But in his testimony to the subcommittee, Colonel French-asked to recount the private interviews with Mr. Otepka-said he couldn't reconstruct the interviews from memory. But he hastened to add that he had prepared a memorandum-for the record. And, when the subcommittee asked the Department to supply it, the document promptly was produced." Subcommittee counsel had anticipated that under Department regulations or the express wishes of the Secretary this material was cleared through several offices before it was sent to the subcommittee. The memorandum, therefore, was regarded as tantamount to an official Department exposition rather than a first-hand recital by Colonel French. Mr. Otepka declined to answer the questions on the listed items on the ground that they touched on subjects related to charges against him. His account of the interviews differed in various respects from that of Colonel French. It was a different matter, however, when the subcommittee asked for information about prospective appointees to the Advisory Committee on the Arts. While the State Department did submit other material, and a memorandum relating to the substitution of the Advisory Committee on Arts for ANTA, it did not reveal data on who was to run it. In this latter point, the State Department letter by Frederick G. Dutton (Mar. 20, 1963) said these memorandums could not be furnished not only because they were "internal working papers" containing the advice of subordinate officers to their superiors, but also because they contained "certain information relating to the security status" of prospective employees of the Department of State, and because the President's Directive of March 13, 1948, requires that such information be kept confidential. There was more on the Arts Committee issue later. On January 26, 1965, Chairman Eastland wrote to Secretary Rusk asking his personal consideration of furnishing certain requested information, even if some of it would still be classified. An enclosure listed seven questions which originally were put to Mr. Otepka during his testimony. One of them was: "(6) Which two of the four named individuals-Archibald MacLeish, Melvin Douglas, Agnes DeMille, George Seaton—are still under consideration for appointment to the Advisory Committee on the Arts?" The reply, by Douglas MacArthur II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, was negative. He cited the Presidential Directive and added the point about "internal working papers." Still another reason was offered in an oblique reply from the State Department regarding a request that Abba Schwartz, Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, be given an opportunity to comment on four published articles dealing with passports and area travel bans. The reply was "the Department does not believe that any useful purpose can be served by further comment." 10 Subcommittee counsel's comment on this rebuff was: "It would have been, of course, a sufficient answer to say that Mr. Schwartz does not desire to make any comment. But to say that the Department ? Ibid., pt 19. pp. 1625-1627. Ibid., pt. 1, p. 53 and pt. 8, p. 509. Ibid., pt. 4, pp. 242-243. 10 Ibid., pt. 16, pp. 1308-1310. 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: STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY-1963-65 Part 1. Part 9. Correspondence With Secretary Rusk Part 10. The Otepka Case-VIII 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 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. Reinforcing this equitable consideration, there is an even stronger reason why we must not rest until full justice has been done to Otto Otepka. No legislative body can discharge its duties with maximum efficiency without the power to conduct effective investigations respecting activities in the executive branch of the Government, most especially where wrongdoing or subversive activity is involved. The legislative body, or the committee of such a body, which cannot protect the witnesses who come before it from reprisals or harassment either because of their testimony, or because of the fact that they have appeared and testified, is in a poor position to seek or expect the full cooperation of other witnesses subsequently called. Until we can find a way to terminate the Otepka case with full justice to Mr. Otepka and every other witness who testified, and with full and continuing recognition of the right of the Congress and its committees to obtain complete and accurate information with respect to wrongdoing, subversive activity, or any other threat to our security which may exist or take place within the executive branch, we must not rest; for we must recognize that until this has been accomplished, the prerogatives of the legislative branch stand infringed, and its effectiveness stands curtailed. JAMES O. EASTLAND. |