review of this testimony I have concluded that mention of an incident which occurred last March would serve to clarify my responses to Mr. Sourwine's questions concerning interception of conversations in Mr. Otepka's office. I believe that my answers to these questions were correct. I would like, however, to have the attached statement inserted in the record of my testimony in order that there be no misunderstanding.

If you approve my request I suggest that the statement and this letter be inserted at page 1107 of my testimony.

I enclose the copy of my testimony which was made available to me.

Sincerely,

ELMER DEWEY HILL.

On Monday, March 18, 1963, Mr. John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security, asked me to explore the possibility of arranging some way to eavesdrop on conversations taking place in Mr. Otepka's office. Mr. Reilly explained to me that he would only consider such a technique if other investigative methods failed.

Later that day, I discussed the technical aspects of this matter with Mr. Clarence J. Schneider who, at that time, was serving as Chief of the Technical Operations Branch of the Division of Technical Services. We agreed on the approach to be used-modifying the wiring of Mr. Otepka's telephone instrument-and decided to return that evening to try the approach.

That evening Mr. Schneider and I altered the existing wiring in the telephone in Mr. Otepka's office. We then established a circuit from Mr. Otepka's office to the Division of Technical Services laboratory by making additional connections in the existing telephone system wiring.

Mr. Schneider and I tested the system and found we would be unable to overhear conversations in Mr. Otepka's office, except actual telephone conversations, because electrical interference produced a loud buzzing sound. (It was never contemplated that an attempt would be made just to monitor Mr. Otepka's telephone line in order to overhear conversations on it.)

Mr.

I reported our unsuccessful effort to Mr. Reilly the following morning. Schneider has told me that during that day he asked an officer in the Division of Domestic Operations of the Office of Security whether he had, or knew where to acquire, equipment which would elimina te such a buzzing sound. Mr. Schneider assured me that he did not discuss with the officer the specific application for which the equipment was needed. I also attempted during that day to obtain such equipment, but was unsuccessful.

On the following day, March 20, Mr. Reilly informed me that I should not pursue the matter further because he had found the type of information he was looking for from an examination of Mr. Otepka's classified trash. Mr. Reilly directed me to disconnect the wiring connections which Mr. Schneider and I had made. That evening, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Schneider, and I met in the Office of Security. In the space of a few minutes, I removed the extra connections which Mr. Schneider and I had made in Mr. Otepka's telephone while Mr. Reilly and Mr. Schneider stayed in the hall outside Mr. Otepka's office.

To summarize, for a 2-day period it might have been possible to intercept conversations taking place in Mr. Otepka's office if certain technical problems could have been resolved. These problems never were resolved and the wiring connections which were made were removed without any conversations having been intercepted.

TWO WITNESSES LEAVE THE STATE DEPARTMENT

The story of how three State Department officials told falsehoods under oath to this subcommittee, and how they recanted-or "amplified" their testimony, as they so quaintly put it—is told in detail in the preceding section of this report.1

Lying under oath before a Congressional committee can hardly be classed as casual fibbing. If the Department of Justice had chosen to prosecute, the charge would have been perjury-a felony. So let us see how the State Department dealt with their three "amplifiers.'

Messrs. John Reilly and Elmer Dewey Hill were suspended and then allowed to resign. But Mr. David I. Belisle was retained by the Department through a rather curious interpretation.

Some indication of the thought processes used by State Department officials in arriving at this determination may be found in the following testimony by Mr. William Crockett on May 4, 1965:2

Mr. SOURWINE. According to newspaper reports, when you went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee you indicated that Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill had been subjected to severe action by the State Department but stated you found no fault with the decision to continue Mr. Belisle as a trusted employee of your office, explaining that you made the distinction that Mr. Belisle was out of the country when the wiretap was put through on the Otepka phone. Is this true?

Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. This would appear to indicate that you consider a major element of Reilly's and Hill's offense to have been the actual participation in the wiretap. Is this conclusion correct?

Mr. CROCKETT. No; not only the actual participation in the wiretap but the actual action to make the tap without consulting with me or higher authority. As a matter of fact, there is still a great deal of question as to whether Hill acted on instructions by Mr. Reilly or took action on his own to check out his own technical capacity to make such a tap.

Mr. SOURWINE. Isn't the giving of false testimony under oath before a Senate committee a much more grievous offense than participating in a wiretap for security reasons?

Mr. CROCKETT. To give false testimony under any circumstances is a grievous offense.

Mr. SOURWINE. You have told us that the existing order, issued in 1961, dealing with telephone monitoring and recording was not intended to apply to the security field. Is there any existing order or regulation in the State Department under which the tapping of Otepka's phone or the conversion of his telephone instrument to a receiver for the purpose of recording conversations, constituted a violation?

Mr. CROCKETT. No, sir; this kind of activity did not violate the order of 1961 since that order referred to an individual having his own calls monitored by his secretary without the knowledge of the caller.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know of any general instructions in the State Department which would have made it improper to have tapped Mr. Otepka's phone under the circumstances?

Mr CROCKETT. No; there were no instructions.

Mr. SOURWINE. How does the fact that Reilly and Hill participated in the arrangements for compromising Mr. Otepka's phone constitute any aggravation of their offense?

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. 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: "

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: &

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?

State Department Security hearings, pt. 12, p. 947.

Ibid., pt. 12, p. 948.

Ibid., pt. 12, pp. 948, 949.