STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY-1963-65 PART I REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE DECEMBER 15, 1967 AF. 9 1968 65-860 MAIN Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1967 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office PURCHASED THR LOO. EX. PRO' COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Florida EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois STROM THURMOND, South Carolina SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Florida ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois STROM THURMOND, South Carolina J. G. SOURWINE, Chief Counsel BENJAMIN MANDEL, Director of Research, Retired November 1, 1967 RESOLUTION Resolved, by the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, That the attached report on "State Department Security" is hereby authorized to be reported favorably to the full committee, to be printed and made public. Approved: December 15, 1967. FOREWORD From April 25, 1963, to May 4, 1965, the Internal Security Subcommittee held hearings on security in the Department of State. The record of these hearings was printed and made public in 25 separate volumes between July 19, 1965, and October 2, 1966. Five of these volumes dealt with the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs and subordinate offices of that Bureau. The other 20 volumes were subtitled as follows: Part 9. Correspondence With Secretary Rusk Part 10. The Otepka Case-VIII Part 11. The Otepka Case-IX The subcommittee and its staff have devoted a great deal of time and attention to the preparation of a report covering the area embraced by the testimony contained in the 20 volumes cited above. It would have been possible for the subcommittee to have filed a report on these hearings at an earlier date, but the subcommittee felt. that because Mr. Otto Otepka was an important witness at these hearings, it would not be desirable to make a report while the Otepka case was still pending decision in the Department of State. Perhaps if the committee had known at the time the hearings were concluded how long it would be before the Otepka case would be decided within the Department, the committee might have taken a different view about the timing of its report. Actually, the appeal filed by Mr. Otepka from the State Department's dismissal order, growing out of Mr. Otepka's actions in furnishing certain information to the subcommittee, did not commence until June 6, 1967. These hearings were concluded June 29, 1967, though the record was technically held open until November 20, 1967, so that the time limit for filing by the hearing officer of his report and findings would not begin to run. The hearing officer's report was filed and presented to the Secretary of State on December 5, 1967, and the Secretary made his decision on December 9, 1967. The subcommittee has not decided whether a separate report will be filed covering testimony contained in the five volumes dealing with the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. Such a report, if made, will be submitted during the next session of the Congress. INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF SENATORS EASTLAND AND DODD This report, carefully documented by sworn testimony reveals many mistakes in management and in the lack of supervision or controls over powers exercised by officials in some management levels. It is to be hoped that the lessons indicated in these hearings and noted in this report have been taken to heart by administrative officials. During the course of these hearings, and in the intensive study of the hearing record which was necessarily involved in the preparation of this report, the committee has found several areas in which it appears personnel security in the State Department, and in other departments as well, can be strengthened by legislation. Recommendations in these areas will be made by the committee early in the next session, in combination with other security recommendations, of a legislative nature, growing out of the subcommittee's hearings in 1966 and in 1967 on the subject of gaps in our internal security laws. It is hoped that legislation to implement these forthcoming recommendations can be enacted at the next session of the Congress as the Internal Security Act of 1968. Much of the testimony in these hearings involve what has come to be known as the Otepka case, and Mr. Otto Otepka was a major witness at the hearings. It is natural, therefore, that the subcommittee's report should discuss various aspects of the Otepka case. The impact this case has had upon personnel security in the executive branch of our Government has been far greater than is generally recognized. This impact has had both positive and negative aspects. On the plus side, a number of improvements in security policies and procedures have been put into effect administratively to cure lapses or supply deficiencies to which Mr. Otepka and other witnesses called attention. Another plus is the inspiring example Otto Otepka has set in remaining steadfast to the uncompromising principles and high standards which should and do motivate a majority of the professional security officers who serve our Government. The most outstanding negative aspect of the Otepka case has been its chilling effect upon all those Government employees, both in and out of the security field, who may quite reasonably see it as an object lesson teaching that honor and virtue are not their own reward if following the path of honor and virtue involves stepping on the toes of entrenched authority, or calls for disclosing matters embarrassing to officials in high places. The subcommittee, the Senate, the Congress, and the country owe a debt of gratitude-a debt which today remains still unpaid-to Otto Otepka and those who, like him, have told the truth and the whole truth without hedging or covering up for the sake of protecting either themselves or their superiors. For this reason alone, neither the committee nor the Senate nor the Congress should be willing to consider the Otepka case closed until Mr. Otepka stands free of all continuing punishments or harassments of any kind. |