(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 42
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 24, 1969
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Rele,ase 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- SENATE
offices. This would make obtaining the
stamps considerably less of a difficulty for
many people in my State. Commodity Commodity
The saddest thing about all this is that State/Adm. unit distribution Food stamp State/Adm. unit distribution Food stamp
this situation exists all over the Nation.
The Select Committee on Nutrition and TEXAS-Continued
Human Needs has revealed in its investi- Austin 642 Kleberg 1,922Bastrop 1,687 Knox 532
gations of the problem of hunger that it Bee 335638
F.aa'iSlablle
,
is a national problem. The conditions of Bexar 22, 616 1,513
Brewster 229 Lavaca 1,406
which I spoke exists in all 50 States, not Brooks2 400 _ Lee 1,093
just in Texas. And the food stamp pro- Brown Leon 1, 938
Burleson Liberty 1771
gram as it is now structured has the Caldwell
same shortcomings and the same weak- Callahan 1
,,,e 118 Limestone 2086
,
. Lipscomb 38
nesses in the other 49 States that it has Cameron ...c 9,172 tine Oak 1,375
Camp 916 Lubbock 2,132
In Texas. Too few counties across the Carson 52 McLennan 2,625
Nation have food stamp distribution pro- Cass 2,221 Madison 1,077
Cherokee 1,917 Marion 1,600
grams. Too few people are being fed. The Childress ' 265 Martin 72
stamps are not being provided at prices Cochran / 246 Matagorda .1, 861
which many people who need them can Coke ___ . ??? ___________________ 96 Maverick 3072
Comanche/ 848 Medina 1, 239
afford. The process for obtaining them Cooke_ 847 Milam 2, 289
Is so difficult that many people who need Cottle 1 571 Montague 976
Crosby 224 Moore 55
them are not getting them. And this is Cube on 140 Morris 879
happening all over the country, not just Della 113 Motely 292
in Texas. I feel that this bill should be Della 19,090 Nacagdoches 2,107
Daws 811 Newton 1,396
enacted to remedy this problem all over Delta 649 Nolan 831
the country, not just in Texas. De Witt 1,803 Nueces 4,516
Dickens 489 Orange 1,302
As I told my constituents in February Dimmit 1,471 Payola . 1,506
of this year, "It is within our power to Duval 3,299 Pecos 292
Eastland 1,106 Polk 1,471
banish hunger and malnutrition from El Paso 8,335 Potter 1,348
our land; we have a responsibility to Falls 2,343 Presidio 723
exercise that power. Our unparalleled Fannin 3,009 Rains 370
Fayette 1,313 Real . 409
agricultural abundance must be shared Fisher. 361 Red River (1)
with all our, people here at home-no Froyd 424 Robertson 3,757
Foard r2 Sabine 442
American should be malnourished." Franklin , 4 San Augustine 965
I think that the food stamp program Free?tone 1,536 San Jacinto 1,636
could be a useful means to this end. Un- Frio_ 1.681 San Patricia 4,600
Galveston 3, 253 Scurry 764
fortunately, this program is not now oper- Goliad 1,028 Shelby 1,003
ating as it should. I think that the re- Gonzales 1,968 Smith 797
Grimes 2,020 Starr 6,430
forms provided for in this bill are neces- Grayson Stonewall 194
sexy if this program is to achieve its Denison (city) 286 Swisher 543
full potential for effectiveness. I give it Guadalupe 940 Tarrant 6,513
Hale 1,461 Terrell 66
my unqualified support. Hamilton 273 Terry 235
. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- Hardeman 483 Titus 1, 114 i
Hardin 1, 592 Tom Green 2, 136
sent that tables showing the March, 1969, Harris 25, 038 Travis 9,943
participation in the food stamp program Haskell 830 Trinity 1,085
Hemphill
69
Upshur 1, 779
in Texas and the March 1969 participa- Hays 1,397 Tyler 834
tion in all food distribution programs in Henderson 963 Upton 204
my State be added at this point in the Hidalgo 11,217 Val Verde
Hill 1,895 Del Rio (City) 1,906
RECORD. , Hockley. 689 Waller 1,242
There being no objection, the tables Houston 2,367 Walker
Ward 747 Ward 1,847
Howard 707
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, Hudspeth 0 Washington 2,542
as follows: Hutchison 825 __ Webb 10, 705
Won 92 Wilbarger 813
[Number of persons] Jackson 386... Willacy 3, 477 Jasper 1, 927 Williamson 1,820
Jeff Davis 106 Wilson 1,010
Commodity Jefferson 4, 046 Zapata
Zavala 1,351
State/Adm. unit distribution Food stamp Jim Hogg 1,657 1,709
Jim Wells 3,374
Jones 1, 298
TEXAS Karnes 3, 047
Anderson 802 Kent 99 1 King County included with Cottle County.
Angelina 621 King dd 2 Red River County discontinued program as of September
Atascosa 1, 878 Kinney 505 30, 1968.
[Number of persons]
[Number of persons]
? S 699-7
TEXAS-Continued
Texas total 262, 074
39,180
FOOD STAMP, MARCH 1969
Project area
Participation
Non-P. A.
number
P. A. persons Total
Texas (10):
Bexar. _ 9,673 12, 943 22, 616
Brewster 66 163 229
Culberson 37 103 140
El Paso 2,860 5, 475 8,335
Hudspeth 12 148 160
Jeff Davis 37 69 106
Pecos 24 268 292
Presidio 113 610 723
Red River (2) (0) (2)
Tarrant 3, 304 3,209 6, 513
Terrell 1 65 66
Total 16, 127 23, 053 39, 180
s Red River County discontinued program as of Sept 30, 1968.
Coupons
Fiscal year date
Monthly
change
(percent)
Total
value
Bonus
value
Bonus
total
(percent)
Average
bonus per
- person
Total
coupons
Bonus
coupons
10
$338, 848
4191, 929
57
$8. 49
42, 482, 711
91, 367, 009
-7
3,898
1,657
43
7.24
32, 585
13, 839
17
1,789
868
49
6.28
16, 722
7,881
5
123, 704
68, 867
56
8. 26
998,684
528, 828
9
2, 332
1, 136
49
7. 10
20, 188
9, 947
29
1,803
738
41
6.49
11,665
4,652
-8
4,506
2,281
51
7.81
42,871
22,374
8
10, 180
5,598
55
7.74
86, 839
43, 555
(2)
(2)
48, 259
19, 227
110, 125
46, 838
42
7. 19
963, 151
400, 447
16
1,230
448
36
6.79
11, 359
4, 130
7
598, 407
320, 360
54
8. 18
4, 715, 034
2, 421, 889
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ALLEN in the chair) . The joint resolu-
tion is open to amendment. It there be
no amendment to be proposed, the ques-
tion is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 126)
was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading, was read the third time, and
passed, as follows:
S.J. RES. 126
Resolved by.the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That section 16(a)
of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 is amended
by striking "$340,000,000" and inserting
"$750,060,000".
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I move
that the Senate reconsider the vote by
which the joint resolution was passed.
Mr. MANSFIFT,D. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate go
into executive session to consider the
nomination of Otto F. Otepka, of Mary-
land.
The PRESIDING OreaCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL
BOARD
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the nomination to the Subver-
sive Activities Control Board.
The bill clerk read the nomination of
Otto F. Otepka, of Maryland, to be a
menraer of the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio obtained the floor.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Ohio yield without los-
ing his right to the floor?
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I yield for that
Purpose.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OtateiCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, I
move to recommit the nomination of
Otto P. Otepka, and on the motion I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
President Nixon's appointment of Otto
F. Otepka to a $36,000 a year post on
the Subversive Activities Control Board
was an outlandish piece of political ex-
pediency. Let us hope that it does not
signal a return to that era of pointless
suspicion, fear, character assassination,
and ruined careers that marked the so-
called McCarthyism of the 1950's.
When asked about the President's de-
cision to nominate Otepka, the White
House press secretary stated:
I think the appointment speaks for itself.
It certainly does and with revolting
eloquence. The question involved has
little to do 'with national security, sub-
version, or anything of that nature.
What is involved is an official of the ex-
ecutive branch sneaking information,
which he was forbidden to disclose to
anyone, to representatives of the legisla-
tive branch. Otepka was chief of security
evaluations in the State Department. In
1963 Secretary of State Dean Rusk re-
moved him from this post for giving con-
fidential security files to the Senate In-
ternal Security Subcommittee without
permission. No administrator with any
self-respect could permit such disloyalty,
and Secretary Rusk was correct in re-
moving this witch-hunter from his posi-
tion. Even Secretary of State Rogers re-
fused to restore the disloyal Otepka to
the post from which he has been ousted.
Furthermore, it has been revealed
that a fund raised by groups with close
ties to the lunatic rightwing splinter
group, the John Birch Society, so-called,
paid approximately 80 percent of the
$26,135 in legal expenses incurred by
Otepka in his 4-year fight to win rein-
statement as chief security evaluator in
the State Department. During that
period Otepka ,made numerous speeches
at meetings of extreme rightwing gath-
erings. While he has denied any formal
or informal connections with the John
Birch Society or the Liberty Lobby, so-
called, the fact is that he has attended
rallies organized by Birch Society lead-
ers. At least on one occasion he was for-
mally introduced by a member of the
Birch National. Council. Furthermore,
this rally was headed by Clarence Man-
ion, a member of the national council of
the "Birchsaps." When questioned about
this by a reporter for the New York
Times, Otepka said:
I am not going to discuss the ideological
orientation of anyone I am associated with.
In his account of this incident to the
subcommittee considering his nomina-
tion, Otepka offered the weak excuse that
he felt he was being baited into making
statements that could be used against
him.
It has been established beyond any
possible doubt that the Liberty Lobby,
headed by Willis Carte whose Fascist
inclinations and associations have been
well documented, was one of his stanch-
est champions. That neo-Nazi lunatic
group produced and distributed a film
entitled "The Otepka Case" and its
Pamphlets consistently defended Otepka
and attacked his critics.
Mr. President, it is interesting to note
that J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel for
the Senate Internal Security Subcom-
mittee and one of the staff members who
helped write the Judiciary Committee re-
port praising Otepka, was the person
through whom Otepka leaked the State
Department documents when both were
trying to smear Walt Rostow, the Ken-
nedy-Johnson national security adviser,
as a security risk. Now, I take a dim view
of a man like Otepka, who seeks to play
God with other people's patriotism.
Obviously, Sourwine has a personal in-
terest in having Otepka confirmed by
the Senate. Although the committee re-
port seeks to disassociate Otepka from
June 2 4, 1969
any formal or informal connections with
the John Birch Society or the Liberty
Lobby, Sourwine certainly was aware of
the activity of these lunatic rightwing
organizations in behalf of Otepka. He
knew or should have known that Otepka
has called the Liberty Lobby "a reputable
organization?patriotic," and Willis
Carte, the neo-Nazi who runs it, a de-
fender of "the fine traditions of Ameri-
can life." Furthermore, Sourwine him-
self when interviewed by Joe Trento of
World Wide Features, not only expressed
his high regard for Liberty Lobby, but
went further saying:
Liberty Lobby often requests information
about individuals and issues .. I do not
hesitate to supply anything this dedicated
group requests.
