NEO- MCCARTHYISM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000300130036-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 36
• Publication Date: October 20, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

October 2 109 roved For
'Moorhead, ybal
Calif. f",Mosher , n
loss euer
Murphy, fit. Schneebeli
Obey ehroesier
Patten, N,J. gbgi4us-
Patterson, $eiberling
Sharp
39AYS-261
Stark Wilson, Tex. Wylie
Steelman Winn Yatron
Sullivan
Symms,
Thompson
Treen
Tsongas
Ullman
Vander Jagt
Vander Veen
W,axnian
Weaver
Wiggins
Wirth,
Yates
Moakley
Moffett
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morgan
Mottl
Murphy, N.Y.
Murtha
Myers, Ind.
Myers, Pa.
Natcher
Neal
Nedzi
Nichols
Nix,
Nolan
Nowak
Oberstar
O'Hara
Ottinger
Passman
Patman, Tex.
Pattison,N.Y.
Pepper
Perkins
Pickle
Pike
Pressler
Price
Quie
Quillen
Randall
Rees
Regula
Riegle
Rinaldo
Risenhoover
Roberts
Robinson
Rogers
Roiicallp
Abdnor Ford, Mich.
Addabbo Ford, Tenn.
Alexander Forsythe
Anderson, Fountain
Calif. Frenzel
Andrews, N.C. Frey
Andrews, Fuqua
N. Dak. Gayd2s
Annunzio Gibbons
Ashbrook Ginn
Befalls Grassley
Baldus Green
Barrett Guyer
Bauman Hagedorn
.Beard, R.I. Hall
Beard, Tenn, Hamilton
BedellSarlyzer.-
Bergland solimitit
Bevlll Hanley
Blester Harkin
Bingham Harris
Blanchard Harsha
Blouin Hawkins
Roland ,Slays, Ohio
Honker Heckler, Mass,
Bowen Hefner
Breaux Heinz
Brinkley Henderson
Brooks Hicks
Brown, Calif. Hightower
Brown, Mich. Hillis .
Brown, Ohio Hinshaw
Broyhill Holt
Buchanan Horton
Burke, Fla. Howard
Burke, Mass. Howe
Burlison, Mo. Hubbard
Byron Hughes
Carney Hungate
Carr Ichord
Carter
Cederberg
Chappell
Chisholm
Clancy
Clausen,
Dan H.
Clay
Cleveland
Cochran
Cohen
Conable
Corman
Cornell
Jeffords Rooney
Johnson, Calif. Rostenkowski
Johnson. Pa, Roush
Jones, Ala., St Germain
Jones, N.C. Santini
Jones, Tenn.
Jordan
Kasten
Kastenmeier
Kazen
Ketchum
Keys
Krebs
Cotter LaFalce
D'Amours Latta
Daniel, Dan Leggett
Dax.iel, R. W. Lehman
Daniels, N.J. Lent
Danielson Levitas
Davis Litton
de la Garza Lloyd, Calif.
Delaney Lloyd, Tenn.
Den t Long, Md_
Derrick Lott
Devine Lujan
Dickinson McCollister
Diggs McCormack
Dodd McDade
Downey, N.Y. McZwen_ .
Downing, Va. McFall
Duncan, Tenn. Mann
du Pont Adathia
Edwards, Ala. Matsunaga
Eilberg Ma z~zoli
Emery Melcher
English Metcalfe.
Evans, Ind. Mezvinsky
Findley Miller, Calif.
Fish Miller, Ohio
Fisher Mills
Fithian Mineta
Flood Mink
Floreo Mitchell, Md.
Flowers Mitchell, N,Y.
Sarasin
Sarbanes
Satterfield
Schulze
Shriver
Sikes
Simon
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith. Nebr.
Snyder
Spellman
Spence
Staggers
w tanton,
J, William
Stanton,
James V.
Steed _
Steiger, Ariz.
Stelger, Wis.
Stephens
Stokes
Stratton
Stuckey
Studds
Symington
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
Thone
Thornton
Traxler
Vigorito
Walsh
W ampl er
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
Young, Ga.
Young, Tex.
