Mr. SOURWINE. Don't you think it is reasonable that if attention was called by the Department to the fact that this committee was interested and that it was coincidental, at least, with the previous demand by Mr. Boudin, that there would be a lot of trouble if the report came out with that recommendation in it? Mr. REILLY. I don't know that.

Mr. SOURWINE. You have no knowledge?

Mr. REILLY. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think that, for all you know-it is perfectly reasonable to you that the Advisory Committee just called the report back and made those changes of its own volition, on the volition and initiative of its members without reference to this committee's interest?

Mr. REILLY. It is also possible, and here we are merely speculating, or at least I have to, it is also possible that they knew of my views.

Mr. Reilly said he had expressed his views on the subject to Mr. Cleveland, Assistant Secretary for International Organizations.20

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you say anything to Mr. Cleveland about this Committee's interest in this matter?

Mr. REILLY. Yes; I did.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was there any suggestion made that perhaps there might be trouble if the report came out containing that recommendation?

Mr. REILLY. There was no such suggestion made in my presence.

Mr. SOURWINE. And not by you?

Mr. REILLY. Or not by me; no.

Mr. SOURWINE. You told him it appeared that the Committee was in opposition to this, at least there was some opposition in the Committee to it?

Mr. REILLY. I told him, first, informally, that I had objection to it, that I wanted, before anything along these lines was to be formalized, that I wanted to be heard and he indicated this would be the fact.

The hearing then turned back to the question as to why Mr. Reilly had not forwarded something in writing; Mr. Otepka's or his own.“1

Mr. SOURWINE. All right. Why didn't you send up the written comment? That was your opportunity to be heard; wasn't it?

Mr. REILLY. Very frankly, because-knowing that the report was not going to be acted upon and with the priority of things that I had to do, I had not time to do the redrafting and to think through what I wanted to say

Mr. SOURWINE. But you could have given it back to Mr. Otepka, couldn't you, and told him to redraft it, that you did not approve of it?

Mr. REILLY. I could, but this was one where I felt I wanted to make my own comments on, but because of the passage of time

Mr. SOURWINE. Passage of time-between February and April-2 monthsyou did not have time to express your views?

Mr. REILLY. You know, Mr. Sourwine, some days things get to your desk that are not always uppermost in your mind and

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, I know, I have in mind what you said about work piling up on Mr. Otepka's desk, and we will talk about that later-I am talking about holding up things

Mr. REILLY. Yes; I know.

Mr. SOURWINE. And we will talk later-about Mr. Otepka holding things on his desk.

But I just wonder. You said you felt rather strongly about this and you told Mr. Cleveland you did not want any action taken until you had expressed yourself. And here was your opportunity to express yourself to Mr. Orrick, to express yourself in writing, and in 60 days you did not take advantage of it.

Mr. REILLY. I don't believe it has been fully 60 days.

Even more severe disputes over security practices arose between Mr. Otepka and Mr. Reilly over the clearance of members of the Advisory Committee on the Staffing of International Organizations. These and many other items of dispute are outlined in our chapter on "The Contest Over the Otepka Rebuttal." See page 17.

Ibid., p. 1174.

21 Ibid., p. 1174.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ARTS

Since virtually all employees of the State Department are considered as holding "sensitive" positions, it seemed perfectly clear to Otto Otepka and to many others, that security checking would apply to even "big name" artists attached to the cultural program.

But the record indicates there was, in the beginning at least, some confusion about this, and in this program, as in others, we found pressures for action and for the use of waivers of rules regarding security checks.

This is highlighted in subcommittee hearings on appointments to the Advisory Committee on the Arts. There was eventual agreement that full field investigations were required, prior to appointment under the meaning of Executive Order 10450.

Along the line there were some oblique answers, others responsive but not too helpful at getting at the facts, and, of course, forthright

responses.

As a prelude to later examination of the Cultural Affairs situation, we have this excerpt from testimony by Abram Chayes, State Department Legal Adviser, at a subcommittee hearing June 19, 1962. Mr. Chayes, it will be noted, said he had not made a broad ruling as to full field investigations but that in one case in which he was consulted it had been agreed there should be a full field check.1

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chayes, in addition to Executive Order 10450 with regard to the investigation of appointees to positions in the Department of State, are there any statutory requirements respecting investigation for loyalty and suitability?

Mr. CHAYES. I assume there are, but I have not myself examined any. I saw the reference to a particular one in Mr. Lowenfeld's testimony.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were you familiar with that particular one?