Yet this "dedicated group" brazenly
distributes "Imperiurn." the Mein Kampf
of American nazism,
Mr. President, in the memorandum
from J. G. Sourwine to the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, re-
printed in part 2 of the hearings on the
Otto Otepka nomination, it is stated that
over $21,000 of the $26,135 for legal ex-
penses incurred for Otepka's defense was
raised by the American Defense Fund
organized in 1964 by James M. Stewart of
Palatine, Ill. The memorandum goes on
to state:
The American Defense Fund has no con-
nection of any kind with the John Birch
Society .. . according to Mr. Stewart.
The fact is that after careful research
and inquiry to try to determine the
names of the sponsors or directors of the
American Defense Fund, I have been un-
able to determine any but Mr. Stewart
himself. It is obvious that this is a one-
man paper organization dedicated solely
to exonerating Otto Otepka.
Mr. President, it has been reported to
me that on June 16, 1969, 8 days ago, this
same James Stewart attended a fund-
raising party at the home of Julius W.
Butler in Oakbrook, Ill., a Chicago sub-
urb. This is the same Julius Butler who
Is an admitted fundraiser for the John
Birch Society and active in several John
Birch front organizations. He also is a
sponsor of a New England Rally for God,
Family, and Country held annually near
Boston, which Otto Otepka attended last
year. The guests at Mr. Butler's home
last week included Robert Welch,
founder and head of the John Birch So-
ciety, who spoke at length spewing forth
the usual John Birch lunatic obsessions.
Mr. and Mrs. James Stewart, I am told,
were in charge of the refreshments that
were served at the meeting and were in-
troduced to the crowd and received ap-
plause.
This is the same James Stewart who
stated to J. G. Sourwine that the Ameri-
can Defense Fund, which is James Stew-
art and him only, had no connection of
any kind with the John Birch Society.
Surely, Mr. President, an investigator
as trained and experienced as the coun-
sel for the Senate Internal Security Sub-
committee is said to be, should on his
own have questioned Mr. Stewart's state-
ment and delved further. Julius Butler,
at whose home Stewart recently attended
a Birch Society rally, admitted in a tele-
phone conversation with a reporter from
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
APproved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June g4: 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 6999
the New York Times that Otto Otepka
had spoken to groups "of 15 to 20 or 30 or
40 people" at his hime over the last sev-
eral years. "He comes here whenever he
comes to Chicago," said Butler. The New
York Times also reported Mr. Butler said
that in addition to his explaining his dis-
pute with the State 'Department, Mr.
Otepka also talks about treasonin high
places in Washington "and all the hor-
rible things that are taking place."
Those Birchsaps, or 'Sons of Birches,
as the former assistant Minority leader,
Tom Kuchel, of California, used to term
them, are seeking to play God with other
people's patriotism. They claim there are
Communists in the State Department, on
the faculties of our universities, and in
the clergy. Of course, they could not
name _one.
Mr. President, as a free American, Otto
Otepka has the right to join or associate
With the John Birch Society or any other
organization. He has violated no laws in
accepting money from Birchites or Sons
of Birches to use the terminology of our
friend, Senator Thomas Kuchel, or other
lunatic rightwing sources to meet legal
costs of his unsuccessful fight for rein-
statement as chief security evaluator of
the State Department. However, I ques-
tion whether a man with such a record?
a man who unhesitatingly accepted more
than $22,000 from these groups?should
be confirmed for a post in which he will
judge the loyalty of American citizens
and organizations.
Of course, he reported to the subcom-
mittee that he would "resist with every
'resource at my command any attempt to
establish in this country a Nazi, or
Fascist, or Communist government, or
any other form of totalitarianism."
His past record clearly belies tliis. In
my view, any man who has accepted sup-
port from the John Birch Society, the
Liberty Lobby, and organizations of that
ilk has a warped concept of Americanism,
has no place on the public payroll and
certainly not in a position in which he
will be called upon to judge the loyalty
,of other Americans.
Mr. President, on May 16, 1969, there
appeared an excellent article on the
Itatepka nomination in the Washington
Post entitled "Security Pooh-Bah." I ask
unanimous consent to nage it printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SECURITY POOH-BAH
Otto Otepka's long and unfaithful service
to the State Department certainly entitled
him to some reward from those on Capitol
Hill who were the beneficiaries of his peculiar
form of infidelity. And for a while it seemed
as though President Nixon had found an
innocuous, if somewhat expensive, spot for
him, as a $36,000-a-year member of the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board, an agency
which has no work to perform and con-
sequently no secrets to leak. The title prob-
ably seemed congenial, if not actually hon-
orific, to Mr. Otepka. And President John-
son had already established a precedent for
using the Board as a sinecure for the polit-
ically wounded and disabled.
But Jhere is a scheme afoot, it appears,
surreptitiously to turn the chairmanship of
the SACB frail a sinecure into a seat of
power, from a bad joke into an ugly menace.
S. 12?cited as the "Internal Security Act of
1969"?a bill sponsored by Mr. Otepka's spon-
sor, Senator James 0. Eastland, and by a
collection of the Senate's ultraconservative
sedition hunters, would create in the United
States Government a brand-new super-
snooper agency to be designated the "Security
Administration for Executive Departments"
and to be "subordinate only to the President
of the United States." This new agency would
serve as a sort of Politburo, supervising all
security clearance, would have power to ini-
tiate cases before the SACB, would conduct
continuing surveys and inspections of the
loyalty and security activities of all Execu-
tive agencies, would train security personnel
and would exercise a variety of additional
powers. Although the bill does not actually so
designate him, the proper title for its Admin-
.,istrator would be "Commissar.
The bill contains an interesting provision:
"The Chairman of the Subversive Activities
Control Board may be appointed as Admin-
istfator, and if so appointed may continue to
hold the position of Chairman of the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board during any
term for which he shah have been appointed
and designated as such Chairman." Now,
what do you suppose the architects of this
legislative extravaganza have in mind? How
foresighted they are! The present Chairman
of the SACB, John W. Mahan, a deserving
Democrat?deserving of a more honorable
office?could readily be replaced by?guess
who??the refurbished Mr. Otepka, and the
authors of this remarkable measure would,
if they managed to get it enacted, then have
their own particular darling in one of the
seats of the mighty.
It is in the light of this 'possibility that
one must evaluate the statement made by
Senate Majority Whip Edward M. Kennedy
that "I don't think there is room on the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board for someone
Whose basis of strength is the support of the
John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby."
How much more vital it is to keep such a
person from the office of Security Pooh-Bah.
There must be room for Mr. Otepka on the
staff of the Senate Internal Security Sub-
committee where he *ill be relatively harm-
less and feel entirely at home. S. 12 is a night-
mare. With Otto Otepka administering it, it
would become a reality.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, it
is difficult to reconcile Secretary Rogers
declining to reinstate Otenka with the
President's nominating him to a $36,000
post, albeit in a worthless Federal agency.
If the President had deliberately set out
to make his administration appear ludi-
crous he could not have chose a better
means than through promoting Otepka.
This nomination is an insult to the Amer-
ican people. It is pure political chicanery,
and the Senate should reject it forthwith.
The Otepka nomination raises an issue
of more importance than the promotion
of a petty, self-seeking bureaucrat. Again
it raises the question as to why the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board has been
permitted to exist at all. The President's
appointment of Otepka might be simply
dismissed as his tossing a bone to restive
rightwing elements. More important, it
may be an indication that he intends to
keep alive part of his past as a Commu-
nist chased by resurrecting the discred-
ited Subversive Activities Control Board.
Mr, President, earlier today, I intro-
duced a bill to once and for all abolish
the SACB. I am hopeful that this legisla-
tion will be acted upon as swiftly as pos-
sible. It is high time to rid the Federal
Government of this insidious leftover of
the witchhunts, this boondoggle costing
hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-
payers' money annually.
In the 19 years since its creation, the
Subversive Activities Control Board has
served no useful purpose and has not
made a single contribution to the welfare
or safety of the Nation. The major sec-
tion of the statute creating it has been
held unconstitutional. From 1965 through
1967, the Board did not hold a meeting
and there were no cases pending before
It. In fact, in 1967, Congress enacted leg-
islation specifying that the Board had to
hold at least one hearing in 1968 or go
out of business. Subsequently, under
great political pressure Attorney Gen-
eral Clark sent the Board seven cases and
the Board started its hearings in Septem-
ber 1968. Since then, it has dealt with
three cases naming minor Communist
Party functionaries as members of a
"Communist-action" group, a process
that involved only 6 days of hearings, 1
day of oral arguments and reading of
extensive FBI reports. Recently, the
Board began hearings on three more
cases which are nothing more than
"make work" cases to keep this worthless
agency in business.
Apart from the five Board members,
only 10 employees remain, who do noth-
ing today but send messages to one an-
other and expend energy once or twice
a month to draw their salaries. Their
average salary is one of the highest in
the entire Federal bureaucracy. This year
this boondoggle is costing taxpayers more
than $365,000, all completely wasted. The
continued expenditure of taxpayers'
money for this absurd boondoggle is un-
conscionable at a time when we are look-
ing for ways to save taxpayers' money.
Mr. President, there is no need what-
ever to continue this virtually dead
agency. According to J. Edgar Hoover,
who should know, the Communist Party
in the United States has lost 90 percent
of its membership since reaching its
numerical peak strength 25 years ago.
The FBI report is that there were 80,000
Communists in the United States in 1944.
The Soviet Red Army was crushing Hit-
ler's "supermen" in Europe, and in
America there was tolerance for home-
grown Communists. The Soviet Union
was our ally at that time and some 20
million of its finest youngsters had given
their lives to help save the world from
Nazi domination.
Quoting J. Edgar Hoover again, at the
present time he estimates that the nu-
merical strength of the Communist has
nose-dived and instead of being 80,000,
as it was in 1944, their total strength in
the United States today is between 8,000
and 10,000.
In that total of 8,000 or 10,000, Mr.
President, are included those FBI agents
who have infiltrated?we do not know
In what numbers?and are masquerad-
ing as Communists. At most, there is one
Communist in the United States for every
21,000 non-Communists, the odds in fa-
vor of free institution being 21,000 to 1.
Customarily from 80,000 to 83,000
spectators sit in the Cleveland Stadium
Sunday afternoons witnessing National
League football games, cheering on the
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Cleveland Browns. Mr. President, many,
many times I have been seated with those
80,000 to 83,000, and I have never felt
any fear whatsoever of the Communists
there. Taking the FBI calculations?and
they should be correct?then all of three
people in that entire crowd of 80,000
might be Communists. Should we be
afraid that those few will harm the
rest of us? Furthermore, we have on
our side the brains and brawn of the
city and State police, the FBI, the Army,
the Air Force, the Navy?and never for-
getting the Marines. Do we need the five
men on the Subversive Activities Control
Board and some 10 employees feeding at
the public trough to gallop to our aid?
