In view of the fact that we intend to go into this a little further insofar as the action of these boards or agencies are concerned, I think our records should contain the examination by Mr. Busbey of two witnesses from the agency..

Mr. KUNZIG (reading):

Status of loyalty investigations:

Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Ching, has your agency completed the investigation of all its employees under the loyalty program as provided by Executive Order 9835? Mr. CHING. We have some pending.

Mr. GREENWOOD. We do not, of course, conduct the investigation. That is done by the FBI. We consider the cases. Our agency loyalty board considers the cases as we receive reports from the FBI. We can supply for the record the exact number, but in general, all of the personnel who were on the payroll prior to about 1 year ago have been investigated and cleared with 1 or 2 exceptions; and with respect to those who have come on within the past year, reports are coming in currently on them and they are cleared as the reports are received. Mr. BUSBEY. I would like to take up an individual case. I assume that you are more familiar with it than Mr. Ching, so maybe I should direct my questions to you, Mr. Greenwood.

Mr. GREENWOOD. That is perfectly all right.

Mr. BUSBEY. I am particularly interested in the question of the employment of persons by the United States Government wherein there is reasonable doubt as to that person's loyalty to our form of government. Therefore, the questions I propose to ask you have to do with one certain man in your agency.

This interest is not new on my part. I ask questions of this kind of other agencies.

Have you in your agency a man holding the position of regional director or district director or conciliator, or whatever title it may be, who was practically forced out of the American Federation of Labor because of his membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Not to our knowledge.

Mr. BUSBEY. Well, you certainly would have knowledge of anything like that, would you not? You are in contact with your agency loyalty board.

Mr. GREENWOOD. I am chairman of the loyalty board for the agency. To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any reports from the FBI which would indicate that any one of our conciliators or regional directors has had that type of experience-that is, being forced out of the American Federation of Labor because of Communist activity or affiliation.

Mr. BUSBEY. How long have you been acting as chairman of the agency loyalty board?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I have been chairman for about a year and a half and prior to that time I was a member of the board, since its inception.

Mr. BUSBEY. Would that be 1947?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Well, the board was established in 1948, I think, when the Executive order came out.

Mr. BUSBEY. If I recall correctly, the original Executive order came out March 21, 1947.

Mr. GREENWOOD. You may be correct. Of course, the agency was not established as an independent agency until August of 1947. The dates are a little fuzzy in my mind. I am not sure when we got around to establishing our board. It might have been late in 1947 or early 1948.

Mr. BUSBEY. According to your answer to my last question in regard to this particular individual, you would not have any knowledge of his separation from the American Federation of Labor and his almost immediate employment by your agency?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I cannot recall any such case. If you would like to furnish the name off the record, perhaps it would refresh my memory a little bit with respect to the details.

Mr. BUSBEY. I would just as soon keep the individual's name off the record, but if you do not recognize him by the time I have finished my interrogation, which I think you should be able to do, I shall be very happy to furnish you the name of the individual.

I am to understand, then, Mr. Greenwood, you do not have any knowledge whatever of an individual who, as I said, was dismissed from the American Federation of Labor because of his membership in the Communist Party and is

now employed in your agency in one of these positions of conciliator or regional director or commissioner or at least a high position?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I do not recall anyone of that description at the moment. Mr. BUSBEY. Was your agency ever informed by any witness or witnesses that such a person in the employment of the agency previously had membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREEN WOOD. To the best of my knowledge and trusting my memory at this point, none of the official reports we have received have indicated that any member of our Service was himself a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. BUSBEY. Now, will you answer my question, please?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I'm sorry. Would you mind repeating it?

Mr. BUSBEY. The question is: Was your agency informed by a witness or witnesses that an employee in such a position as I outlined had formerly had membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREEN WOOD. We have not had, as best I can recall at the moment, any witnesses at any of the hearings conducted by our board other than the individual employee himself, so the only testimony of witnesses we have received would be through FBI reports.

Mr. BUSBEY. I again refer you to my question and will you please answer my question? I am not talking about FBI reports. I am not talking about any hearings of the loyalty board of your agency. May I repeat the question: Was your agency informed by a witness or any witnesses as to an employee of your agency in one of these positions that I outlined-that he had former membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREENWOOD. The only knowledge I would have of witnesses would be those appearing before the agency board. How any other witness would appear, I do not know. So the only answer I can supply is what knowledge I have of the witnesses who might have appeared before the board, and there have been no witnesses before the board. Now, ordinarily we do not have witnesses appearing at any hearings of our agency. We do not have witnesses furnishing testimony in any other manner on such matters. So to the best of my knowledge I can say that no witness has ever furnished such information to our Service.

