Mr. Reilly explained how a suggestion for a waiver of security formalities could be generated by a higher official.12 Mr. SOURWINE. Now, there was someone who was trying to do it, wasn't there, trying to get it done? There was an effort made, or there were efforts made to get it done; isn't that right? Mr. REILLY. It cannot be done unless the Office of Security does it. Mr. SOURWINE. I know, but you didn't initiate it, did you? Mr. REILLY. No. Mr. SOURWINE. But when it came up to you, having been initiated by somebody else Mr. REILLY. All right. May I explain this? Mr. SOURWINE. Of course. Mr. REILLY. The fact that an Assistant Secretary comes to me and says, "I would like to have Mr. X on the rolls; it is quite urgent. Now, can we do this, that, or other," I do not because he is not a security expert. He does not necessarily know the provisions of various statutes of the Executive orders, and I wouldn't expect him to be familiar with the procedures of the Department of State. That's my problem. I don't feel that he is asking me to circumvent the law. He is trying to explore with me a problem. “I am interested in using Mr. X in such a capacity. I would like to make the appointment. What can we do?" Mr. SOURWINE. All right. Then what we differ about is the phrase "effort to circumvent the provisions of the law." We don't differ about the facts of what happened? Mr. REILLY. Oh, no. Mr. SOURWINE. All right. Mr. Reilly ultimately conceded that as to "certain individuals" considered for the arts advisory group he had recommended that waivers be granted-but added that he was grateful he had been overruled by Mr. Orrick: 13 Mr. SOURWINE. Were you the one that made the administrative decision that no individual be named to the Advisory Committee on the Arts except in full compliance with Executive Order 10450? Mr. REILLY. Mr. Orrick made that decision. Mr. SOURWINE. But you had recommended that he decide that way, had you not? Mr. REILLY. I had recommended, on the basis of the information on name checks, and so forth, as to certain individuals, without naming those individuals, that waivers might be granted. I felt that it came within the purview of the law that Mr. Orrick, and bless him for it, turned it down. MR. REILLY REFUSES INFORMATION Though he was pressed for the information, Mr. Reilly refused to give specific answers about the Communist associations of the four named individuals. A segment of this portion of the record.14 Mr. SOURWINE. Are you aware, Mr. Reilly, that all four of those individuals I have named have had Communist associations? Mr. REILLY. Once again, Mr. Sourwine, I feel that is the type of question that I would have to get instructions from my superiors as to whether or not I might answer within the framework of the intent of the March 20 letter. Mr. SOURWINE. I don't know why you need to refer this back to the letter. You are a top security officer. You head the Office of Security. I was asking you about certain individuals whom I name, and asking you if you are aware that they have had Communist associations. Now, you had no worry about admitting that you knew Dorothy Healey had a Communist association. What is the difference? Mr. REILLY. I don't like branding people on a record. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, you had no compunction about Dorothy Healey. 12 Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1263. 13 Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1268. 14 Ibid., pt. 16, pp. 1263-1265. Mr. SOURWINE. You know she is a Communist; I know she is a Communist. Mr. REILLY. Yes. On the record, I never said Mr. SOURWINE. Is the difference that she has admitted it? Mr. REILLY. That certainly is one difference; yes, of course. Now, please don't misunderstand me, Mr. Sourwine. Let me say I am familiar with the record of all four individuals. Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. But is there any reason you cannot admit that it is true that they have all had Communist associations? Mr. REILLY. That is a judgment, and that is an evaluative judgment that has not formally been made as to all of these individuals. Mr. SOURWINE. I am not asking for a formal judgment that has been made in the sense of an adjudication. I am asking for your opinion as a security officer. Mr. REILLY. Well, let me answer: As a security officer I am familiar with the background of the four individuals you named, and there was information in there that I felt needed resolution. Mr. SOURWINE. All right. Isn't it true that the Communist associations of three of those individuals have never been satisfactorily explained from a security standpoint? Mr. REILLY. I won't accept that as a true statement. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, have the Communist associations of more than one of those four individuals been explained to your satisfaction? Senator DODD. What troubles me is whether you are talking about the same thing. Does Mr. Reilly have the same information that you have, Mr. Sourwine? I actually don't know. Mr. SOURWINE. I honestly don't know, either. Mr. Reilly has stated he is fully familiar with the security files of these individuals. I would suppose that means he is Mr. REILLY. I mean the files in the Department of State. Mr. SOURWINE. Of course, I am not familiar with that file. I don't know what is in it. Senator DODD. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Reilly, you have said you are familiar with Department security files on these people. I am not. I do have information which leads me to make the statement, which I believe to be true, that there have been Communist associations in the cases of all four of these; that in one case, these associations have been satisfactorily explained; that in the other three cases they have not been satisfactorily explained. Can you agree, from what you know about these people-not from any official action, but from your own judgment as a security officer-that this is the case? Mr. REILLY. In at least one other of the cases you have mentioned, I believe there was additional information developed which did satisfactorily explain. Now, I have not currently examined the remainining two files and therefore have no information as to whether or not there is additional information on those individuals which would explain any past association. Mr. SOURWINE. All right. OTEPKA TESTIMONY A CONTRAST In contrast, the Otepka testimony on this subject was as follows: 15 Mr. SOURWINE. To the best of your knowledge and information, Mr. Otepka, have all four of those named individuals had Communist associations in the past? Mr. OTEPKA. Will you read off the four names, sir? I want to be sure. Mr. SOURWINE. Archibald McLeish, Melvyn Douglas, Agnes DeMille, George Seaton. Mr. OTEPKA. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. To your knowledge have the Communist associations of these four individuals ever been satisfactorily explained from a security standpoint? Mr. OTEPKA. I would consider that in one case the association has been satisfactorily explained. Mr. SOURWINE. And in the other three they have not. Is that correct? Mr. SOURWINE. Will you identify the case in which there has been a satisfactory explanation-obviously it is the one still under consideration and in which the information has been furnished. Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, I don't mind identifying that name-George Seaton. 16 Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1259. There was full agreement by Mr. Otepka and Mr. Reilly, testifying separately, about there being no legal exemption from security checks for nominees for State Department posts for persons with cultural gifts or successes. The Otepka segment: 16 Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Otepka, as a security officer, do you think that poets or artists or scientists or any one of them for that matter, or persons of any particular profession or calling are entitled to exemption from security rules and regulations and procedures just because of their calling or profession or cultural gifts? Mr. OTEPKA. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Áre any such persons for such reasons entitled to exemption from filling out Government information forms? Mr. OTEPKA. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. And that has been the administrative determination of the Department? Mr. OTEPKA. That there are Mr. SOURWINE. That there are not to be any such exemptions? Mr. OTEPKA. That is right. The Reilly segment: 17 Mr. SOURWINE.*** Mr. Reilly, as a security officer, do you think that poets or artists or scientists, or any one of them, or any of the other professions, or persons of any particular profession or calling, are entitled to exemption from security rules and regulations and procedures, just because of their calling or their profession or their cultural attainments? Mr. REILLY. Most certainly not. Mr. SOURWINE. Are any such persons, for any such reasons, entitled to exemption from filling out the Government forms in connection with this security? Mr. REILLY. In my judgment, absolutely no. If the Secretary of State could fill out those forms, so could everyone else. Perhaps there was a greater significance than appeared at first glance in the phrasing used by the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Education and Cultural Affairs, publicized in January 1963. The report described the record of the Advisory Committee as "a paradox of inspiring achievement on one hand and troublesome obstacles on the other." It appears the greatest obstacle may well have been Otepka's persuasive arguments for security compliance. 16 Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1265. 17 Ibid., pt .16, p. 1266. THE CONTEST OVER THE ОTEPKA REBUTTAL High-level State Department officials waged a protracted contestso determined as to make many wonder why-to suppress great chunks of what proved to be Part 20-the last-of the Otepka series publications of the subcommittee hearings on State Department security. The argument over what the subcommittee should suppress or be allowed to print stalled release of Part 20 for months. This segment of the extensive hearings once had been intended as Part 10 of the series but as the contest persisted it was postponed, and again postponed, until it became the finale-but it was printed intact. When this portion of the State Department security story is reread, after the publication issue was settled, subcommittee members wondered all the more. What, for instance, was the compelling reason-if any-for avoiding the supposedly routine full investigation of candidates for appointment to high positions? Was there any excuse for indulging in shortcuts or waivers of rules for appointments when temporary arrangements were possible? Such issues came to a climax over the appointment of an advisory group to aid the State Department in matters relating to the staffing of international organizations. The stated purpose was to permit the United States to compete with the Soviet Union in the matter of staffing. A memorandum from Mr. Reilly to George M. Czayo, dated September 17, 1962, included this reference:1 Mr. Cleveland's memorandum (July 3, 1962) expressed his concern that post: available to the United States and to other non-Communist countries in the U.N. agencies be properly staffed in order to effectively combat Soviet subversive designs on those agencies. There was a push for action. This led to a clash of opinions among State Department officials when Mr. Otepka recommended that questions in the files of any nominees be checked out before appointment. He opposed waivers. Mr. Otepka knew that the appointment of an advisory group on staffing was a priority case, as were appointments in many other instances. But that posed no apparent problem since temporary, limited grants of security clearances were given-pending official appointment prior to the early meetings of the ad hoc group. This system could have been continued until the requirements of full investigations were satisfied. There would have been no handicap to the work of the advisory group, assuming all were qualified for full clearances. Mr. Otepka was willing to expedite some things but he wanted no blind-eye-sentry stuff in giving nominees access to classified data. 1 State Department Security hearings, pt: 20; Ps 1722. |