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. effort made to get him to resign?

Was any 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? there any bar to their reinstatement or reemployment?

Is

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: 7

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.

MISCONDUCT CHARGES AGAINST MR. HILL

The story of Elmer Dewey Hill, as documented in the subcommittee's hearings, was partly concerned with the misadventures of an American official overseas who indulged in drinking sprees, polka dancing, and piano pounding in a Warsaw restaurant in the presence of foreign groups.1

It was more than that, however, since it was the account of the then deputy chief of one of the State Department's divisions-that of Technical Security Services-which spent, during his tenure, $1.5 million for research and development of electronic equipment.2

It also involved a recital of efforts at the State Department 3 to bury reports of Hill's misconduct, of the downgrading of the efficiency rating of Mr. George Pasquale, one of the men who had reported on Hill's party performances, and of how Mr. Pasquale was "persuaded" to resign.

4

Turned up in the digging for the facts concerning Mr. Hill's conduct was testimony about "informal" inquiries substituted for confrontation, and repeated references to "rumors" about what was going There was also testimony that one official, John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security, had said that Mr. Hill "must be protected." 5

on.

George Pasquale, a security engineer in electronics, assigned to European centers, began the story when he testified on September 10,

He told of Mr. Hill's arrival at Frankfurt, Germany, during a technical inspection tour of various posts in Europe.

Mr. Hill arrived in Frankfurt on the Thursday preceding Easter Sunday April 19, 1962, Mr. Pasquale said, and that Mr. Frederick York, Foreign Service officer in charge of the Frankfurt test center gave a cocktail party at his home in honor of Mr. Hill."

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you attend that party?

Mr. PASQUALE. No, I did not attend the party.

Mr. SOURWINE. Have the events of that party been described to you by Mr. and Mrs. Frederick York?

Mr. PASQUALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were the mother and father of Frederick York present at the party?

Mr. PASQUALE. Yes, they were.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was it reported to you that, during the evening, Mr. Hill became intoxicated?

Mr. PASQUALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. That he removed his coat, shirt, and tie, so he was wearing only his trousers and a T-shirt?

Mr. PASQUALE. That's correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. But he began using vulgar and obscene words?

Mr. PASQUALE. In the course of the evening, he became inebriated and started using very foul language, four-letter words.

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 14, pp. 1093-1100.

Ibid., p. 1118.

Ibid., pp. 1054-1055, 1063–1064, 1084-1085.

Ibid., pp. 1122, 1124.

Ibid., pp. 1110, 1111.

Ibid., p. 1090.

Mr. SOURWINE. That during the festivities he eventually fell asleep on the couch, waking up at 3 a.m. after the guests had departed and the hosts had gone to bed?

Mr. PASQUALE. That's correct. He woke up in the middle of the night and, without any knowledge to the Yorks, he disappeared and it was not until the following day, about 12:00, he arrived-called our office wondering how to get to our office.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, if they were asleep and there wasn't anybody in the room, how does anybody know when he woke up?

Mr. PASQUALE. Well, they said it was midmorning, early in the morning, because I think someone got up and went probably to the bathroom, I would assume, and he was gone.

Mr. SOURWINE. They missed him early in the morning. That is all you know. Mr. PASQUALE. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. He was asleep on the couch in a drunken stupor when they went to bed, and in the early morning he had disappeared.

Mr. PASQUALE. That's correct.

Then Mr. Hill and Mr. Pasquale were off to Warsaw, Poland, on April 21, 1962, where they were met by Victor Dikeos, security officer at the American Embassy, who gave a cocktail party for the visitors and others."

Mr. SOURWINE. Did those other guests include diplomatic personnel of foreign nations?

Mr. PASQUALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Specifically whom, if you remember?

Mr. PASQUALE. Not of foreign nations-the people that were guests at his home. Mr. SOURWINE. Included are the diplomatic personnel of the United States? Mr. PASQUALE. Other American Embassy personnel.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were there any foreigners present?

Mr. PASQUALE. No foreigners present.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, did Mr. Hill, on the occasion of this party, at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Dikeos, become intoxicated?

Mr. PASQUALE. He became completely intoxicated.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did he in your presence and within your hearing use vulgar and obscene language?

Mr. PASQUALE. Yes, he did, very much so.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did he repeatedly make derogatory and obscene references to women?

Mr. PASQUALE. That's correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did he break any cocktail glasses?

Mr. PASQUALE. He certainly did.

Mr. SOURWINE. How did this happen? Was it intentional or careless, or what? Mr. PASQUALE. Oh, I would say he was so inebriated-and in a fit of angerI don't know what he was thinking about at the time, but he made some obscene remarks about women in general and hit the glass and it fell on the floor and spilled all over the place.

Mr. SOURWINE. Where was the glass when he hit it?

Mr. PASQUALE. He was sitting at the small cocktail bar.

Mr. SOURWINE. He only broke one glass?

Mr. PASQUALE. No, I think he broke two.

Mr. Pasquale charged that during that party, Mr. Hill was "preaching the gospel of socialism to these people." "I couldn't believe my ears" he said, adding he thought everybody was "a little upset.'

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, I note that I asked you about socialism and communism, and you have confined your answer to socialism. Did he say anything about communism? I don't want you to say yes unless you are sure he did.

Mr. PASQUALE. Well, he was talking about socialism and Leninism, talking about Lenin and indicating that Lenin was such a great man—along lines dealing with Lenin and socialism in general.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did he at the same time proclaim himself to be an atheist? Mr. PASQUALE. Yes, this he did.

7 State Department Security hearings, pt. 14, p. 1091. State Department Security hearings, pt. 14, p. 1092.