Mr. BUSBEY. Let us approach it from another angle, then. Has anyone, to your knowledge, approached you or any member of your board and been willing to testify as to the particular individual I am talking about as to his membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREENWOOD. No one has approached me with such an offer, and to the best of my knowledge no one has approached any other member of our board, but I cannot answer entirely for the other members of the board.

Mr. BUSBEY. If you had in your employ a person in one of these positions that I think would be properly recognized as a high position, would you not be interested in finding out anything and everything you could from any source of information so you could check as to that individual's probable membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Very definitely.

Mr. McGRATH. You said in his employ. I did not quite get the import of that question.

Mr. BUSBEY. The employ of the agency. Well, regardless of whether you received any derogatory information from the FBI investigation, would you not be interested in having any individual come in before your loyalty board and under oath testify as to what he knew in regard to an employee's membership in the Communist Party?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I think we would; speaking for myself, I would.

Mr. BUSBEY. I was in hopes you might have identified the employee before now, because the next question I wanted to ask you, Mr. Greenwood, was whether or not this particular employee at any time denied before your loyalty board his membership in the Communist Party. I think I will have to reframe the question. Have you had any employee in such a position as I have designated before the loyalty board where you have had to interrogate him as to his membership in the Communist Party and he denied it?

Mr. GREEN WOOD. In each case our loyalty board has considered we have asked a question approximating that one-"Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"—and in each instance the reply has been "No," so that to the best of my knowledge no employee whose case has been considered by our agency loyalty board has ever admitted having been a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. BUSBEY. Again, for the record, I take it from your past testimony that you have never had a witness before your agency loyalty board who has identified anyone in the agency as a former member of the Communist Party.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Subject to a check of the minutes of the meetings of the agency loyalty board, I would say "No." To the best of my memory at the moment I do not think we have ever had any witnesses before the agency loyalty board.

Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Greenwood to review the records of his agency and advise this subcommittee if this employee, whose name I will give to him off the record, is still in the agency and what action, if any, the agency has taken under the amendment to Executive Order 9835 wherein the standard or yardstick was changed from "belief that the employee is disloyal" to "a reasonable doubt as to the employee's loyalty."

Mr. GREENWOOD. I will be happy to supply that information, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FOGARTY. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

And that ends that part.

Mr. SCHERER. Now, Mr. Counsel, a year later, and it was just on March 20, 1953, Mr. Busbey, sitting as chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, had Mr. Greenwood before him again when that Service was asking for appropriations from Congress, will you read the testimony taken at that hearing.

Mr. KUNZIG (reading):

Action on loyalty review cases:

Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Greenwood, when we had the hearings for the fiscal year 1953, I talked with you at quite some length about one of your conciliators that I had reason to believe should not be in Government employment.

What, if anything, has happened to that man, as far as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is concerned?

Mr. GREENWOOD. He is still on the payroll, sir.

Mr. BUSBEY. Has any further determination by the loyalty board in the agency been made since the hearings of last year?

Mr. GREENWOOD. The case is now before the Loyalty Review Board and, under our instructions, any inquiry should be directed to that board rather than to our Service.

Mr. BUSBEY. For the time being, at least, I am directing my inquiry to you. Does the Loyalty Review Board of the agency still think that this man should be in Government service?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Under our instructions from the White House, Mr. Chairman, we are precluded from answering questions of that type.

Mr. BUSBEY. How many persons in your agency have been up for review before the Loyalty Review Board under the President's directive of 1947?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I do not have the exact figures. May we submit that for the record?

Mr. BUSBEY. Yes; and when you submit that for the record will you submit the number that have been passed on favorably and those that have been passed on unfavorably by your local board?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I think we can do that.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Should I read these statistics into the record, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SCHERER. It will not be necessary to read them, but we will incorporate them in the record.

(At this point Mr. Walter left the hearing room.)

Mr. KUNZIG (reading):

Summary of loyalty cases

Number of cases received by agency board__

Employees separated prior to consideration by agency board..

Number of cases considered by agency board...----

Favorable findings.

Unfavorable findings__.

Number of cases referred to review board...____

Employees separated prior to postaudit by review board.

Number of cases pending before review board Mar. 24, 1953.

Number of cases postaudited by review board_

Agency findings accepted by review board___
Agency findings reversed by review board____.

