Mr. CROCKETT. The fact that Reilly and Hill took it upon themselves to compromise Mr. Otepka's phone was an error in judgment but does not aggravate the offense they committed at their testimony.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were Reilly and Hill punished because they had something to do with compromising Otepka's phone, or because they lied under oath?

Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill lost the confidence of top departmental officials because of their conduct under oath before the committee.

Mr. SOURWINE. Isn't one lie under oath just as bad as another lie under oath, regardless of subject matter, where both lies are intentional and are for the purpose of withholding information with respect to the true facts, which at the time are known by the witness?

Mr. CROCKETT. Certainly in the area of admissible facts there is a difference between evidence known at first hand and evidence known by hearsay. Therefore, there must be a differentiation made between the testimony of a person who passes on hearsay information opposed to a witness who has direct knowledge. Mr. SOURWINE. Is it true that, as reported in the press, you indicated that Reilly and Hill were not fired for giving untruthful testimony to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, but for having taken part in the wiretap? The news article referred to appeared in Des Moines Register, August 12, 1964, with Washington dateline.

Mr. CROCKETT. Technically speaking, Mr. Hill and Mr. Reilly resigned from the Department of State but as I have stated previously their resignations were brought about by the loss of confidence as a result of the unauthorized wiretap and because of their testimony before the committee as well as their lack of forthrightness to officials of the Department of State concerning the whole matter.

MR. REILLY SURFACES WITH FCC

Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill resigned under pressure. After what apparently was regarded as a decent cooling-off interval, Mr. Reilly surfaced as a trial attorney for the Federal Communications Commission. Why?

Mr. Crockett suggested the answer in saying there was nothing in Mr. Reilly's personnel file to show that his resignation was involuntary: 3

Mr. SOURWINE. So that it may be perfectly clear on the record, was Mr. John F. Reilly dismissed or asked to resign by the Department of State? Do his personnel records show this?

Mr. CROCKETT. He resigned and his personnel records show that he resigned. Mr. SOURWINE. What was the date of Mr. Reilly's resignation?

Mr. CROCKETT. I believe he submitted his resignation sometime in November 1963, however, he did not leave the rolls of the Department until February 1964. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Reilly's resignation was originally accepted without date on November 18, 1963, but he was not separated until February 22, 1964. During the intervening time, was he on leave? Was this "administrative" or

"official" leave?

Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Reilly was on sick leave recuperating from surgery during this period.

Mr. SOURWINE. During any of the time between submission and acceptance of his resignation and his separation, did Mr. Reilly perform any of his duties as an officer of the Department of State?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know if there is anything in Mr. John F. Reilly's personnel file to show that his resignation from the State Department was not voluntary?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir; there is not.

Mr. SOURWINE. Would it be possible to furnish the committee for the record at this point, an excerpt from the personnel file to the extent of the entry with respect to his resignation, anything which might indicate that it was involuntary resignation?

Mr. CROCKETT. I think whether it was voluntary or involuntary is a technicality really. The thing that I would not want to do is hurt an individual unnecessarily. 3 State Department Security hearings, pt. 12, pp. 946, 947.

But I will be glad to look into the whole thing and see to what extent we can comply with the request.

Mr. SOURWINE. All right, sir.

I think I should say for the record that the committee has no desire to hurt an individual unnecessarily and I know that certain members of the committeeand perhaps all of them-have declined to make statements with regard to Mr. Reilly after he left the Department of State, since he no longer was concerned with this investigation from that time forward.

But the question of what the personnel record shows about his resignation and what the Department's other records might show is of concern to the investigation, because if, by any chance, there is a policy down there of letting the record fail to indicate, in the case of a man who was thrown out, that that is what happened, it leaves the way open for him to come back in later on.

Would it be possible to furnish the committee with the text of Mr. Reilly's letter of resignation?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir; if it is available.

Mr. SOURWINE. May that go in the record when furnished, sir?

Senator DODD. Yes.

As it turned out, the State Department already had forwarded Mr. Reilly's file, or part of it, to the FCC (as of Aug. 27, 1964), and the subcommittee eventually obtained a copy of his letter of resignation from there. It reads: 4

The Honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 18, 1963.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I hereby tender my resignation as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security to take effect at your convenience. Recent developments have made it clear that I can no longer serve you effectively in that capacity.

I have enjoyed serving under you and you have my every best wish for the future.

Sincerely,

JOHN F. REILLY, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security.

(EDITOR'S NOTE.-The copy of the Reilly letter carried a handwritten note in the left margin saying "To be effective Jan. 4, 1964, per Porter.

12/4.)

Nor was there anything in Mr. Hill's personnel file to indicate forced resignation. The only difference was that he was not hired by another Government agency, but returned to a private firm for which he had worked prior to joining the State Department. Mr. Crockett said the following: 5

Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Elmer Hill resign or was he forced to resign?

Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Hill resigned.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is there anything in his personnel file to show that he was forced to resign?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is Mr. Hill's letter of resignation available for the record? Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir; it is in the retired files at St. Louis, Mo.

MR. BELISLE GOES TO BONN

And what of our third "amplifier," Mr. Belisle? Mr. Crockett explains what happened to him: ở

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Crockett, you are reported to have stated that in the view of the State Department, Mr. John Reilly and Mr. Elmer Hill have discredited themselves as witnesses because of the false testimony they gave before the Internal Security Subcommittee. Was that a correct attribution?

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't know whether I made it as positive as this; I remember something like this. Perhaps I may have said they discredited themselves. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you feel Mr. Belisle discredited himself as a witness? Mr. CROCKETT. I think there was a terrible difference in the circumstances. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Belisle also lied to the committee under oath. Was any effort made to get him to resign?

Mr. CROCKETT. It is a matter of opinion whether Mr. Belisle lied or not but, in any event, he did not lose the confidence of the top command of the Department of State.

Mr. SOURWINE. Has he been promoted since he lied to the committee? Mr. CROCKETT. Without answering the inference implied by your question, Mr. Belisle has not been promoted since he appeared before the committee.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you aware of any promise or commitment to Mr. John Reilly that the Department will take care of him?

Mr. CROCKETT. Certainly there was no office commitment on the part of the Department of State to take care of Mr. Reilly.

Mr. SOURWINE. Has any effort been made to get Mr. Reilly appointed in the Foreign Service?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you aware that papers were put in process at one time, subsequent to Mr. Reilly's separation from the Department, for the purpose of making Reilly an FSO?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do Reilly and Hill retain retirement rights as FSO's? Is there any bar to their reinstatement or reemployment?

Mr. CROCKETT. Reilly and Hill were never Foreign Service officers. Mr. Hill was an FSR-4 and Mr. Reilly was a GS-18. There is no reinstatement procedure for anyone who has been outside of our employment any considerable length of time. To come on board, people would have to undergo processing like any other new employee.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was Mr. Belisle brought into your office on a temporary basis with a view to sending him out to the field as soon as possible? Have arrangements been made to send him out to the field?

Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Belisle was transferred to Bonn, Germany, on August 16, 1964. He was brought to my office to perform special services in connection with the review of personnel cases.

Mr. SOURWINE. Where is he going to go?

MR. CROCKETT. He was transferred to Bonn, Germany.

Mr. SOURWINE. In what capacity? What will be his duties there? Do you know who will take up the security evaluation work in which he has been engaged? Mr. CROCKETT. Mr. Belisle serves as deputy administrative officer in Bonn, Germany, and, in that capacity, his duties will be generally administrative work relating to the operation of the Embassy at Bonn and the consulates in Germany. The position he occupied in the Office of Security was not filled by Mr. Gentile but the activities Mr. Belisle performed are, in a large measure, being performed by Mr. Henri G. Grignon, Assistant Director for Personnel Security.

UNRELATED TO OTEPKA CASE?

Another of the many puzzles confronting this subcommittee is why the State Department insisted that the dishonest witness cases and the Otepka case were unrelated. Representative William C. Cramer of Florida inserted into the Congressional Record in late 1963 a memorandum of a briefing of heads of divisions in the State Department attributing a number of statements to Mr. Crockett. Subcommittee counsel questioned Mr. Crockett about some of those remarks: "

Mr. SOURWINE. How can you figure that the Reilly and Hill cases are totally unrelated when Reilly is the chief charger against Otepka? He is the man who went to the Department of Justice and had him investigated by the FBI, tried to have him prosecuted under espionage statutes, and certainly is an essential witness against him, and Hill is also an essential witness against him. How can you say they are unrelated?

7 State Department Security hearings, pt. 12, pp: 943, 944:

Mr. CROCKETT. We meant that the incidents are unrelated. The departure of Reilly and Hill is unrelated to the charges against Mr. Otepka. The persons who judge the case will determine to what extent the testimony of Reilly and Hill is admissible.

Mr. SOURWINE. You would certainly agree, though, wouldn't you, that the fact that the principal witnesses against Otepka have been discharged because they lied under oath is not unrelated to his case?

Mr. CROCKETT. This will be a factor, I am sure.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite ostensible disapproval, the State Department allowed two witnesses who had lied to the subcommittee to resign with no prejudicial material in their personnel files to prevent further Government employment, and it retained in its employment one of the trio on its payroll.

Because of this soft treatment, the impression has inevitably been created and only the State Department can undo this impressionthat it regards perjury before a committee of Congress as a quite minor matter.