Otepka, Otto F.. [From the record it appears Mr. Otepka at the time had not been advised of Mr. Rusk's order of Aug. 13.] Pasquale, George James (had left State Department job) -- Rusk, Hon. Dean... Ehrlich, Thomas (accompanied Mr. Rusk, didn't testify). Reilly, John F. Belisle, David I.. Ehrlich, Thomas.. Do... Schwartz, Abba P. Do..... Do.... Date June 20, 1963. July 29, 1963. Aug. 6, 1963. Aug. 16, 1936. Sept. 10, 1963. Do. Do. Nov. 14, 1963. Nov. 15, 1963. Nov. 18, 1963. Nov. 19, 1963. Nov. 20, 1963. Nov. 22, 1963. Do... Do.. Dec. 6, 1963. SECRETARY RUSK ASKS ADVANCE NOTICE Secretary Rusk made it pointedly clear, in a conference with the subcommittee on October 21, 1963, that in return for cooperation he wanted to know the subcommittee plans, the scope and nature of inquiries and so on. It was very carefully worded. There were no "conditions" laid down. He repeated, in his appearance, that he merely was offering some "suggestions." He did say that he felt that if his "guidelines" were followed he felt confident that the Department and the subcommittee could work together effectively. But he also outlined specifically his "guidelines"-and he emphasized again that they were "suggestions" which he said he thought would provide a "sound basis for future cooperation." He said that he wanted all relations between Department and subcommittee carried on in "an orderly manner" and in accordance with "recognized and agreed procedures." Such a straitjacket, of course, might have barred Otto Otepka from proving to the subcommittee that his boss, John F. Reilly, had lied about numerous matters being examined by the subcommittee. Secretary Rusk in his earnest outline of suggestions listed the following: First, I can assure the fullest assistance to the subcommittee if all requests for information, documents, interviews with Department personnel, and appearances of Department witnesses are made by timely letter from the chairman or acting chairman of the subcommittee directly to me or to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Second, before beginning a subcommittee investigation relating to the Department, the chairman of the subcommittee should send to the Department a statement of the scope and nature of the inquiry. Department witnesses can best be prepared if they are informed of the matters about which they will be questioned. This will also permit me to know the nature of the problems in which the subcommittee is interested. Third, since I have direct responsibility for the work of the Department of State, good practice would suggest that I be furnished with transcripts of the testimony of any Department witness who appears before the subcommittee, within a reasonable time after his appearance, and that I be able to designate an observer in cases where the proceedings will not be fully transcribed. I believe it is important to the subcommittee to have my own views on matters relating to the Department. Fourth, before publication of the testimony of any Department witness who appears before the committee, I should have the opportunity to review it for security purposes. I think this practice has, in general, been followed in the past. As a final point, the Presidential directive of March 13, 1948, provides that "no reports, records or files relating to the loyalty of employees or prospective employees" may be furnished to the subcommittee except upon the determination of the President. Neither I nor any of my subordinates should be asked to violate that directive. Senator Hruska, Republican of Nebraska, was not too happy about Secretary Rusk's "suggestions." He made the point, first, that there already had been an "orderly procedure." 2 Now, I refer to page 18 of your statement there, where you suggest that we give the fullest assistance of the committee as to information, documents, and 1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 5, p. 272. interviews with the Department personnel, and that that be made by timely letter. Now, that has been done in an orderly fashion heretofore, but through the offices of Jack Leahy, congressional liaison officer, not by letter but certainly by ample notice. As to the specified four points listed by Secretary Rusk, Senator Hruska said:2 In the first place, I want to say with reference to these four points here: I am not prepared to concede that it is in the Secretary of State's or the State Department's jurisdiction to prescribe under what conditions we shall be able to call witnesses from the State Department or any other department. Senator DODD. I think the Secretary said that this was a suggestion he was making. Secretary RUSK. I am not trying to dictate to the committee on that. Senator HRUSKA. I am addressing myself to these things here. What kind of information would you want, what kind of information about documents and interviews would be necessary in this timely letter? You see, the principle is good, but how do you fasten it down? A witness comes in here and the general subject is the organization of the Passport Department, let us say. Now, we do not know. We have been told that there are certain, some certain complaints, there are certain inadequacies or certain abuses, so we have to inquire. Now, we get a witness in here and question her on certain work. We say to her: "The general topic is your work." Now, if we are, in advance, to give information as to the interviews, the documents, and so on, how will we know what we are to ask for? Later in this discussion, Secretary Rusk stressed his point that in any case of conflicting testimony the subcommittee should be informed of his Secretary Rusk's-views of the facts. After some discussion of the conflicts between sworn testimony by Mr. Reilly and Mr. Otepka, we find the Secretary's position in this: 3 Secretary RUSK. The truth in these circumstances is my own concern, also. Apparently, we had conflicting testimony before that. The committee showed the conflicting testimony to Mr. Ötepka so he could comment on it. And I presume they also showed the conflicting testimony to Mr. Reilly so he could comment on it? Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Reilly has not yet been called back for that purpose. Each time Mr. Reilly has testified when there was then existing conflict, he has been told about it, but we do have some conflicting testimony and Mr. Reilly is one of those whom we would like to have back. Secretary RUSK. In that situation, the observer issue disappears, because we do have conflicting testimony and the Department necessarily becomes involved in it. But I think Senator Hruska's point is more difficult, where there is no conflicting testimony that is handled that way, but where there is testimony which I might feel, myself, is contrary to the facts as I know them on a particular point, or, say, contrary to the policy of the Department on a particular point and the committee ought to be informed about my view of the facts on the policy. Let me make my point very clear. I am not at the present time raising any question about saying to any officer of the Department of State, "When you go down there, you can only say 'X'." If they, on the questioning, want to say "Y" and "Z," all I am saying is that I think good practice-but this is for the committee to consider that good practice would give me a chance to know about it so I can inform the committee of my own views on the question. William J. Crockett, the then Deputy Under Secretary for Administration (Aug. 19, 1964), assured the subcommittee that Secretary Rusk had never attempted to impose conditions on the subcommittee in relation to Department cooperation.* Mr. SOURWINE. Is it your information that Secretary Rusk exacted from this committee or imposed on this committee any conditions as a quid pro quo for 2 Ibid., pt. 5, p. 281. Ibid., pt. 5. p. 286. 4 Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1499. countermanding the order that for a time prohibited witnesses from coming up here? Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Sourwine, I think only the Secretary could answer that question. I know that he proposed certain understandings or certain conditions. I don't know that he imposed them; he suggested them. Mr. SOURWINE. I don't, either. Mr. CROCKETT. I think only he can answer that question. I honestly don't know. Mr. SOURWINE. I'm sorry there is any doubt about it, because I think the situation would be that the Secretary would have no power to impose such conditions. I don't believe he had ever tried to, and as far as I know, he never has tried to. Mr. CROCKETT. Well, that is my understanding. I think that he may have felt that there were certain understandings reached, but again, only he can answer that. Mr. SOURWINE. You don't know of anything of that kind? Mr. CROCKETT. Not to my knowledge. I am not informed on that. Mr. SOURWINE. Sir, does any official of the State Department have the power or the authority to prohibit an employee of the Department from responding to a summons by this committee or to prohibit any witness before the committee who is a State Department employee from testifying or from answering any certain question? Mr. CROCKETT. I don't think the word "prohibit" would apply. I think that there may be certain questions that involve divulgence of security information or certain areas of Executive responsibility that might be improper. Mr. SOURWINE. Thank you, sir. Members of the subcommittee had doubts, at some points along the line of this discussion, as to the intentions of the Department but they concluded that Secretary Rusk neither asked nor received a commitment of any sort from the subcommittee respecting its procedures or any "conditions" whatsoever. After he had been greeted by Senator Dodd, presiding, who emphasized that the Secretary was not invited there "to answer any charges," Mr. Rusk spoke of the "common goal" of the Department and the subcommittee and of how the two should work together. As he phrased it: 5 I have a statutory responsibility for the Department's security program, as I have for all other programs within the Department. The subcommittee has a responsibility to review regularly the security programs of the Department, as well as of other executive agencies, to determine whether legislative or other action may be required. Both the Department and the subcommittee have a common goal, protection of our national security, and it seems to me clear that we should work together to this end. Explaining away as a "temporary measure," his ban on testimony by subordinates until he had had a chance to confer with the subcommittee, Mr. Rusk turned to the future:" *It seems clear that, as two parts of the same Government, the subcommittee and the Department should work together toward the objectives we share. I have frequently emphasized my desire to cooperate fully with all committees of Congress. I reiterate that intention here. Department personnel have been instructed by me to meet the needs of congressional committees as fully and promptly as possible. The records of the subcommittee will show that, during my term of office, it has had very full access to officers of the Department. But I think we can each do our part better if relations between us are carried on in an orderly manner, and in accordance with recognized and agreed procedures. I have some suggestions-I emphasize "suggestions"-for these procedures, which I think will provide a sound basis for future cooperation. Those "suggestions" were (1) that the subcommittee make formal requests by letter to the Secretary of State or a designated aide for $ State Department Security hearings, pt. 5, p. 266. Ibid., pt. 5, p. 272. |