NOT VOTING-55
Anderson, 111. Gilman Rhodes
Badillo Goldwater Roe
Beii Gonzalez
Biaggi Goodling.
Boggs Harrington
Boiling Hebert
Brodhead Heistoski
Broomfield Holland
Burton, John Jenrette
Butler Landrum
Conan Madden
Conyers Madigan
Rose
Runnels
Ruppe
Shipley
Sisk
Solari
Teague
Udall
Van Deerlin
V anik
Waggonner
Duncan, Oreg, Moorhead, Pa. Wilson, C. H.
Esch O'Brien Wright
Evins, Tenn. O'Neill Zablocki
Fary Pettis Zeferetti
Flynt Peyser
Fraser Rangel
The Clerl: announced the following
pairs :
Mr. O'Neill with Mr., Shipley.
Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Helstoski,
Mr. Zeferetti with Mr. Brodhead.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California with
Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. Duncan of Oregon.
Mr. Badillo with Mr. Fraser.
Mr. Rangel 'with Mr. Esch.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Anderson of Illinois.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Gilman,
Mr. Teague with Mr. Goldwater.
Mr. Solari with Mr. Broomfield.
Mr. John L. Burton with Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Bell.
A^:r. Fary with Mr. Doodling.
Mr. Flynt with Mr. Holland.
Mr. Waggonner with Mr. Zablocki.
Mr. Vanik with Mr. Butler.
Mr. Roe with Mr. Madigan.
Mr. Jenrette with Mr,_O'Brien.
Mr. Long of Louisiana with Mr. Del Claw-
son.
Mr. Rose with Mrs. Pettis.
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Conlan.
Mr. Van Deerlin with Mr. Peyser.
Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania with Mr.
Udall,
Mr. Harrington with Mr. Landrum.
Mr. Wright with Mr. Madden.
Messrs. RUSSO, REUSS, Mrs. FEN-
WICK, Mrs. MEYNER, Messrs. WIRTH
and PRITCHARD changed their vote
from "nay" to "yea."
Messrs. PATTISON of New York, PEP-
PER, PITHIAN, ROBINSON, RON-
CALIO, and FOUNTAIN changed their
vote from "yea" to "nay."
So the. motion to recommit was re-
jected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. WHITE, Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks and to in-
clude extraneous matter on the bill S.
584.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas? ,
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVEL-
OPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
(FOSSIL FUELS) TO MEET DURING
5-MINCJTE RULE FOR BALANCE OF
THIS WEEK
Mr. HECHLER of West Virginia. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the Subcommittee on Energy Research,
Development and Demonstration (Fos?-
sil Fuels) be permitted to meet during.
the 5-minute rule tomorrow and the
balance of the week.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mc-
FALL). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
NEO-McCARTHYISM
(Mr. HAYES of Indiana asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend ' arks.)
Mr AYES f Indiana Mr. Speaker,
vest da ew York Times editorial
entitl , "Neo-McCarthyism?" attacked
the House Select Committee on Intelli-
gence, alleging that it was engaged in
attempting to question and harass lower-
level State Department officials.
I today insert in the RECORD the Sep-
tember 27, 1975, recorded testimony of
Mr. Lawrence Eagleburger, Chief of Per-
sonnel at the State Department, wherein
that charge was first raised, by innuendo,
and its cynical. nature made obvious.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we do not
begin today exposing the cynicism with
which the "harrassment" charge was first
leveled against the Select Committee on
Intelligence-and this job, probably
should have begun long ago, in Septem-
ber, when the charge was first raised-
we will be subject to continued harass-
ment by a McCarthyism of its own type,
only extended by the Secretary of State
and not by any Member of Congress.
If the Secretary of State is successful
in smearing the select committee as
"McCarthyites," the job of the commit-
tee will be compromised, its support from
thinking people eroded, and there will ba
continued building of a secret bureau-
cracy by the Secretary of State himself,
who is engaging in a McCarthyism of a
most disgusting type.
I only regret that the record of pro-
ceedings for the 27th of September can-
not reveal the snickering between Mr.