Mr. BUSBEY. As the record will show, I was very careful to keep that man's name out of the record last year. For the time being at least I am following the same procedure.

Mr. GREENWOOD. We appreciate that.

Mr. BUSBEY. Because I have no intention whatever of trying in any way to embarrass the individual, or the board, or the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. All I am trying to do is a constructive job of helping the agency. As evidence of that good faith on my part, I might say that I was responsible in great degree for having 10 people dismissed at one time from the State Department during the 80th Congress; but I did not reveal their names, I did not make any speeches about it, I put no publicity in the papers. The only thing that I am trying to get is constructive results.

When did the case of this individual go to the loyalty board for review?
Mr. GREENWOOD. Do we have that information, Mr. Eady?

Mr. EADY. Relying on memory, I think it was about February or March.
Mr. COLE. May I say this-they have conducted a hearing, the Loyalty Review
Board, in this case and have not yet made a ruling.

Mr. BUSBEY. Well, I am just trying to ascertain if they have been moving with dispatch.

Mr. COLE. Yes; they have completed the hearing, I understand. They conducted a hearing out in Ohio and the record is closed and their decision should be forthcoming soon, I would think.

Mr. BUSBEY. And that case did not go to the Loyalty Review Board until February of this year?

Mr. EADY. I was mistaken about the date.

Mr. BUSBEY. On what date did it go to the Loyalty Review Board?

Mr. EADY. Possibly about 4 months ago.

Mr. BUSBEY. And it took the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service all that time to make its determination, Mr. Greenwood?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I am not sure of the chronology at this time. I would have to look at the record.

Mr. BUSBEY. I do not know why you would have to look at the record, when I brought the case up as long ago as February 7 of 1952, and, as Mr. Eady says, it went to the Loyalty Review Board about 4 months ago. It seems rather selfevident to me that it took the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at least all that time to make its determination.

Mr. GREENWOOD. As I recall, when we spoke to you at that time in the hearings last year, that case was before the Loyalty Review Board then. Subsequently, it was referred back to the Service, and when a case is closed by the agency board, the review board, at its own discretion, decides when to pick up that case for review. We do not make that decision.

Mr. BUSBEY. When did this individual start to work in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I would have to supply that for the record.

Mr. BUSBEY. Would you do that, please?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Yes.

(The information is as follows:)

January 30, 1942.

And, Mr. Chairman, that date of January 30, 1942, is, of course, the exact date given by this witness this morning before this committee.

Now to continue with the testimony:

Mr. BUSBEY. When you are supplying that for the record, will you also supply for the record the date that his case was first considered by the loyalty board of the agency?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I will see if we can supply that information.

Mr. BUSBEY. Would there be any difficulty in supplying it?

Mr. GREENWOOD. I am not sure what the terms of the White House order are on that score.

Mr. BUSBEY. Well, I will tell you this: If you can find any terms of the White House order that would prevent you from doing that, and you do not do it, I am going to break this case wide open, and, for the record, I am getting sick and tired of continuing delay on a loyalty case such as that of this individual. I have been very lenient in this situation, but I do not propose to be lenient any longer. I hate to bring any agency into severe criticism, but I think from what I know of this case that this agency should be criticized. Frankly, my patience is running to an end, especially in view of the testimony on February 7, 1952.

And then follows a chronology on the case.

Mr. SCHERER. Do you know whether or not those witnesses were under oath at that time?

Mr. KUNZIG. I understand from authorities and people who work with these loyalty boards that the witnesses who do appear are under oath.

Mr. SCHERER. Was Mr. Greenwood under oath, particularly with reference to his testimony at the previous Appropriations Committee hearing?

Mr. KUNZIG. I would have to go back and check as to whether these witnesses were under oath. May I check that?

Mr. SCHERER. That can be done.

Mr. KUNZIG. And add it later?

Mr.SCHERER. Yes; it can be done later.

Mr. KUNZIG. I shall check that and supply it for the record. It is not evident from this document I have in front of me.

Is there anything further, sir? I have nothing further to bring before the subcommittee at this time.

Mr. SCHERER. I just repeat for the record that it is almost inconceivable that this committee or the Appropriations Committee of the Congress should be deprived of the records we have requested in this

case.

The committee will adjourn and convene in executive session at 2 o'clock this afternoon in the committee rooms at 227 House Office Building.

(Thereupon, at 12: 23 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m. of the same day in room 227, Old House Office Building, to go into executive session.)