If it is claimed that we no longer are
the land of the free, let us at least be
the home of the brave.
When the SACB was created in 1950,
it was a bad idea. That was my opinion
then; that in my opinion now. Nothing
has happened to change it. Instead, the
evidence clearly and convincingly shows
an effort to introduce totalitarian uni-
formity into political thinking. The
Board, by the very fact it is permitted
to exist, continues to be a challenge to the
basic principles of the democratic way
of life of our Republic.
In 1950, when President Truman
vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act which
created this bureaucratic monstrosity,
he said in his veto message:
The provisions of the act are not merely
ineffective and unworkable; they represent
a clear and present danger to our institu-
tions.
His warning has been validated in nu-
merous Supreme Court decisions which
have all but nullified that legislation.
The SACB is part of that debris of the
witch hunts of the 1950's, the so-called
period of "Joe McCarthyism," that still
lingers with us to some extent. It is a
part of that era in which a number of
practices were adopted which were
claimed to be necessary for the national
security, which would have shocked our
forefathers.
Many of the nefarious laws of the
McCarthy era were subsequently de-
clared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court of the United States. I maintain
that, from the standpoint of civil liber-
ties, historians of the future will credit
the Supreme Court of the United States
with playing a major role in the preser-
vation of our traditional concepts of
individual liberty.
We. have recovered somewhat from
that era, but the Subversive Activities
Control Board, unfortunately, is still
with us.
Mr. President, it is obvious that today
the Subversive Activities Control Board
is nothing more than a sop to the right-
wing and a convenient place for a Presi-
dent to place his friends. Senators will
recall that in 1967 President Johnson
nominated Simon F. McHugh, Jr., to the
SACB. At the time Mr. McHugh was a
minor executive in the Small Business
Administration, but, more important, he
was the husband of a one-time personal
secretary to President Johnson.
So, he became a member of that Board
by Presidential appointment, and he is
now a member of the Board, although his
appointment was criticized violently by
some of those who are now opposing this
nomination.
The Chairman is John W. Mahan, a
former national commander of the VFW,
who headed a Veterans for Johnson
Committee in 1964. When asked by a
White House aide to take a vacancy on
the Board, he replied that he had never
even heard of it. The other two members
are Leonard L. Sells, who was an attorney
for the Renegotiation Board, and John
S. Patterson, neither of them with a dis-
tinguished background of public service
entitling them to a $36,000 a year ap-
pointment.
Mr. President, the future safety of this
country does not depend in even the
slightest measure on the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Board. It does depend on
citizens and leaders who realize that hun-
ger, poverty, and unemployment pave the
way to communism. Those who have ap-
propriated the issue of communism to
serve their political ends are poor reeds to
lean on in a fight against communism.
These are the men who Will be found con-
tinually on the side of the powerful spe-
cial interests. They can always be de-
pended upon to oppose all measures to
make life better for more people and to
insulate them against communism?pro-
tection against dependence on old age,
unemployment, and occupational haz-
ards, the elimination of poverty, slums,
and hunger and malnutrition that afflict
millions of Americans, decent housing,
medical care for the elderly, farm pro-
grams based on the knowledge that a
healthy agriculture is potent insurance
against communism, the right of labor to
bargain for a fair share of the wealth it
helps to create, and providing a decent
education for every American child.
Mr. President, let us at all times Mani-
fest the pioneering spirit of free and
courageous men and women intent on
maintaining our way of life and adhering
to those sacred guarantees in our Con-
stitution. Let us reaffirm the ideals and
principles that have made our Nation the
hope of the world. As one who despises
Communists, communism, and Commu-
nist methods, I urge that this scarecrow
agency, the Subversive Activities Control
Board, be discarded along with all re-
minders of totalitarianism in our society.
Mr. President, it is crystal clear that
despite his denials Otto Otepka has
strong ties to un-American extreme
right-wing organizations and many of
their leaders. Also, it appears that the
response from J. G. Sourwine of the Ju-
diciary Committee staff to specific in-
quiries of Senators HART, KENNEDY, BUR-
DICK, and TIDINGS respecting finances
and connections of Otto Otepka was in-
conclusive, based almost entirely on the
statements of individuals involved, and
seriously lacking in depth and careful
research. I believe that the committee
should investigate further any formal or
informal connections between Otto
Otepka and the John Birch Society, the
Liberty Lobby, and any persons or orga-
nizations actively associated with either
of these lunatic fringe groups.
Therefore, Mr. President, I move to
recommit the nomination of Otto Otepka.
I yield the Boor.
June -1969
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent, with the full con-
currence of the minority leader, that the
vote on the pending motion take place
not later than 2:30 p.m.
Mr. DIRKSEN: With the understand-
ing that at least 30 minutes of the time
will be given to the proponents of the
nomination.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. 1 yield.
Mr, DODD?Mr. President, I simply
want to say, with all deference, that I
have talked with the distinguished ma-
jority leader. That would give us how
much time? The Senator mentioned
2:30. I do not know how many speakers
there are.
. Mr. MANSFIELD. There will be time,
Senator.
The PRESIDING OtoriCER. The
Chair would inquire of the Senator from
Montana whether his request that the
vote on the nomination take place at
2:30 o'clock will be a vote on the pend-
ing motion?
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct, the
vote on the pending motion,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none
and it is so ordered. The vote on the
pending motion will occur at 2:30 o'clock
Mr. MANSFIELD. Let me say that if
any complications arise at that time.
we will take care of them then. I want
to thank the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, earlier
this year, in connection with the nom-
ination of Walter J. Bickel as Secretary
of the Interior, I had occasion to do some
study and research on the advice and
consent function of the U.S. Senate as it
related to nominees for various govern-
mental posts as submitted by the Presi-
dent of the United States. My statement
on same and my reasoning in support-
ing Mr. Hickel's nomination will be
found at page S780 of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD of January 22, 1969.
In that statement, I pointed out the
criteria which the Senate might keep
in mind in the case of a nominee for
the Cabinet, the President's official
family, the members of which serve at
the pleasure of, at the discretion of, and
to the possible embarrassment of the
President of the United States.
I also pointed out that different cri-
teria were necessarily involved in the
consideration of appointees to the Fed-
eral bench, for life, or to regulatory
bodies for a fixed term, where the control
of and the direct responsibility to the
President were absent.
I said at that time:
The debates at the Constitutional Con-
vention of 1787 shed little light on what
criteria the Senate should apply in exercising
Its advise and consent authority. Through
almost two centuries of experience in imple-
menting this responsibility, different Sena-
tors under different circumstances facing
different questions have exercised their pre-
rogatives in different ways.
In studying the historical evolution of this
senatorial authority, I am constrained to con-
clude that a standard or criterion applicable
to one category of nominee may not neces-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June24, 469 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
sexily be the proper standard for another
category of nominee.
It is one thing to consider the background
and qualifications of a potential Supreme
Court Justice to be appointed for life. It is
another thing to consider the background
and qualifications of an appointee to an in-
dependent regulatory agency who will serve
independently of the President and often for
a fixed term of years. It is still another thing
to consider the ba.ckground and qualifications
of an appointee to the Cabinet who operates
under the direction of and at the pleasure
of the President.
In one of the few books devoted to the
advice and consent function, Prof. Joseph P.
Harris made these observations:
"The tests applied by the Senate in con-
sidering nominations vary widely, depend-
ing in part on the character and importance
of the office concerned and whether the
nomination is one to which the Senate gives
Individual attention, Well-established cus-
tom accords the President wide latitude in
the choice of members of his own Cabinet,
who are regarded as his chief assistants and
advisers (p. 379) .
"It is appropriate for the Senate to con-
sider the philosophy and general outlook of
nominees to high federal offices, particularly
to regulatory bodies and to the bench. These
offices stand in a different position from that
of the heads of executive departments for
whose actions the President is responsible
(p. 384) .
"The confirmation of presidential nomina-
tions to independent regulatory commissions
is always of especial importance, for members
Of these commissions are regarded as having
a special relationship to Congress. The func-
tion of the Senate in passing upon the
nominations is not limited to the technical
qualifications of the nominee and his fitness
for the office; it is appropriately concerned
with his stand on broad policies and the ef-
fect his appointment may have upon the
functioning of the commission. Often the
character and attitude of the officers who
head an agency have as much to. do with its
policies as the legislation under which it
operates. The Senate must therefore con-
sider whether a nominee to a regulatory com-
mission is in sympathy with the objectives
of the laws which he will be called upon to
administer, and whether he will support
policies which are agreeable to the majority
of the Senate (p. 178). Joseph P. Harris, 'The
Advice and Consent of the Senate' (University
of California Press, 1953) ."
Today we consider the appointment
of Otto F. Otepka to be a member of the
Subversive Activities Control Board to
serve for a fixed term ending August 9,
1970.
Mr. President, it is therefore the duty
of the Senate to consider the nature of
the position for which Mr. Otepka has
been nominated and the nature of Mr.
Otepka's case history as bearing thereon.
THE ROLE OF THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
CONTROL BOARD
The Subversive Activities Control
Board?which I shall hereinafter refer
to as SACB--was created by law in 1950.
Through the years since its creation, its
duties have been drastically reduced by
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. However, in 1968 Con-
gress granted further powers to the
E#AC13.
The 'Board is now empowered to hold
hearings and to compel the appearance
of witnesses and the production of evi-
dence by, subpena for the purpose of
determining whether groups named by
the Attorney General are Communist-
action or Communist-front groups, or
?
whether named individuals are members
of Communist-action groups.
Persons found by the SACB to be
Communists or members of Communist-
front groups are prohibited by law from
holding Federal appointive positions,
and from holding jobs with labor orga-
nizations or in defense facilities.-
Groups found by the Board to be Com-
munist organizations must announce
themselves as such in using the mails
or any broadcast media and must be
denied tax-exempt status.
Finally, it should not be ignored that
it is proposed in the present session of
Congress in S. 12 that the aforemen-
tioned powers be considerably expanded.
The SACB is, then, a board with ex-
isting authority and prospectively, at
least in the minds of the sponsors of
S. 12, it will have even expanded author-
ity in the area of adjudging, evaluating,
and handling security matters and files.
To this Board Mr. Otepka has been
nominated by the President.
THE OTEPKA CASE
Otto Otepka's case within the State
Department began in 1963. During the
course of hearings before the Senate In-
ternal Security Subcommittee Mr. Otep-
ka handed over to Mr. J. G. Sourwine,
chief counsel of the subcommittee, some
34 documents of which 11 were classi-
fied ranging in degree of classification
from "confidential" to "official use only"
to "limited official use."
Otepka was charged with "conduct
unbecoming an officer of the Depart-
ment of State" in connection with the
handing over of these papers to Mr.
Sourwine. At the outset he was also
charged with other allegedly improper
acts, but these other charges were later
dropped by the Department of State by
the time the case was presented to the
hearing officer.
