CONTROLS ON CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE

As part of the overall arrangements to fasten tighter controls by the Department upon its relationship with Congress, a regulation came down from the top echelon March 12, 1963, about a month prior to the arrival of the new Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security Affairs, John F. Reilly.'

Subchapter 1050 of Communications and Records, Foreign Affairs Manual, volume 5, was revised to delete the former authority [of such officials as Otto Otepka] to sign congressional correspondence with regard to administrative, personnel, security, passports, visas, and other matters.2

Mr. Reilly was asked whether the changes had special application to the Office of Security. He answered:

Well, in that the earlier regulations permitted some one other than the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to sign mail to Members of Congress, I would say then there was a change because formerly the Administrator for the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs might well have signed.

Mr. Reilly, as the Deputy, prepared mail for the signature of Frederick Gary Dutton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations until Friday, July 25, 1964. He said he had encountered no operational difficulties as a result.3

A scrutiny of the correspondence record constrains the subcommittee to conclude that whatever the immediate purpose, the overall resultant was to insulate the Secretary of State from contact and correspondence with the Congress, at least in terms of promptitude. Appreciable delays were experienced for some 3 years following the revision in 1963 of subchapter 1050.*

There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Secretary ever gave directive to officials below to conduct correspondence as it was conducted for some 3 years. Responsibility must be presumed to lie with those who got increased authority only under the order of March 12, 1963.5

That an appalling inefficiency existed in the handling of congressional correspondence is evidenced by the chart in part 5, State Department Security-1963-65, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, at pages 1506-1511.

Without documentation of the fact it would be almost incredible that a committee of the Congress would have to wait the following

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 16, p. 1292.

2 Ibid. and p. 1293 (wherein is set forth in the record transmittal letter CR-1007, Mar. 12, 1963, transmitting a new chapter of the Foreign Affairs Manual, together with the text of the new chapter as transmitted). Ibid. At this point the presiding chairman, Senator Dodd, vice chairman of the subcommittee, remarked, "I can well understand why any Assistant Secretary in charge of this sort of thing would want to sign his own mail, rather than have a lot of other people do it. ***"

Prior to that time, Senator Eastland had addressed more than 50 communications to the Secretary without getting 1 response over the Secretary's signature.

During the first week of August 1966, a sharp improvement was noted but only when the Secretary of State himself took over the onus of communication in a matter to which his attention had been specially invited.

periods, inter alia, for an agency in the executive branch to respond by way of an acknowledgment or reply to official inquiries and requests:

EFFORTS TO GET MORE FACTS

Despite assurances of a desire for cooperation, given by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, the Internal Security Subcommittee encountered repeated refusals of requested data. Long delays ensued in many instances wherein answers to questions finally were submitted.

Logical-sounding phrases became a pattern used repeatedly when the Department chose to decline to supply requested data. The subcommittee was rebuffed many times in its efforts to find out how the internal security laws were being applied at the State Department. Reasons given include "precluded" by provisions of a Presidential Directive; the requested memorandums were interoffice work papers; or that the "third agency rule" barred the release of the data.

The hearings made it clear, however, the Secretary of State could make exceptions even in cases presumably involving the Presidential Directives.1

An example of the issues and the Department's stance is seen in a reply to requests by Chairman James O. Eastland. The reply came from Robert E. Lee, acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, on November 10, 1964:2

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., November 10, 1964.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Internal Security,
Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of September 30, 1964, to the Secretary concerning information in personnel security files and also concerning the testimony of two Department of State witnesses.

Your first three questions related to the security clearances of Mr. X, Mr. Y and Mr. Z. These three officers are cleared under the provisions of Executive Order 10450. As you know, the Department is precluded from disclosing any information contained in security files, by reason of the Presidential Directive of March 13, 1948.

Concerning the fourth question in your letter, the memorandum referred to in this question is an internal Department document containing information provided to the Department by another executive agency. Because of this, the Department would not be able to provide the document to the Subcommittee. The Department has no record of Mr. Otepka's testimony of August 17, 1964, or Mr. Berry's testimony of August 17, 1964. As you will recall, the Secretary, in his testimony before the Subcommittee, requested that he be furnished with transcripts of the testimony of Department witnesses who appear before the Subcommittee. After the transcripts of testimony relating to these questions are made available so that the witnesses may be able to correct them and so that the Secretary may have an opportunity to review them, the Department will be able to respond to the questions raised in your letter.

If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely yours,

Clearances:

Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

L-Mr. Meeker (draft)

O-Mr. Crockett

L:L/SCA:RA Frank:pat 11/9/64

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 16, p. 1299.

2 Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1298.

ROBERT E. LEE,

INR-Mr. Denney

H

Counsel for the subcommittee put the issue before William J. Crockett, Deputy Undersecretary for Administration in this way (May 4, 1965). Calling the Lee reply unsatisfactory, counsel summed up the matter: 3

The committee asked that the Department authorize Mr. Otepka to answer as to whether there is derogatory information in the security file of Mr. X 1 and to testify as to his (Otepka's) conclusion whether such information is substantial. The committee asked that similar authority be given to Mr. Otepka with respect to similar questions concerning Mr. Yi and Mr. Z. Mr. Lee responded that all three of these officers “are cleared under the provisions of Executive Order 10450," and that "the Department is precluded from disclosing any information contained in security files, by reason of the Presidential directive of March 13, 1948."