Eagleburger and his conferees at the wit-
ness table when it was suggested they
rehabilitate those run out of the State
Department in the 40's and 50's. Other-
wise, the record is clear that it is not a
principle of confidentiality being pro-
tected when middle and lower level State
employees are not allowed to testify.
Rather, it is a principle that policy can be
made by a secret bureaucracy on the cer-
tificate of the Secretary of State. Those
in the State Department, who would
challenge that can be expected to be
fired, not by the Congress, but by the
Secretary of State.
The material referred to follows:
Chairman PmE. Mr. Hayes.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Eagleburger, I think that I would like
Approved-For Release 2004/09/23 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000300'130036-9
 'H 10090
Approved For Release 2004/09/23: CIA-RDP77M00144R000300130036-9
CONGRESS]:ONAL RECORD -HOUSE October 20, 1975
Stau,tgn's gt,siuestioning.
First Qi; am very sensitive to the
way ydu hate laid the foundations of what
the Issue is here, and I don't really want
to allow. you to run away with the basic
premise of today's hearings, and you very
carefully, I think, in your testimony are
obscuring what the basic issues really are.
You have come here as a defender and as
the person who has screwed up the guts of
the State Department to protect those mid-
dle and Junior-grade officers in the State
Department. I' want to congratulate you for
having finally brought that to the level of
attention that it apparently is now getting
at. State.
Perhaps what you will do is go back and
rehabilitate some of those who were abused
and run out of the State Department dur-
ing , the debate over China policy, which I
think you are making reference to when
you talk about the '40's and 'tO's.
Unfortunately, I hadn't yet reached ten
years of age when that was going on, so you
can count on me to bring a different kind.
of tradition down here to the Congress on it.
The fact that I am trying to bring out
clearly and very explicitly, and I think I
speak for everybody on this Committee, is
that in no way is anyone attempting to run
the kind of cowboy operation that has been
run in Congress before in' order to abuse and
to ultimately cause the kind of purges that
State, itself, saw fit to carry out at those
times that you have mentioned here in your
And the fact is that we are really not,
as you say, dealing with the hypothetical
issue at all. But I don't think there has
been one Instance that you can cite or
that Mr. Leigh can cite, where ' this Com-
mittee has ever taken it upon itself in the
tradition of the McCarthys, the Jenners, and
all of those.others to attempt to abuse the
State Department and to attempt to some-
how or other get a string of goats out before
the press and before the public and to, in
essence, run a purge operation. We are not
trying to do that at all.
You complain about your officers being
subjected to some degree of public scrutiny.
The fact is if you have the level 'of guts to
which you claim you have corporately in the
State Department, the fact of the matter'is
that you are protected by a myriad of laws
and a battery of lawyers, and that Is why
you have those.
That is why you have the appropriation
for those things, in order to protect you
from the kind, of abuse that might flow
from that, and I really don't think it is the
case of you standing between utter disaster
and a purge down at State by this Com-
mittee.
That is not the case at all, and that is not
our purpose. If I thought it was, I think we
would very easily handle it right on the Floor
of the House. There are enough people who
are sensitive to that issue.
I think we really should clarify that point,
and I object most strenuously to the impli-
cations that I think are there, and I am not
-really going to sit around and be engaged
in what has in part turned into a political
battle here. That is my profession, being a
politician, and by God, I will be one, and if
we are going to deal on that level, we will go
at it on that basis.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER.May I respond?
Mr. HAYES. I would appreciate hearing you
respond.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER. b1r. Hayes, there is no
implication in my statement that this-Com-
mittee is performing in the way I described
the Department went through in the late
'40's and early '50's. That is not, sir, my point.
It is, I think, often true that the defense of
a principle which is one we consider valuable
and extremely worth protecting often must
be protected when the objective facts are not
necessarily the strongest that can be made in
defense of the principle.
However, sir, the Department of State has
had at least one experience which tells us
that the principle has to be protected ab ini-
tio, and it is our view not that this Com-
mittee is intending anything of the sort, but
rather when you compromise on the prin-
ciple, the precedent is established, and it is
far harder to defend it thereafter. There is
no indication this Committee intends any-
thing of the sort. But we have a principle ir-
respective of the objective facts I feel obliged
to defend.