Specifically, Otepka was charged with
violating the Presidential directive of
March 13, 1948, which provides, in part,
as follows:
All reports, records, and files relative to the
loyalty of employees or prospective employ-
ees (including reports of such investiga-
tive agencies), shall be maintained in con-
fidence, and shall not be transmitted or
disclosed except as required in the efficient
conduct of business.
The report of the hearing officer is
printed at pages 75-84 of the April 15,
1969, Judiciary Subcommittee hearing
on the instant nomination?hereinafter
referred to as the "hearing." I call to the
attention of the Senate findings No. 12
and No. 42 which I read herewith ver-
batim: .
No. 12. Based upon my consideration of
all the testimony and evidence on record
in the Appellant's case, I find that the Appel-
lant delivered the two memoranda and
investigative report to a person outside of the
Department of State without authority and
In violation of the Presidential Directive of
March 13, 1948 (13 FR 1359). I find that
this action is conduct unbecoming an officer
of the Department of State. I find no extenu-
ating circumstances which would mitigate
the delivery of the two memoranda and
investigative report to the person outside the
Department. (See Hearing p. 78)
No. 42. The Code of Ethics for Govern-
ment Service, 86th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document No. 103, passed by the
S 7001
Congress of the United States on July 11,
1958, states in part:
"Any person in government service should:
"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral prin-
ciples and to country above loyalty to per-
sons, party, or Government department.
"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws and
legal regulations of the United States and
of all governments therein and never be a
party to their evasion...."
I consider the Presidential Directive of
March 13, 1948, as a positive regulation for
the conduct of Execntive Branch personnel
in the administration of the employee loy-
alty program. The Directive is reasonable
enough, setting forth a procedure whereby
loyalty-security information can be made
available to the Congress.
Mr. President, I repeat that at this
point for emphasis because I think it is
vital to the case. The hearing officer said:
The directive is reasonable enough, setting
forth a procedure whereby loyalty-security
information can be made available to the
Congress.
That is a course of procedure which
Mr. Otepka did not follow.
The hearing officer went on to add:
I find that the Appellant, as an employee
of the Executive Branch, is bound to the
proper implementation of the Presidential
Directive. The Code of Ethics for those in
Government Service requires adherence to
a proper regulation and requires further, that
no government employee be a party to the
evasion of a legal regulation. The Appellant
has requested a consideration of all the cir-
cumstances of this case which he states per-
mit him to apply a different rule, I have
so examined all the circumstances of the
case and find no reason to evade the appli-
cation of the foregoing rule. (See Hearing p.
83)
Mr. President, on December 9, 1967
Secretary of State Dean Rusk affirmed
the finding relating to Otepka, and Otep-
ka was reprimanded, reduced one civil
service grade, and transferred to duties
"which do not involve the administration
of personnel security functions." See
hearing, page 86.
The case then moved out of the De-
partment of State to the U.S. Civil Serv-
ice Commission.
On May 20, 1968, the Chief of the Ap-
peals Examining Office of the Civil Serv-
ice Commission made his findings, again
affirming the prior findings. The report,
in part, reads as follows:
He [Otepka] delivered to the Chief Coun-
sel, Senate Subcommittee on Internal Se-
curity three documents of a security nature.
He had no right to take the files and records
of his agency and release information which
he knew may be disclosed only by the Presi-
dent. Furthermore, he had no right to invade
the privAcy of those who were named in the
three docurffents. It is a fair conclusion that
having taken this action one time, he might
well do it again and It is reasonable for
Management [the Department of State] to
discipline him and remove him from the
area where he has demonstrated capacity for
harm. Therefore we conclude that the action
taken by the Department of State was for
a cause as will promote the efficiency of the
service and that the decision to effect the
action was not unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. (See Hearings, p. 91)
On September 25, 1968, the Board of
Appeals and Review of the U.S. Civil
Service Commission rendered its decision
in the .Otepka ease, again affirming the
previous findings. The Board of Appeals
said, in part, as follows:
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S7002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The appellate record establishes that the
appellant was familiar with the contents of
the aforementioned Presidential Directive
and that he knew of the prohibitions con-
tained therein. Surely, the appellant, who
had occupied highly responsible security
positions in the Department of State, in-
cluding that of Deputy Director of the Office
of Security, 913 Well as the position of super-
visory Personnel Security Specialist, was un-
der a duty to uphold arid comply with the
Pre44ential Directive of March 13, 1948. His
failure to do so, under the circumstances
disclosed by the evidence of record, clearly
constituted conduct unbecoming an officer of
the Deportment of State, as the Department,
alleged....
On October 5, 1968, Mr. Otepka an-
nounced in the press that he would ap-
peal his case to the Federal courts, as
was his right. However, he never did pur-
sue that appeal, dropping the appeal of
his own volition.
When President Nixon assumed office,
he instructed Secretary of State Rogers
to review the case.
On February 19, 1969, Secretary of
State Rogers wrote to Mr. Otepka stat-
ing his conclusion that "the case had
been fully and exhaustively litigated
within the executive branch of the Gov-
ernment in accordance with applicable
Provisions of law and the regulations of
the Department of State and Civil Serv-
ice Commission" and that the case would
not be reopened.
THE CASE AS IT APPLIES TO MR. OTEPKA'S
NOM/NATTON TO THE SACS
Mr. President it appears to me that Mr.
Otepka has had his full day in adminis-
trative court, so to speak, and could have
had an even fuller day in Federal court
had he wished to pursue that remedy.
As a governmental employee handling
security matters, he has been found
wanting by first the State Department
hearing officer, next the Secretary of
State, next the Civil Service appeals ex-
amining officer, next the Civil Service
Commission, and next the Civil Service
Commission Board of Appeals and Re-
views. Secretary of State Rogers refused
to reinstate Mr. Otepka.
Mr. Otepka knowingly and willfully
transmitted State Department security
documents in violation of a Presidential
directive. He did so, as the hearing of-
ficer found, with "no extenuating cir-
cumstances which would mitigate the de-
livery of the two memorandums and in-
vestigative report to the person outside
the Department." See hearing, page 78.
Mr. President, I cannot see how, under
these circumstances, the Senate. can now
give its advice and consent?the con-
stitutional value and validity of which
most of us are now striving to restore?
to elevate Mr. Otepka to a position of
even higher prestige and power in the
field of security.
For us to do so is to say that the
record of all the previous hearings and
the findings therein were baseless.
For us to do so is to say that the Sen-
ate of the United States substitutes it-
self as a Federal appellate court, a court
to which Mr. Otepka declined to take
his case.
For us to do so is to close our eyes
and minds to the exhaustive hearings of
record compiled in this case.
For us to do so is to reward an inten-
tional violation of a Government secu-
rity order by placing the violator in the
highest echelon of security control and
supervision.
For as to do so is to introduce Mr.
Otepka once again into the security field
after he had been transferred out of
such field because of an intentional
breach of security conduct.
Mr. President, this is seriously incon-
sistent?it is more than that: It is
blindly hypocritical.
Mr. President, other Senators will
present additional matters they wish to
have considered by further committee
hearings on this nomination. They, of
course, have the right to express their
doubts. For myself, without delving into
any other areas and Confining myself
to the appendix to the transcript of the
hearing before the subcommittee, on the
desk of every Senator, I am satisfied
that Mr. Otepka, by reason of his past
conduct in the handling of security af-
fairs, is an inadequate nominee for an
even loftier position in the security field,
Therefore, Mr. President, I shall vote
against the confirmation of Mr. Otepka
as a member of the Subversive Activities
Control Board.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, I can-
not in good conscience support the nom-
ination of Mr. Otto F. Otepka to be a
member of the Subversive Activities
Control Board. ?
I have the highest regard for the prin-
ciple that the President should have wide
discretion in making major appoint-
ments. Nevertheless, the Constitution
places upon the Senate the obligation to
determine the basic qualifications of
nominees.
The Subversive Activities Control
Board, having been stripped of its orig-
inal functions which were declared un-
constitutional, now serves little or no
useful purpose.
Despite its lack of usefulness, the
Board can by its actions vitally affect
the lives and careers of those whom it in-
vestigates. For this reason, its members
ought to be men of discretion and judg-
ment. I am not satisfied that Mr. Otepka
is such a man.
The Internal?Security Act which cre-
ated this Board was enacted at the height
of the Joseph McCarthy era. President
Truman, with the full support of J. Edgar
Hoover, recognized its dangers and ve-
toed, it saying:
This bill would work to the pletriment of
our national security.
The act required the registration of
Communists in violation of their fifth
amendment rights under the Constitus
tion. Other of its ill-advised provisions
'authorized the creation of detention
camps in this free country.
In 1965, the Supreme Court virtually
did away with the Board by declaring
unconstitutional its power to police the
compulsory registration of Communists.
Thereafter, the Board did nothing and
did not even meet for 3 years. Neverthe-
less, its five members each were paid
handsome salaries of $26,000 a year. Ap-
pointments to the Board became Payoffs
June 241 1969
for political favors. The taxpayers Paid
a quarter of a million dollars a year?or
over $5 million in the history of the
SCAB?for an agency that accomplished
nothing.
Last year, Congress renewed the powers
of the Board by authorizing it to hold
hearings to determine whether groups or
individuals named by the Attorney Gen-
eral are Communist affiliated. This passed
the Senate by a vote of only 3 to 2, with
95 Members absent.
An amendment to this legislation pro-
vided that the Board would expire unless
the Attorney General sent names to it
before the end of 1968. At the last mo-
ment, the Attorney General submitted a
few names to the Board to prolong its
precarious existence.
The Board is not needed in order to
prosecute those who actually conspire to
overthrow our Government.
The Board is not needed to investigate
subversives of the right or the left. The
FBI has ample powers to do this.
The Board's only function is that of
labeling organizations as Communist or
Communist fronts. The statutory stand-
ard of what "Communist" means is so
vague that this can seriously jeopardize
the basic individual freedoms guaranteed
by our Constitution.
The Board is directed only at the world
Communist movement. It does not con-
cern itself with totalitarian organizations
of the extreme right?which can endan-
ger our liberties just as gravely as those
of the extreme left.
Useful or not, the Board nevertheless
can profoundly affect the lives of those
It investigates. It it determines that
named individuals are members of Com-
munist-action or Communist-front orga-
nizations, this will prevent them from
holding public office and will seriously
diminish their chances of obtaining or
keeping private employment.
Because of its power over the lives of
American citizens, the Board must be
composed of men who meet high stand-
ards of fairness, discretion, and judg-
ment.
On the basis of his record, I am not
convinced that Otto Otepka has shown
these qualities.
The majority report of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which has recom-
mended his confirmation, discusses ex-
tensively whether Mr. Otepka has lied,
engaged in other misconduct, or has been
associated with individuals or organiza-
tions of a subversive character. It con-
cludes that he has not.
The report does not, however, satis-
factorily answer the question whether
Mr. Otepka in his actions has demon-
strated the caliber of judgment that
would justify his being appointed to such
a sensitive post.