Mr. CHAYES. I had not myself considered the language of it. In the one case in which we were consulted, the consultation-the contact was made with me directly. I referred the question to Mr. Lowenfeld. When he came back to me with the conclusion that a full field investigation was required, I simply approved that without further consideration, since it did not seem to me we would be doing anything that was likely to lead to trouble or criticism if we followed that path. Mr. SOURWINE. So it has been and is the ruling of your office that it is a requirement that all persons named to the U.S. Advisory Commission on the Arts shall be investigated for loyalty and suitability in accordance with standards approved by the President, and that that means a full field under Executive Order 10450?

Mr. CHAYES. No, I do not think we ever came to that issue. The question in the particular case was that there was some material-I do not know what it was, because I did not examine it-but there was some material in the file which indicated the necessity of a full field investigation. And all we decided was that in that case the material in the file was enough to warrant a full field investigation. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chayes, isn't it true that efforts are being made right now to circumvent the provisions of the law I cited to you, and to secure without preinvestigation for security, appointment to the U.S. Advisory Commission on the Arts of, among others, Archibald MacLeish, Melvyn Douglas, Agnes DeMille, and George Seaton?

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 16, pp. 1247–1248.

Mr. CHAYES. I do not know, except I think one of those names was the one on which we were consulted, and which we said that a full field would be required. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know if it is true that Mr. MacLeish has been definitely promised one of these appointments by Mr. McGeorge Bundy?

Mr. CHAYES. I do not.

Mr. SOURWINE. Would you agree that the legislative history of that cultural affairs law indicates that the jobs on the U.S. Commission on the Arts are sensitive from a security standpoint?

Mr. CHAYES. I have not examined the legislative history. As I explained, in the one situation in which I was called upon to advise, since we decided upon a full field investigation, there was no occasion to examine the question whether anything less would be legal.

It is important to understand, as the testimony makes clear, that it was not Mr. Otepka's aim, in resisting preinvestigation clearances for these four individuals, to pass judgment on their qualifications for security clearance. He was concerned, at this point, with a more basic issue the importance of maintaining sound security procedures.* Otto F. Otepka, top security evaluator, explained the legal requirements in his testimony on March 6, 1963:

Mr. SOURWINE. Was there such an effort as described or implied in the question which was asked of Mr. Chayes with respect to clearances of individuals appointed to be on this committee?

Mr. OTEPKA. Well, your question to Mr. Chayes refers to efforts being made to circumvent the provisions of the law.

Mr. SOURWINE. That is right.

Mr. OTEPKA. The law in this case- for the record-being Public Law 87-256, with which I am familiar.

As background for the record I might point out that the law provides that persons appointed or assigned to duties under the act shall be investigated and cleared under procedures approved by the President. The House Conference on the Report, in explanation of that language, indicates that this means that the appointment shall be subject to the provisions of Executive Order 10450 and, since all positions in the Department are sensitive, appointments to the Advisory Committee on the Arts require a full field investigation and a full field investigation requires that the applicant complete certain specified forms and there are no exceptions with respect to any person in completing those forms.

Now, addressing myself to the specific question, I don't feel that anyone in the Department was trying to circumvent a law.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, all right. Was there any effort to get individuals cleared for the Advisory Committee on the Arts without completing the form you have referred to?

Mr. OTEPKA. Initially, yes. I think that matter has been administratively taken care of.

Mr. Otepka said he had been approached by one Cultural Affairs official inquiring if it was necessary that the security forms be completed. Mr. Otepka's reaction: *

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, when it was suggested to you that appointments be cleared without completing the form, did you go along with that suggestion or did you resist it?

Mr. OTEPKA. I, of course, had no choice but to insist that there be full compliance with the law.

Mr. OTEPKA. Any individual to be appointed to this committee must fully comply with the provisions of the Executive Order 10450. This means he shall fill out all of these security investigative data, forms, be fingerprinted, and be fully investigated prior to appointment.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 16, p. 1259

Ibid., pt. 16, pp. 1245-1249.

Ibid., pt. 16, pp. 1250, 1252.

Mr. Otepka said the problem about requests for such shortcuts had been resolved administratively. Mr. William H. Orrick, Jr., it was testified, had rejected requests for waivers, which Mr. Reilly had passed up the line. Mr. Orrick at the time was Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration.5

During the consideration of the nominees and the suggestions for shortcuts, Mr. Otepka wrote a number of memorandums relating to the subject. The subcommittee requested that it be supplied with copies. The Department refused."

Before the Advisory Committee was named and qualified, the program was proceeding under a different arrangement. As explained by Mr. Otepka:7

Mr. OTEPKA. The program provided for in this law, in the present law, was provided for in a previous statute and also pursuant to an executive directive. Under this process the American National Theater Academy had a contract with the Department of State to engage in the selection of reputable performers, artists, and musicians, and performing arts groups, to represent U.S. culture abroad.