Mr. HAYES. I hope that that is clarification
enough, and I think it is unfortunate that
the words can be given that meaning, and I
certainly don't consider myself to be any
casual observer of testimony, and as I read
it, I think there is that clear implication, but
I think if we have it clearly understood be.-
tween us now, out front, perhaps we can go
ahead with the debate and move on with it
without that kind of cloud being over it. I
fear it was there.
Chairman PIKE. The time of the gentleman
has expired.
ECONOMETRIC STUDY SHOWS THE
JOBS CREATION ACT IS THE FREE
ENTERPRISE ALTERNATIVE TO
BOTH RECESSION AND INFLATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
roan from New York (Mr. KEAir) is rec-
ognized for. 60 minutes. '
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Speaker, the Jobs
Creation At is the means to end both
the recession and inflation-and it can
be done without reliance on inflation-
fueling revenue losses and deficit spend-
ing.
In the first year alone after its enact-
ment, its provisions would cause a $151.4
billion jump in the gross national prod-
uct, would create 7.18 million jobs, would
cause $74.6 billion in capital outlays over
what would have otherwise been antic-
ipated, and would generate $5.2 billion in
additional revenue to the Treasury.
In the second year after its enactment,
it would cause a $200.5 billion increase in
GNP, $77.9 billion in additional capital
outlays, and $14.6 billion in additional
revenue to the Treasury.
In the third year, it would cause a
$248.9 billion rise in the GNP, $81.1 bil-
lion in additional capital outlays, and
$25.2 billion in additional revenue. In 3
years the cumulative number of new jobs
could be over 10 million.
These figures are striking, indeed, they
may even be startling. But, that is be-
cause in the past 50 years this country
has not relied on the approach embodied
in the Jobs Creation Act-of fostering
progress and economic growth through
production.
The Jobs Creation Act now gives us a
rene?ed opportunity to live up to the
promises made to the American people in
the Full Employment Act of 1946-a
promise of jobs for all Americans. The
Jobs Creation Act is real full employ-
ment-in productive jobs, tax-generat-
ing jobs instead of tax-consuming jobs.
If there were ever any doubts about the
consequences of the Jobs Creation Act,
those doubts can be disspelled. Solid
economic analysis pales the other two
major tax reform initiatives before the
Nation-the decisions being made by the
Committee on Ways and Means and the
President's step=in-the-right-direction
revenue and expenditure reduction pro-
gram-into the category of only partial
answers to the total problems now facing
the economy, The Jobs Creation Act is a
major, substantive tax reform proposal
based upon those truths which gave the
world the steepest and longest period of
economic growth in its history.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE JOBS CREATION ACT
A detailed economic analysis of the
effects of the tax reductions provisions
pared by Norman B. Ture Consultants,
Inc., of Washington, D.C.
Dr. Ture's credentials are most im-
pressive. He received his M.A. and Ph. D.
from the University of Chicago in eco-
nomics. From 1951-55, he was on the
analysis staff of the U.S. Department of
Treasury, and from 1955-61 he was on
the staff of the Joint Economic Com-
mittee. From 1961-68, Dr. Ture was
Director of Tax Studies for the National
Bureau of Economic Research, a most
prestigious position. From 1968-71 he
was a principal at the Planning Research
Corp., and he has had his own economic
analysis consulting firm since 1971. Dur-
ing this time, he was also a lecturer at
the Wharton School of Finance of the
University of Pennsylvania and is now
adjunct professor of economics at George
Washington University.
Dr. Ture's analysis of the Jobs Cre-
ation Act shows that the act would not
produce a revenue loss. Not only would
there be no revenue loss, but the act
would so effectively stimulate production
that it would produce a revenue gain
plus real full employment.
The following summary of the analysis
of the economic effects of the Jobs Cre-
ation Act shows that each and every tax
reduction provision would produce a sig-
nificant gain in GNP, employment, capi-
tal outlays and Federal revenue, even
in the first year of enactment. The Jobs
Creation Act is a tax reduction bill that
will stimulate GNP and employment
without the risk of inflation-fueling
The summary follows:
'Approved For. Release 2004/09/23 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000300130036-9