Mr. Otepka served as the State Depart-
ment's chief security investigator until
1963, when he was removed from this
job. Two boards?a specially appointed
State Department investigative board
arul a Civil Service Appeals Board?
upheld his demotion.
His removal by the State Department
from matters involving the administra-
tion of personnel security functions was
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
- Approved For.Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1949 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7003
sustained by the Democratic Secretary
of State, Dean Rusk. His Republican
successor, William P. Rogers, refused to
reinstate him.
I do not understand a double stand-
ard by which a man who has been de-
termined to be unfit to hold a security
post in the State Department is never-
theless fit to hold an even higher rank-
ing and higher paid position in a major
Federal security agency.
If, as a Democratic and a Republican
Secretary of State have determined, Mr.
Otepka is not suited to pass upon sensi-
tive personnel security matters in the
. State Department, how can he be quali-
fied to pass upon matters of a similar
nature as a member of the Board?
Can it be that the Board is a "harm-
less" place for Mr. Otepka, because it has
been inactive for so long? This consoling
thought is no longer true. The Board
was given renewed powers by Congress
last year, and the Attorney General has
been activating it by sending it the names
of persons to investigate.
It may prove even more hazardous to
have Mr. Otepka serve as a member of
the Board than as a State Department
security evaluator. In the latter post, his
actions were at least reviewable by his
superiors. As a member of the Board,
his actions will be reviewable only by the
courts.
This appointment would become still
more sensitive if Congress were to enact
the proposed Internal Security Act of
1969, S. 12, introduced this year and
sponsored by one-third of the members
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That
bill, if enacted, would create a new Se-
curity Administration for Executive De-
partments with sweeping investigatory
powers, and provides that the Chairman
of SACB may also be Chairman of this
powerful new agency.
As I stated earlier, I believe the Board
serves no constructive Purpose. Some
may disagree with this characterization.
Some may contend that the Board can
perform an important public disclosure
function. If one were to accept this
premise, it becomes even more important
that the members of the Board be highly
respected men, in whose judgments the
public will believe.
Mr. Otepka does not enjoy this sort
of public confidence. His State Depart-
ment activities have generated wide-
spread misgivings. So have widely publi-
cized reports that he has been associated
with rightwing causes. So has the vocal
support he has received from extreme
rightist groups which he has not fully
repudiated.
In short, the Subversive Activities
Control Board is the wrong agency and
Mr. Otepka is the wrong man. The nom-
ination should not be confirmed.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I take the
floor to support the nomination of Otto
F. Otepka to be a member of the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board.
The Otepka nomination was favorably
reported by the Judiciary Committee on
May 29. Two members of the committee,
however, signed dissenting views, while
four filed individual statements. It is my
belief that their dissent or reservation
was based on a misunderstanding of the
facts, because there has, regrettably,
been a good deal of misrepresentation
about the Otepka case in the press.
This is a good appointment. It is my
hope that a detailed presentation of the
facts will help to persuade those Sen-
ators who have expressed doubts, or who
harbor doubts, about Otepka's associa-
tions, or about his conflict with the De-
partment of State, or about his sensi-
tivity and judgment.
The press campaign against Otto
Otepka has been spearheaded by Drew
Pearson, the lying character assassin and
his trained jackal, Jack Anderson.
Through their repeated columns carried
in hundreds of newspapers across the
country, they have unquestionably been
able to influence other writers and com-
mentators and, in a minor way, to influ-
ence congressional attitudes. Their suc-
cess has been limited. But by dint of re-
peating the most outrageous lies as
though they were statements of fact, they
have been able to make many honest
people believe that there must be some
substance to their misrepresentation.
There is nothing new about this tech-
nique, of course. It is the old technique
of "the big lie," at which Pearson and
Anderson are past masters.
In the several columns they have
written to date on the Otepka matter,
Pearson and Anderson have told a total
of several dozen separate lies; and their
major lies, as is their custom, have been
repeated over and over again.
The first column, for example, had a
single sentence which contained three
distinct lies, crowded into a mere 20
words. The sentence in question read:
The classified papers which Otepka gave
Dodd pertained to the security clearance of
several officials, the most important being
Walt Whitman Rostow.
The fact is that Otepka never gave
me any papers of any kind, either inside
the hearing room or outside the hearing
room.
The fact is further that I hardly knew
Otepka.
And the fact is finally that I never had
any Contact with him outside the hear-
ing room.
The three documents which form the
basis for the State Department's charge
against Otepka were officially made part
of the investigation record in a meeting
on August 12, 1963, presided over by Sen-
ator HRUSKA. The hearing record shows
that I was not present on that day.
This was lie No. 1.
The fact is, further, that Otepka
turned over no documents from the per-
sonnel security files of any official.
This was lie No. 2.
And finally, the fact is that the name
of Walt Whitman Rostow did not figure
in any way in the several documents
Otepka gave the subcommittee or in his
testimony before the subcommittee or in
the hearings on State Department se-
curity.
This was the third lie in the Pearson-
Anderson sentence.
The purpose of this factual recitation
Is simply to establish once again that
Pearson and Anderson are the most
reckless and malicious liars who ever
rated a syndicated newspaper column.
WHO IS OTTO OTEPICA?
Before I go on to deal with the major
allegations that have been made against
Otepka by Drew Pearson and by others,
it would be appropriate to establish for
the record the essential facts about Otto
Otepka, about his conflict with the De-
partment of State, and about his qualifi-
cations for the position to which he has
been nominated.
Otto Otepka is an outstanding exam-
ple of the self-made man who has risen
from the humblest position in govern-
ment to very high position by dint of
his own efforts and ability.
His unbroken record of advancement
over a period of 25 years is by itself a
powerful proof that he enjoyed the es-
teem and respect of his various superiors,
until he ran into difficulties with the
State Department bureaucracy in 1963.
Otepka went to work for the U.S. Gov-
ernment in 1936.
In 1942 he became an investigator
and security officer for the Civil Service
Commission, and he held this position
until 1943 when he enlisted in the U.S.
Navy.
Otepka was honorably discharged from
the Navy in 1946 with the rank of petty
officer first class.
Returning to his old job with the Civil
Service Commission, he continued to
work as an investigator and security of-
ficer until 1953, when he was transferred
to the Office of Security in the Depart-
ment of State.
Otepka's outstanding competence won
him advancement in August, 1953, to the
position of Chief of the Evaluations Divi-
sion of the State Department Office of
Security.
Over the ensuing years, Otepka won
nothing but praise for his performance
from the top people in the Department.
In September, 1955, Mr. Dennis Flinn,
the Director of the Office of Security,
stated in a memorandum that Under
Secretary Herbert Hoover, Jr., had "gone
out of his way to express appreciation for
Mr. Otepka's work," in particular, for the
"form, substance, and objectivity of
presentation."
In April of 1957 Otepka was advanced
to the position of Deputy Director of the
Office of Security, in which position he
became the effective chief of the State
Department's personnel security opera-
tions.
Later that year his work won special
commendation from Mr. Loy W. Hender-
son, Deputy Under Secretary of State for
Administration, who said that Otepka
deserved "special commendation" for his
handling of many delicate cases of
security clearance for appointive office.
In 1958, Otepka received the Meri-
torious Service Award from Secretary of
State John Foster Dulles.
In May of 1962, the Head of the Office
of Security, Mr. William 0. Boswell, in
an official memorandum, said:
Over the years Mr. Otepka has made a very
real and substantial contribution to the
Office of Security and hence to the national
security.
And he praised his ability and dedica-
tion to the security program.
Even after formal charges had been
brought against Otepka by the State De-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
partment, the then Under Secretary of
State for Administration, Mr. William
Crockett, described Otepka to the com-
mittee as "a knowledgeable, realistic
security man."
Here is a man who over a period of
several decades served the U.S. Govern-
ment in various capacities; whose per-
formance won him continuous advance-
ment and repeated praise from highly
demanding superiors whose record was
without blemish or flaw.
This is the man whom we are now told
is untrustworthy and incompetent and
undeserving of the high office to w hich
he has been nominated.
By commonsense standards of logic
and justice, I say that this just does not
make sense.
Now, let us examine the charges
agajnst Otepka one by one.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ACTION AGAINST
()TEMA
The only argument that has been
made against Otepka that has even the
appearance of substance Is that the
State Department found it necessary to
discipline him on the basis of charges
brought against him by Secretary of
State Rusk.
I have great respect for former Secre-
tary of State Rusk, under whose admin-
istration the charges against Otto
Otepka were initiated. But, having pre-
sided over many of the hearings on the
question of State Department security,
I am convinced that those subordinates
who handled the Otepka case did the
Department of State and Secretary Rusk
himself a profound disservice.
It is perhaps the nature of bureauc-
racies that they must always seek to
vindicate their errors. And this is prob-
ably why the State Department per-
sisted in its mean and unreasoning cam-
paign against Otto Otepka, even after
his accusers had been dismissed for
Perjury.
The story of the shameless campaign
waged against Otto Otepka by certain
State Department officials is documented
in the many volumes of hearings on the
question of State Department security
conducted by the Senate Subcommittee
on Internal Security.
Otto Otepka had served in the field of
security for a number of years when he
first appeared before the Senate Sub-
committee on Internal Security in 1961.
At that time he held the position of
Deputy Director of the Office of Security
In the Department of State. His effi-
ciency rating had always been "excel-
lent"; and in 1958 he had received the
Meritorious Service Award from Secre-
tary of State John Foster Dulles.
But while Otto Otepka was fair, he
also believed in sound security proce-
dures. For this he incurred the wrath of
certain people in the Department.
And so, they began, first, to restrict his
functions.
Then they began to monitor his burn
basket.
Then they locked him out of his of-
fice and denied him access to his files,
although no charge had yet been
brought against him.
No one suspected of espionage or dis-
loyalty has, to my knowledge, been sub-
jected to such surveillance and hu-
miliation. But Otepka Was not suspected
of disloyalty or espionage. He was sus-
pected very simply of cooperating with
the Senate Subcommittee on Internal
Security and of providing it with in-
formation that some of his superiors
found embarrassing or objectionable.
On November 5, 1963, it was an-
nounced that the State Department had
decided to dismiss Otto Otepka I im-
mediately took the floor of the U.S. Sen-
ate to protest the dismissal, which I de-
scribed as a challenge to responsible
government and an affront to the Sen-
ate as a whole.
Among other things, I pointed out that
while State Department officials had
denied under oath that a listening de-
vice had been installed in Otepka's of-
fice, the Subcommittee on Internal Se-
curity had proof that such a device was
in fact installed.
In the ensuing colloquy on the floor
of the Senate, there Was discussion of
possible perjury charges against the
State Department officials involved.
The following morning, November 6,
the Subcommittee on Internal Security
received three letters from the State De-
partment officials to whom I had re-
ferred without naming them: Mr. John
F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Security; Mr. David I. Belisle, deputy to
Mr. Reilly; and Mr. Elmer Dewey Hill,
Director of the Division of Technical
Services in the Office of Security.