There is substantial difference between disclosing information contained in a security file and testifying as an expert with respect to a general conclusion in the nature of an appraisal of such information. Department witnesses have been permitted in some instances-notably, in the case of Mr. William Wieland-to make such general and conclusory statements. Furthermore, Mr. Rusk told the committee that he had authority to make exceptions to the Presidential order. Clearly, therefore, the Department is not "precluded" from granting the authority requested, if Mr. Rusk is willing to do so.

1 Actual names deleted for security reasons at the request of the State Department.

Subcommittee counsel then asked for a personal determination by Secretary Rusk on the Otepka testimony: 3

Mr. SOURWINE. *** Will you take this up with the Secretary, conveying the committee's request for his personal determination, and advise the committee whether he will authorize Mr. Otepka to answer with respect to each of these three individuals, whether the Department had derogatory security information respecting him and whether, in Otepka's opinion, such information is substantial? Mr. CROCKETT. The Secretary has advised that the letter of November 10, 1964 (from Mr. Lee), expresses his views on the release of information of this kind for public discussion.

The wide extent to which the third agency rule could be applied was illustrated in discussion of the Lee letter. Counsel put the issue before Mr. Crockett and got another rejection."

Mr. SOURWINE. It has also been requested that the Department determine, and advise the committee, if the Truman Executive order of 1947 prohibits Mr. Berry from giving the subcommittee information about Mr. John Stewart Service who was not, when the question was asked, and is not at the present time, an employee of the Department nor an applicant for employment; the particular information desired being the comment made by Mr. Whiting in his memorandum dealing with Mr. Service's appointment as librarian for the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of California. With respect to this question, Mr. Lee's letter of November 10, 1964, stated that Whiting's memorandum was "an internal Department document containing information provided to the Department by another executive agency” and that "Because of this, the Department would not be able to provide the document to the subcommittee." Attention is directed to the fact that the committee is not trying, by this question, to get the entire document, but only to get the comment of Mr. Whiting, who is a State Department employee. If you cannot, yourself, resolve this question in the committee's favor, it is requested that you take the matter up with the Secretary and advise the committee of his determination with respect to whether this information will be provided.

Mr. CROCKETT. I discussed this with the Secretary and he has decided that his letter of November 10, 1964, and question 17 of his letter dated March 12, 1965, will have to apply due to the third agency rule.1

Robert L. Berry (Aug. 17, 1964).

1 Par. 17 of the State Department letter of Mar. 12, 1965, is as follows:

"As the Department has indicated before, the Department is unable to supply a memorandum relating to a personnel case involving Mr. Service since that memorandum is an internal working paper relating to a personnel case and involving communications from another agency.'

See correspondence on p. 1298.

Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1299.

Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1300.

The Lee letter also raised questions as to whether a State Department witness whose testimony (in transcript) had not been furnished to the Department for its review would be permitted to respond to questions previously asked but not answered.

Counsel brought out that the subcommittee had stopped sending its transcripts to the Department after it learned that, without the subcommittee's knowledge or permission, the Department had been making copies of the transcripts and maintaining a file of them. This, counsel maintained, amounted to "taking control of the committee's executive transcripts out of the hands of the committee."

The original practice of the subcommittee was to send transcripts to the Department for the purpose of having them corrected by witnesses. But the Department, as in the case of the Lee letter, was insisting that transcripts be submitted, not only for correction by the witness, but for review by the Department. As counsel put the issue: "This is certainly something the Department has the right to request, but it is also something the Department has no right to demand."

The Department's protests about transcripts also butted against the fact that testimony of witnesses always had been available to each witness and his counsel, at all reasonable times at the offices of the subcommittee.

Mr. Crockett contended that the Secretary had the responsibility to see what witnesses were testifying to and therefore it had been necessary in the past to have the testimony available "for the Secretary to review" 5 before it was published by the subcommittee.

He added that State Department officials "review the testimony very carefully to pick up suggestions for improvement so we can start acting on them right away.'

DEPARTMENT AVOIDS FIRST-HAND ANSWERS

Testimony about the investigations made by former Ambassador Wilson C. Flake and retired Col. George W. French, Jr., illustrate how the State Department made use of a Department memorandumwhen it chose to do so.

These two special assistants sought to interrogate Otto F. Otepka, in private conference, after he had been accused of violations of Department rules and faced dismissal. The investigators denied they were inquiring into "the Otepka case." Rather, according to Colonel French they wanted statements about Otepka charges of loose practices at the Department. These were listed by Colonel French as:

(a) Security risk cases have been covered up and security risks permitted to continue in service.

(b) Security clearances have been granted for reasons other than sound evaluation of the pertinent facts.

(c) Liaison with intelligence agencies has been improperly handled.

(d) Incoming personnel security intelligence has not been adequately related to personnel files.

(e) Evaluative functions have been transferred to investigators.

(f) Waivers of security clearances, or emergency clearances, have been granted as favors or as a result of pressure.

(g) Personnel for important assignments have been selected for bias against security checks.

Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1301.

Ibid., pt. 19, pp. 1625–1626.