The contract with ANTA, I understand, would be terminated by the end of March and at that time it is expected that the Advisory Committee on the Arts and the Department of State will assume full management over all aspects of this performing arts program.

Secretary Rusk issued a press release March 7, 1963, which announced the selection of the first four of the 10 committeemen and gave a brief outline of the objectives.8

John F. Reilly, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security, while testifying May 22, 1963, was asked pointblank about efforts to skip preinvestigations in the case of the cultural affairs group. Mr. Reilly did not want to answer. At first his evasions rested on a broad refusal by the State Department to supply memorandums written by Otepka.

Mr. SOURWINE. Let me turn to a new subject, Mr. Reilly.

Do you know whether it is true that, on or about June 19, 1962-Were you with the Department then?

Mr. REILLY. June 19, 1962, yes, I was.

Mr. SOURWINE. Whether it is true that, on or about that date, efforts were being made to circumvent the provisions of the law and to secure, without preinvestigation for security, appointment to the U.S. Advisory Commission on the Arts of, among others, Archibald MacLeish, Melvyn Douglas, Agnes DeMille, and George Seaton?

Mr. REILLY. Mr. Sourwine, I feel that the question comes within the area of topics covered in the Department's letter to the chairman, and for that reason I feel that under my instructions I could not get into that area.

Mr. SOURWINE. What specific instructions, sir?

Mr. REILLY. I am referring to Mr. Dutton's letter to Senator Eastland

Mr. SOURWINE. No; I asked about instructions to you. What instructions to

you would you violate if you answered this question?

Mr. REILLY. I take it that I am bound by the terms of this letter which

Mr. SOURWINE. You think that letter is a denial, a refusal to answer a question as to whether efforts were being made within the State Department to circumvent the provisions of law? That's the question I asked you.

Mr. REILLY. It was the names that disturbed me, Mr. Sourwine.

(The letter from Mr. Dutton to Senator Eastland, referred to above, is as follows:)10

Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1268.
Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1271.
Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1252.
Ibid., pt. 16, pp. 1253-1254.
Ibid., pt. 16, pp. 1261-1262.
10 Ibid., pt. 16, p. 1271.

MARCH 20, 1963.

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am informed that during the course of testimony before your committee by Mr. Otto Otepka of the Office of Security of the Department of State, requests were made by the committee counsel that the committee be furnished certain documents in the files of the Department. One of these documents is a confidential circular concerning Foreign Affairs Manual Circular 98-H of January 15, 1963. The other documents all relate to the U.S. Advisory Committee on the Arts and for the most part are internal memorandums from one officer of the Department to another containing the names of possible appointees to the committee and a discussion, from a security point of view, of these nominees.

The Department will furnish the committee a copy of the confidential circular concerning Foreign Affairs Manual Circular 98-H of January 15, 1963, and the memorandum relating to the substitution of the Advisory Committee on the Arts for ANTA. However, the Department regretfully cannot furnish the committee with the other memorandums requested, not only because these memorandums are internal working papers containing the advice of subordinate officers to their superiors, but also because they contain information relating to the security status of prospective employees of the Department of State and the President's directive of March 13, 1948, requires that such security information be kept confidential.

If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely yours,

*

FREDERICK G. DUTTON.

Later, Mr. Reilly pinpointed this sentence from the Dutton letter that he regarded as his "instruction":

However, the Department regretfully cannot furnish the committee with the other memorandums requested.

As this colloquy continued, it was brought out by the Internal Security Subcommittee counsel that there was quite a difference between the requests for the Otepka memoranda and the much narrower question propounded to Mr. Reilly.

Mr. Reilly finally conceded there had been proposals for the use of waivers in the arts group appointments:

11

Mr. SOURWINE. *** All I am asking now is whether it is true that, on or about June 19, 1962, efforts were being made to circumvent the provisions of the law in re appointment, without preinvestigation for security, of these four named individuals. I am not asking you for names. These names are already in our record, and I repeated them again today. I am asking you if you know whether it is true that efforts were being made, on or about June 19, 1962, to circumvent the law and have these people appointed without preinvestigation for security?

Mr. REILLY. What was being considered was, because of the desire to name a Committee (pauses).

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, sir?

Mr. REILLY (resuming). —what was being considered was whether it would be possible to utilize the 90-day waiver provision for officers with respect to these. The decision within the Department was that we would not do it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. REILLY. I don't mean to quibble with your choice of words. I did not view that as a concerted effort to circumvent the law.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, I didn't use the word "concerted" either.

Mr. REILLY. Well, I am sorry; I am putting words in your mouth.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, you decided against doing it. That means you decided that it was not in accordance with the law; right?

Mr. REILLY. Yes.

*

11 Ibid,, pt. 16. pp. 1262-1263.