It was also announced that the dis-
missal was revoked and that Otepka
was, instead, being suspended.
In essence, the three State Depart-
ment officials who originally told the
subcommittee that they knew absolutely
nothing about an effort to install a lis-
tening device in Otepka's office and had
not been party to such effort, now told
the subcommittee that their previous
statements were untrue and misleading,
and that they did in fact have knowl-
edge of the installation of a device in
Otepka's telephone.
Messrs. Reilly and Hill, having been
caught in the act of perjury before a
Senate committee, were obliged to sub-
mit their resignations.
However, it later developed that Mr.
John F. Reilly was able to move on to
another important position in the Fed-
eral Communications Commission be-
cause his State Department file contained
no record of the fact that he had com-
mitted perjury and had been obliged to
resign on this account.
As for Mr. Belisle, not only was his
resignation not requested by the Secre-
tary of State, but he has since then
moved on to higher positions.
The record also established that it was
Mr. John F. Reilly, the chief of the per-
jurers, who had framed the charges
against Otepka on the basis of which
the Secretary of State acted against him.
And it was under the same Mr. Reilly
that an effort was made to enlarge the
case against Otepka by planting phony
evidence in his burn basket. When
Otepka was able to demonstrate the
fraudulence of this planted evidence, the
State Department was obliged to drop
most of the charges that had originally
been brought against him.
tTane .24, 1969
Essentially whet remained was the
charge that Otepka had violated State
Department regulations by allegedly
turning over confidential documents
relating to personnel security to the In-
ternal Security Subcommittee.
Now I do nor say that executive de-
partment employees should have the
right to violate the stringent rule against
revealing or turning over the contents
of personnel security files. But this is
not what was involved here.
Otto Otepka did not "pilfer" State D( -
partment files as has been alleged.
Nor did he turn over to the subcom-
mittee any classified papers from the
personal security files of State Depart-
ment officials.
Actually, Otepka gave the subcom-
mittee only three documents about
which the State Department com-
plained.
Otepka had informed the subcommit-
tee that he had written a memorandum
to his superior, Mr. Reilly, recommend-
ing a tightening of security procedures.
Mr. Reilly denied to the subcommittee
that he had received any such memo-
randum from Otepka. In order to prove
that he was telling the truth and that
Mr. Reilly was lying, Otepka gave the
subcommittee a copy of his original
memorandum to Reilly, which had been
initialed on receipt by Reilly; and he
also gave the subcommittee a copy of a
memorandum written by Reilly to an-
other State Department office in which
he made reference to the Otepka memo-
randum.
It was of vital importance to the sub-
committee to know who was lying and
who was telling the truth. And I
honestly cannot think of any other way
in which Otepka could have handled the
matter.
I doubt very much, for example, that
he would have been granted permission
to convey these documents to the sub-
committee if he had asked his superior,
Mr. Reilly, for this permission.
Here was this poor man, put in the
position of being accused of having lied
to the Committee on the Judiciary when
he told us that he had written a memo-
randum to his superior, and the superior
came before us and said, "He is a liar;
he never did."
Faced with this charge, Otepka said,
"All right, I will show you I am not a
liar. Let me get that paper."
He went back to his office, got the
paper, and returned, and said, "Here is
the memorandum I wrote him; there are
his initials. And here is his memoran-
dum. Here they are."
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. EASTLAND. Is it not a fact that
Mr. Otepka was told there was a con-
flict, and asked to verify, if he could, the
story he told?
Mr. DODD. That is exactly right.
Mr. EASTLAND. And he did, at the
request of the committee, verify it?
Mr. DODD. He did.
Mr. EASTLAND. And then the State
Department fired his superiors for lying.
Mr. DODD. That is correct. I am glad
the Senator added that; I meant to men-
tion it.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 .? CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
June _24, 1t269 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7005
? This was another reason why the Sec-
retary of State fired Reilly, because he
lied about those memorandums before
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Senators may say Otepka should have
gone to the Secretary of State and said,
"Look, this fellow Reilly went up to the
Judiciary Committee and lied about me;
please let me have that memorandum so
I can take it to, the committee and show
it to them."
If he had done,that, it perhaps might
have been better and easier. Know-
ing the machinery of these big depart-
merits, I doubt that he would have got-
ten permission. On the whole I am con-
vinced that Otepka did the right thing.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. MURPHY. I seem to recall having
read, in connection with some contro-
versy involving the name Reilly, that
there was a question about tapping tele-
phones. ?
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. MURPHY. And that there was
testimony that this had taken place un-
der oath, which later proved to be false
testimony.
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. MURPHY. Was that the same
Mr. Reilly who seems to have been in-
volved with this matter?
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. MURPHY. And he did, under oath,
deny that he had any knowledge or had
anything to do with tapping Otepka's
phone; is that right?
Mr. DODD. Yes; he denied all that.
Mr. MURPHY. Then later, it was sub-
sequently proved, and he admitted, that
his testimony under oath had been false?
Mr. DODD. That is right. He was the
same person. The Senator has identified
him correct1?.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank my distin-
guished colleague.
Mr. DODD. Otepka had also 'recom-
mended to the Department of State that,
In order to reduce paperwork and sim-
plify security procedures, a very much
abbreviated report form be used in the
case of those employees whose back-
ground revealed no questionable or
adverse information requiring further
evaluation. In order to demonstrate what
he meant, Otepka provided the subcom-
mittee with a sample copy of this abbre-
viated report form.
Now in a purely technical sense, Otep-
ka in this case may have been guilty of
violating the Executive order dealing
with personnel security files. But the real
purpose of this order was to protect em-
ployees of the executive branch against
the disclosure of any adverse or unevalu-
ated information that might be con-
tained in their personal files. And the
report in question contained not a single
iota of adverse information; it was a rec-
Ord, indeed, without a blemish of any
kind.
- Incidentally, I heard the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) say there were
34 classified documents involved. He
seemed to be under the impression that
Otepka had turned over to the commit-
tee 34 documents that he had no right to
burn over. I do not know where the Sen-
ator got that impression, except that I
suspect he probably read portions of the
evidence and of the hearing exhibits
without knowing all the facts.
There were, it is true, some routine
documents under his control that Otepka
turned over to the committee upon re-
quest. But there were only three docu-
ments involved in any charges preferred
against Otepka, and I have told you
about them.
The original charges did start out with
a lot of other junk, but it never got any-
where, and the Secretary of State drop-
ped these charges and they ended there.
So much for the charges brought
against Otto Otepka by the Depart-
ment of State. These charges held no
water. Nor did they really succeed in per-
suading the press or the public. Never-
theless, as the result of the flimsy and
baseless charges that were brought
against him, Otto Otepka was subjected
to a harrowing five-and-a-half-year
ordeal.
From all those in the press who fol-
lowed his case carefully, Otepka won
very high marks for the manner in which
he bore himself in the face of his long
ordeal. Pulitzer Prize-winning news-
paperman, Clark Mollenhoff, for exam-
ple, said recently in a speech in Wash-
ington:
Every investigation I made of Otepka's
story demonstrated that he was accurate on
the facts, and balanced in his perspective
* * he was amazingly objective in viewing
his own case, had in judgment about the
men who were alined against him. He had
the restraint and judgment to draw lines
between those who were actively engaged in
illegal and improper efforts and those who
seemed to be simply trapped into a position
by carelessness or to present a united politi-
cal front.
Since the charges which led to Otep-
ka's harrassment and punishment by the
State Department were clearly without
substance, Drew Pearson and the others
who have recently assailed him have had
to invent new charges to bolster the old
ones.
Among other things, they have
charged him with lack of qualification,
with unbalanced judgment, and with ex-
tremist associations. Drew Pearson has
even implied at several points that Otto
Otepka is anti-Semitic.
Let me reply to these recently manu-
factured charges briefly, because they
clearly do not merit extensive attention.
OTEPKA'S FAIRNESS
Otto Otepka had a reputation for fair-
ness which in the 1950's won him the im-
plicit, if not explicit, praise of certain of
those who today attack him.
I recall specifically the case of Wolf
Ladejinsky, an expert on agriculture in
the underdeveloped countries, who had
been denied clearance by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture but who was then
granted clearance by the Department of
State on the basis of the recommenda-
tion of Otto Otepka. This conflict in
clearances took more than a year to re-
solve, and during that time the Ladejin-
sky case became a nationwide cause with
the liberal press and with liberals gen-
erally.
Ladejinsky's foremost defender in the
press was Washington correspondent
Clark Mollenhoff. For his writings on the
Ladejinsky case, Mr. Mollenhoff received
a special award from the American Civil
Liberties Union, as well as the Heywood
Broun Award of the American Newspa-
per Guild and several other press awards.
But the real hero of the Ladejinsky case,
even though his name received scant at-
tention at the time, was Otto Otepka,
and Mr. Mollenhoff is the first to con-
firm this.
Pearson and others who today assail
Otepka would do well to reread the edi-
torials on the Ladejinsky case that ap-
peared in the liberal press of the time.
As for the innuendo that Otto Otepka
is anti-Semetic, Pearson conveniently
forgot that Wolf Ladejinsky was Jewish.
There were, indeed, anti-Semitic over-
tones in the attack conducted against
Wolf Ladejinsky. And in defending Wolf
Ladejinsky, Otto Otepka also gave battle
to the hidden anti-Semitism which al-
most succeeded in destroying Ladejinsky.
In defending Ladejinsky, Otepka dem-
onstrated, as well, a sensitivity and
fairness that other security officers would
do well to emulate.
In the period before the recognition of
the Soviet Union, Ladejinsky had been
an employee of the American office of
Amtorg, the Soviet trading organization.
In the eyes of the security officers in the
Department of Agriculture, this single
fact was enough to disqualify Ladejin-
sky. Unquestionably, it was a fact which
had to be carefully weighed. But Otepka
took the stand that it was necessary to
look at Ladejinsky's record whole and
that it would be wrong to disqualify him
because of a single association that had
been terminated some 25 years pre-
viously.
The basic fairness which he manifested
in the Ladejinsky case characterized
Otepka's entire approach to problems in
the delicate field of personnel security.
THE LIBERTY LOBBY, THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY
AND GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
Another charge that Pearson has
been riding hard is that Otepka has ac-
tively associated with the Liberty Lobby
and the John Birch Society and that
these two organizations played the prin-
cipal role in promoting his appointment
to the Subversive Activities Control
Board.
Nothing could be further from the
truth. The fact is that these two far-
right organizations were unhappy about
Otepka's appointment to the Subversive
Activities Control Board. They preferred
to have Otepka as a martyr whose name
they could exploit for their own right-
wing purposes rather than seeing Otepka
vindicated through his appointment to
the Subversive Activities Control Board
by President Nixon.
