an American mission to the Far East during 1947. Intelligence units indicated that he was furnishing infor- mation to a Russian agent, and two sources of information reported that he was representing himself as an American intelligence agent. At that time he had been given clearance to confidential in- formation. He was relieved of his par- ticular assignment and transferred to different work within the Department. Case No. 75. This individual was em- ployed in December 1946 in the Foreign Service in the State Department. Ac- cording to the files in the Department, he is a known contact of two suspects in the investigation of Soviet espionage ac- tivities in the United States. The inves- tigative report dated March 1947 showed he sent material to one of the Soviet espionage suspects who had pre- viously given him the names of two well known Communists whom he could contact abroad. Case No. 76. This does not involve communistic activities, but does shed some light upon the possible reasons for some individuals’ being employed by the State Department. This involves the case of @® young man who was very patently incompetent and who had made gross misstatements in his application. He was turned down for employment. One of the superiors in the Department then wrote a note to the officer who had the task of deciding whether or not to employ this young man. That was after pressure had been applied from above to get hima job. The following is the com- ment made by the employing officer: “If is so little concerned with the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE quality of Department personnel, there is little we can do. I believe he is more interested in the politics of the situa- tion.” That is signed and dated. Case No. 77, This young man applied for a position in the State Department. The file indicates he is a very close friend of reported Communists, and that he is closely associated with members of Com- munist-front organizations. The file in- dicates that his wife belongs to an or- ganization listed as subversive by the House Un-American Activities Commit- tee, and that a relative of his has a finan- cial interest in the Daily Worker. Mr. President, I believe I have covered this case before, and what I have just said seems to be a repetition. This is the case of a young man who ended up as a speech writer in a well-known house in Washington. Case No. 78. This individual has made application for a P-8 position in the State Department. He has been employed by the Treasury Department from April 1940 up to the present time, except for military release from July 1942 to De- cember 1942. State Department files show that he was highly recommended by two individuals engaged in Soviet espionage activities. Another Govern- ment investigative agency indicated that he was one of the contacts of the subject of a Soviet espionage case. One of his references refused to recommend him because of his association with pro-Com- munists. This individual is still holding a high-salaried position with the Treas- ury Department, in work, as I under- stand, directly with the State Depart- ment. Case No. 79. This individual is on the special project staff at the State De- partment. The intelligence report in his file indicates that numerous informants reported he was pro-Communist, radical, and of dubious background. However, I understand he has been given top secret clearance. Case No. 80. This individual is a chief in the Division of International Labor. The Department’s investigative agency indicates receipt of information in Oc- tober 1946, to the effect that this indi- vidual was a member of at least one Com- munist-front organization and is a fel- low traveler. He, however, still retains his position in the State Department. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARTHY. Iam glad to yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Does the Senator from Wisconsin have a case No. 37 among the cases he is presenting? Mr. MCCARTHY. I cannot tell at the moment, because the reporters for the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorp have been using some of my papers. But I assume I had a@ case No. 37. Mr. FERGUSON. I wondered why the Senator took them out of order. Is there any reason why he did not take them in order, beginning with No. 1, and going down through them? . Mr. McCARTHY. I did take them order. I get the impression that the Senator may have a file of his own, and appar- ently I do not have the same cases he FEBRUARY 20 has. I am very glad to know the Senator has, if that is the answer. However, I have taken them in order. Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the Sen- ator. Mr. McCARTHY subsequently said: Mr. President, some of the papers have just been returned to my desk; and if I may do s0, I shall give the Senator from Michigan the information that I do have a@ case No. 37. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator does? Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. Mr. FERGUSON. May I see it? Mr. McCARTHY. Certainly. Next, Mr. President, I come to case No. 81. I think this individual has been doing this Nation untold damage because of the high position she holds in the Voice of America, This individual was in the Voice of America project, in the New York office, until some time ago. She was transferred to Europe, techni- cally under control of the Commanding General, in the same type of work as the Voice of America, and subsequently the entire project was transferred back to the State Department, and she is today in the State Department. I should like to read this material. In- cidentally, this ig the last case we have. The file in this case contains a wealth of information indicating that this indi- vidual is an extremely dangerous and active Communist, completely disloyal to the United States, and loyal to Soviet Russia. Much of the information here, however, was given in strictest confidence but I shall try to give somewhat of a pic- ture of this person. It is perhaps sufficient to point out that the witnesses without exception have stated in essence that this indivi- dual has collected in her office a mixture of fellow travelers and pseudo liberals and outright Communists. These wit- nesses indicate that the group is close knit and attempts a vicious character assassination of anyone who attempts to disagree with them, and apparently rather successfully so. All this information comes from the files of the investigative agency, and, as I have just said, shows that the witnesses indicate that the group is close knit and attempts a vicious character assassina- tion job of anyone who attempts to dis- agree with them. The witnesses without exception seem to feel that this individual has exerted a@ great deal of control over the informa- tion used on the Voice of America, and is doing the United States immeasurable damage. I understand that this individual is now in Europe, and, although technically under the control of the Army, is in ef- fect, to all intents and purposes, under the control of the State Department, and is still doing the same work as that in- volved in the Voice of America, formerly worked on in New York. Mr. President, since this paper was dictated night before last I find that she is back in the State Department. Immediate steps should be taken, in my opinion, to obtain not only the dis- charge but the prosecution of this in- dividual. Mr. President, I may also say that I feel very strongly that cases Nos. 1, 2, and