As for Pearson's charge that the nom-
ination was made because the Liberty
Lobby and the John Birch Society have
a long list of Congressmen whom they
can manipulate because they are in their
debt, I cannot think of any two orga-
nizations that have less influence on
the Hill than these two misguided ultra
rightist associations. I am sure on this
point the opinion of the Senate would
be just about unanimous.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
It is probable that among Otepka's
countless thouSands of 'supporters across
the cattary 'There were Some men:fliers
of the John Birch Society and the Li-
berty Lobby, Who supported him because
they considered him an anti-Communist.
But this is a problem that exists for
liberals and pacifists as well as for those
who take a strong stand against Com-
munism.
It is, for example, a matter of record
that the Commtmist Party and its pub-
lications in this country strongly oppose
our Vdetnam commit/tient.
It is also demonstrable that the Com-
munist Party has participated and has
urged its members to participate in and
contribute to the various major anti-
Vietnam demonstrations that have taken
place.
But it would clearly be ridiculous to
argue or imply that because all Com-
munists oppose our Vietnam commitment
or because identified Communists have
played key roles in the anti-Vietnam
movement, all those who oppose our Viet-
nam commitment are Communists or
pro-Communists.
The fact is that those who are anti-
Communist, whether their domestic
views are liberal or conservative, will
frequently attract the support of ele-
ments with whom they have no associa-
tion and for whom they have no esteem.
Similarly, the fact is that those who
oppose our Vietnam commitment or op-
pose the ABM, whether their domestic
views are liberal or conservative, will
frequently find their views enthusiasti-
cally supported by the Moscow Commu-
nists and the Peking Communists and all
the various New Left organizations.
WHO SOPPORTS OTF-PKA,
To the extent that Otepka had serious
political support, it was based primarily
on reputable organizations, like the
American Legion which passed resolu-
tions on his behalf at two national con-
ventions; the Young Republican organi-
zation; the League of Republican
Women; and, on the issue of procedure,
by the American Civil Liberties Union
which issued a statement protesting the
State Department's refusal to grant him
an open hearing.
Otepka has been supported, as well, by
numerous Senators and Congressmen of
both parties.
Finally, his cause has been champi-
oned by editorialists, columnists, and
commentators of various political views;
Clark Mollenhoff of Cowles Publications;
Willard Edwards of the Chicago Trib-
une; commentator Ron David of station
WTOP; columnist Holmes Alexander;
and numerous editors, including the
editors of the New York Daily News;
Charleston, S.C., News & Courier; Buf-
falo, N.Y., News; St. Petersburg, Fla.,
Times; Omaha, Nebr., World Herald;
Los Angeles Times; Phoenix, Ariz., Re-
public; and St. Louis Glove Democrat.
It is patently ridiculous to charge, in
the light of this record, that Otto Otepka
has derived his chief support, or any
significant portion of this support, from
the Liberty Lobby and the John Birch
Society.
THE CONFIRMATION CT OTTO OTEIPKA
Mr. President, the bureaucratic pro-
cedures of the Department of State have
wrought a terrible injustice in the case
of Otto Otepka.
The State Department bureaucracy
cannot go 'back on itself, because such a
reversal would run counter to the nature
of bureaucracy.
But the Congress of the United States
does not have to be guided by bureau-
cratic considerations or by the past mis-
takes of the State Department.
The President has done the right thing
in nominating Otto Melaka for the Sub-
versive Activities Contrel Board, first,
because it was clear that his reinstate-
ment in the Department of State was a
bureaucratic impossibility; second, be-
cause it was clear that an injustice had
been done and that Vindication was
called for; and third, because Otepka
was highly qualified for the post.
The newly manufactured charges that
have been brought against Otepka by
Drew Pearson and others are even more
baseless than the original charges
brought against Otepka by the Depart-
ment of State. Even to call them
"charges" dignifies them, for they are
blatant examples of the technique of the
big lie and of guilt by association.
Otto Otepka has for several decades
served his Government with distinction
In a series of important positions.
The post for which he has been recom-
mended is a highly responsible one.
It calls for a broad knowledge of the
problems posed by subversive activities
and by the requirements of security.
But most important, it calls for in-
tegrity, fairness, and a capacity for bal-
anced judgment.
Al of these qualifications Otto Otepka
possesses in exceptional degree.
Mr. President, I earnestly hope that
the Senate will vote overwhelmingly to
approve the oonfirmation of Otto Otepka
as a member of the Subversive Activities
Control Board,
Mr. FANNIN, Mr. President, I should
like to speak further on the Otepka case,
and furnish documentation on the facts.
The Otepka case began in 1961. Up to
that time Otto Otepka had been con-
sidered an outstanding professional se-
curity officer. He had come to the State
Department in 1953 as a personnel se-
curity evaluator. In 1958 he had received
a meritorious award signed by Secretary
of State Dulles. In 1960 his State De-
partment efficiency report noted:
Long experience with and extremely broad
knowledge of laws, regulations . . . in the
field of personnel security. rle Is knowledge-
able of communism and its subversive efforts
in the United States. To this he adds per-
spective, balance and good judgement.
Mr. President this was the record of
Otto Otepka, valued career officer in the
State Department before the time he was
asked to see that certain individuals be
allowed to obtain important jobs with-
out proper security clearance. By early
1962 there were 152 security "waivers"
granted to high-ranking Department
personnel. Under the previous 8 years of
the Eisenhower administration, only five
such waivers had been granted.
June 24, 1969
In January 1962, Otepka was down-
graded from Deputy Director of the Of-
fice of Security to Chief of the Evalua-
tion Division. On June 27, 1963, he was
locleed out of Its office, denied access to
his 'files and placed in isolation. He also
learned that his telephone had been
tapped. Three of the officials who denied
knowledge Of this tape later reversed
themselves before the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that an Associ-
ated Press story appearing in the New
York Times on January 10, 1968, be
printed at the conclusion of my remarks
as exhibit 1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. FANNIN. This story, Mr. Presi-
dent, notes the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee has accused the State De-
partment of dealing mildly with these
three officials: John Reilly, former Dep-
uty Assistant Secretary for Security:
Elmer D. Hill, former head of the Divi-
sion of Technical Services in Mr. Reilly's
office; and David I. Belisle, then Mr.
Reilly's Special Assistant.
It should be noted, Mr. President, that
initially the State Department leveled
13 charges against Mr. Otepka. By the
time of the Department hearings, 10 of
the 13 charges had been dropped. By tak-
this action, the Department managed to
prevent a probe of several prominent fig-
ures, including those who may have
played a significant role in trying to force
Otepka out of his job.
What was OtepleaSs crime, Mr. Presi-
dent? After more than 1,000 pages of
testimony, Mr. Otepka was found guilty
of "delivering two memorandums and an
investigative report to a person outside
of the Department of State and in via-
lation of the Presidential directive of
March 1948."
This conclusion was reached, Mr. Pres-
ident, without noting that these items
were delivered to a duly authorized con-
gressional committee for the purpose of
proving that he had not lied in disputing
the statements made by his superiors.
Mr. Otepka's "crime," Mr. President,
is that he refused to rubberstamp secur-
ity clearances requested by the admin-
istration in power at that time. Clearly
a full investigation of the whole handling
of the Otepka affair would have proved
embarrassing in the extreme for many
highly placed personalities. Even now,
were all the facts brought to light, there
would be political repercussions of con-
siderable significance and magnitude.
Mr. President, I suggest that the oppo-
sition to the current nomination of Otto
Otepka to the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board is, for the most part, a fabrica-
tion of innuendoes and unproven state-
ments pushed forward by those who are
either willingly or unconsciously un-
aware of the real issues in this case.
The Otto Otepka case, Mr. President is
more than the trials of one man. It is a
question of whether a dedicated career
civil servant is free to do his job relating
to the security and well-being of our Na-
tion; it stands as a symbol to other dedi-
cated men and women in the service of
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
Juith 24, 1969
CONGRESSIONAL
their country, demonstrating that Amer-
ica wants the job done and wants the job
done right in protecting and preserving
our Nation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that an editorial from the Tucson
Daily Citizen, Tucson, Ariz., appearing
on February 5, 1968, along with the text
of the brief in behalf of Otto Otepka
filed with State Department hearing offi-
cer, Edward A. Dragon, be printed at the
conclusion of ray remarks as exhibits No.
2 and No. 3.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibits 2 and 3.)
EXHIBIT
[From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1968]
PENALTIES IN THE BUGGING OF OTEPKA' ARE
ASSAILED-SENATE PANEL SCORES SOFT
TREATMENT OF THREE WHO ALLEGEDLY
PLANTED DEVICE
WASHINGTON, January 9.-The Senate In-
ternal Security subcommittee has accused
the State Department of dealing mildly with
three of its officials who allegedly bugged the
office phone of Otto P. Otepka, the depart-
ment's demoted security chief.
The subcommittee said in a report released
today that the department "allowed two wit-
nesses who had lied to the subcommittee
to resign with no prejudicial material in
their personnel files to prevent further Gov-
ernment employment, and it retained in its
employment one of the trio on its payroll."
Mr. Otepka was demoted, reprimanded and
reassigned for having furnished the subcom-
mittee's counsel, J. G. Sourwine, with classi-
fied material in 1963. Ile appealed to the Civil
Service Commission after Secretary of State
Dean Rusk decided the case last December.
The subcommittee said that, because of
the "soft treatment" of the three employes,
"the impression has inevitably been cre-
ated-and only the State Department can
undo this impression-that it regards per-
jury before a committee of Congress as a quite
minor matter."
The State Department had no comment.
The three officials were John Reilly, former
deputy assistant secretary for security; El-
mer D. Hill, former head of the division of
technical services in Mr. Reilly's office; and
David I. Belisle, then Mr. Reilly's special as-
sistant.
The subcommittee said Mr. Reilly and Mr.
Hill first denied but later admitted that they
had installed a listening device in Mr. Otep-
ka's office. Mr. Belisle, who was out of the
country when the bug was installed, denied
any knowledge of it, but later said he was
told about it after his return, the report
added.
Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill were first suspend-
ed, then both retired. Mr. Belisle did not
resign and is now an administrative officer
at the United States Embassy in Bonn.
EXHIBIT 2
[From the Tucson Daily Citizen, Feb. 5, 1968]
WHY THE ATTACK ON OTTO ?TM:ISA?
The case of Otto Otepka shows that sub-
versive elements are at work within the gov-
ernment of the United States, particularly
within the state department.
Mr. Otepka is a persecuted patriot, hound-
ed by ultra-leftists who correctly recognized
him as an obstacle to their plans for America.
Until 1961, he was working chief of the
RECORD - SENATE S 7007
state department's world-wide Office of Se-
curity. It was his job to issue security clear-
ances for persons going into important gov-
ernment positions. As a loyal American, Mr.
Otepka regularly refused security clearance
to anyone who failed to meet the test of Ex-
ecutive Order 10450.
That order, issued by President Eisenhower
in 1953, specified that any reasonable doubt
regarding a government employe's or ap-
plicant's loyalty should be resolved in favor
of national security rather than in favor of
the individual.
Shortly after the national election of 1960,
in which John F. Kennedy won the presi-
dency, Mr. Otepka explained his position to
Incoming Secretary of State Dean Rusk and
incoming Attorney General Robert F. Ken-
nedy. The two newly appointed cabinet
members asked Mr. Otepka about the pos-
sibility of security clearance for Walt W.
Rostow, who is now a special assistant and
advisor to the President and holds what Mr.
Johnson calls "the most important job in the
White House, aside from the President."
Mr. Otepka had refused clearances for Mr.
Rostow in 1955 and 1957. And in 1960, he ex-
plained to Mr. Rusk and Mr. Kennedy that he
would still not grant such a clearance.
In 1961, the State Department shunted Mr.
Otepka out of his accustomed duties by put-
ting him in charge of a special project in an
entirely different area. At that same time, the
department's security clearance procedures
became lax.
In November, 1961, Mr. Otepka was de-
moted to chief of the evaluations division, an
office he filled years earlier, in an apparent
effort to make him resign in disgust. He hung
on.
On June 27, 1963, Mr. Otepka was sum-
marily dismissed from the State Department
and the FBI was asked to investigate him for
possible violation of the espionage laws.
Incredibly, this action was based on his hav-
ing given information to the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee.
In the meantime, that subcommittee had
been investigating the now-notorious Otepka
case and the State Department procedures
which the New York Times had called "de-
ceitful, and worse."
The committee's report came out last
month in four volumes totalling 409 pages,
and it amounted to a vigorous defense of Mr.
Otepka and seven other security officers who
were victims along with him of the State
Department purge of 1963.
That report, however, fails to explain why
Mr. Otepka was persecuted. What motivated
his enemies? Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen answered that question a year ago
when he said:
"Why, it is perfectly obvious what their
motivation was. The ultra-leftists in the De-
partment of State saw Otepka as an obstacle
to their plans. They had to remove him-
and they did."
Those plans include disarmament treaties,
limitations on American development of
strategic space weapons, "bridges" to the
Soviet Bloc and other so-called "one-world"
schemes.
Mr. Otepka no doubt was an obstacle be-
cause he was not about to give security
clearance to anyone with a record of sub-
versive affiliations. And America was safer
so long as that authority was his.
Americans should demand another purge
In the State Department, a purge directed
this time against ultra-leftists rather than
patriots.
EXHIBIT a
FULL TEXT OF THE OTEPKA BRIEF
(Nars.-The following is the complete
text1 of the official brief in behalf of Otto
Otepka filed with Edward A. Dragon, the
hearing officer who presided over Otepka's
State Department appeal. This brief , was
submitted by Otepka's attorney, Roger Robb,
a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm
of Robb, Porter, Kistler and Parkinson. The
circumstances leading up to the filing of the
brief and the events that have transpired
since are summarized in the preceding two
pages of this special supplement.)
This is an appeal from the decision of
Mr. John Ordway, chief, Personnel Opera-
tions Division, sustaining 13 charges against
the appellant. The charges were preferred
by a letter from Mr. Ordway to the appel-
lant dated Sept. 23, 1963. The appellant filed
his answer Oct. 14, 1963. By letter dated Nov.
5, 1963, Mr. Ordway found that all 13 charges
contained in his letter of Sept. 23, 1963, were
sustained. Mr. Otepka appealed from this
decision on Nov.. 14, 1963.
Mr. Ordway's letter of Sept. 23, 1963, set.
ting out the charges against Mr. Otepka,
recites in some detail that during the period
March 13, 1963, the appellant's classified
trash bag, referred to as a "burn bag," was
subjected to continuous and covert inspec-
tion; that these "procedures" were "in-
stituted" by direction of Mr. Otepka's su-
perior, John F. Reilly, deputy assistant sec-
retary for security. The letter further recites
that certain carbon paper, copies, "clipped"
and torn pieces of paper, referred to in the
charges, were retrieved from the trash bag.
Following his description of the surveil-
lance of the appellant's trash bag Mr. Ord-
way lists 13 charges against the appellant.
Charges 1, 2 and 3 allege that the appel-
lant conducted himself "in a manner unbe-
ooming an officer of the Department of
State" and committed a "breach of the
standard of conduct expected of an officer
of the Department of State," by furnishing
copies of two memoranda and a copy of an
investigative report to Mr. J. G. Sourwine,
chief counsel, United States Senate Subcom-
mittee to Investigate the Administration of
the Internal Security Act and other Internal
Security Laws, of the Committee on the
Judiciary. It is alleged that the furnishing
of these papers was in violation of the
Presidential Directive of March 13, 1948.
"MUTILATION" CHARGE
Charges 4, 6, 8 and 10 allege that the ap-
pellant was "responsible" for the declas-
sification of classified documents, in viola-
tion of various sections of the department's
Foreign Affairs Manual. Charges 5, 7, 9 and
11 relate to the same documents referred
1 The text of the brief as here reprinted is
exactly as in the original submitted to the
hearing officer except that most parenthet-
ical page references to other legal transcripts,
appendices and exhibits have been removed,
long paragraphs in the original have been
subdivided into smaller paragraphs for
easier reading, subheads have been inserted
to break up the lengthy text. " * The direct
quotations in the brief come from testimony
presented before the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee or at the State Department
hearing; those interested in checking the ref-
erences should consult the annotated text of
the brief that was inserted in the Congres-
sional Record by Rep. John Ashbrook (R.-
Ohio) on Dec. 14, 1967.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
mittee by his superior, John P. Reilly. He
to in charges 4, 6, 8 and 10 and allege that
the appellant was "responsible" for the
"mutilation" of such documents in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. 2071, a criminal statute.
On Oct. 4, 1963, counsel for Mr. Otepka
requested Mr. Ordway to advise him whether
it was alleged that Mr. Otepka personally
clipped or mutiliated the documents in ques-
tion, and if not then who was alleged to
have done the clipping or mutilation. On
Oct. 8, 1963, Mr. Ordway responded that it
was not alleged that Mr. Otepka personally
clipped or mutilated the documents. Mr.
Ordway did not answer the question as to
the identity of the person alleged to have
done the clipping or mutilation.
Charges 12 and 13, contained in Mr. Ord-
way's letter of Sept. 23, 1963, allege that Mr.
Otepka conducted himself "in a manner un-
becoming an officer of the Department of
State" by furnishing to Mr. J. G. Sourwine
certain questions which were subsequently
put by Mr. Sourwine to Mr. Otepka's supe-
riors, John F. Reilly and David I. Belisle,
when they appeared before the Senate In-
ternal Security subcommittee. It is alleged
that the furnishing of such questions was
"a breach of the standard of conduct ex-
pected of an officer of the Department of
State."
By his letter of Oct. 4, 1963, counsel for
Mr. Otepka requested Mr. Ordway to specify
the regulation alleged to have been vio-
lated by such conduct of Mr. Otepka. Mr.
Ordway responded by his letter of Oct. 8,
1963, that no allegation was made that such
conduct violated a specific Department of
State regulation.
Notwithstanding the decision of Mr. Ord-
way on Nov. 6, 1963, that all 13 charges
against the appellant were sustained, the
Department of State at the outset of the
hearing on June 6, 1967 withdrew charges
4 to 13 inclusivk. The hearing therefore re-
lated only to charges 1, 2 and 3 alleging that
the appellant furnished certain documents
to Mr. Sourwine, chief counsel of the Sen-
ate Internal Security subcommittee.
Each of the first three charges contains
three elements, all of which must be proven
if the charges are to be sustained. These ele-
ments are:
(1) That Mr. Otepka gave a certain classi-
fied document to Mr. Sourwine, the chief
counsel of the Internal. Security subcommit-
tee of the Committee on the Judiciary of
the United States Senate;
(2) That the giving of this document was
a violation of the Presidential Directive dated
March 13, 1948; and
(3) That this act by Mr. Otepka was con-
duct "unbecoming an officer of the Depart-
ment of State" and "a breach of the stand-
ard of conduct expected of an officer of the
Department of State."
The position of the appellant with respect
to the issues posed by the first three charges
was stated by his counsel in an opening
statement to the Hearing Officer. Briefly,
that position was and is:
(1) Mr. Otepka did in fact turn over the
papers in question to Mr. Sourwine, who
was acting in his official capacity as chief
counsel of the Senate subcommittee.
(2) The papers given to Mr. Sourwine ore
not within the scope of the Presidential
Directive of March 13, 1948, fairly and rea-
sonably construed in the circumstances of
this case. The papers contained information
in the public domain, they did not contain
loyalty or security information in the proper
sense of that term, and there was no loyalty
case pending or contemplated against any
of the persons involved.
(3) In the circumstances of this case Mr.
Otepka was under a duty to produce the
specified papers as part of his testimony
before the Senate committee. He was called
as a Witness in connection with certain
testimony that had been given to the coin-
was asked whether that testimony was true
or false. He said it was false, as in fact it was.
In these circumstances it was his duty, im-
posed by his oath to tell the whole truth, to
make a full diselosuee to the committee, in-
cluding production of the relevant docu-
ments. To the extent that Mr. Otepka failed
to make a full disclosure and failed to pro-
duce the relevant documents, he would have
condoned or shielded false testimony.
(4) The fact that the specified papers
were classified "Confidential" or "Official Use
Only" is immaterial, since Mr. Sourwine and
the members of the Senate committee were
authorized to receive such documents.
"GET OTEPKA" GRO17P
(5) Any attempt by Mr. Otepka to bring
the matter of Mr. Reilly's false testimony to
the attention of his superiors in the Depart-
ment of State would have been a vain and
futile thing, and could only have resulted
in suppression of the truth, for the reason
that there was afoot in the State Department
at that time, and there had been afoot for
a long time previously, a well-organized con-
spiracy conceived, encouraged and led by
Mr. Otepka's superiors, to destroy Otepka.
The motivation behind this scheme to get
rid of Otepka was that he constantly and
resolutely insisted that sound and proper
security practices be observed in the Depart-
ment of State, whereas his superiors con-
stantly endeavored to relax or bypass security
restrictions or standards to the end that per-
sons reasonably considered by Otepka to be of
dubious character might be retained or ap-
pointed.
(6) With respect to the question of what
constitutes "a manner unbecoming an officer
of the Department of State" and what is "the
standard of conduct expected of an officer
of the Department of State," the position of
the appellant was that the answer to this
question is not to be found in any written
definition, formula, or regulation, nor is it
contained in the Presidential Directive of
March 13, 1948. The answer must be derived
from an examination and study of the pat-
terns of conduct which in the past have been
approved or disapproved by the Department
of State, thereby establishing the mores or
standards of the department. The conduct of
Mr. Otepka must be judged against the
standard so established to determine whether
or not it falls below accepted standards, or
is in violation of any such standards. Judged
against such standards, the conduct of Mr.
Otepka clearly does not fall below the stand-
ard and pattern which have been approved
and accepted by the department in the past,
and it is not a breach of any such standard.
The purpose of these charges is to liqui-
date Mr. Otepka, not because his conduct
has been dishonorable, not because his Con-
duct has been below the Standards which
should be expected of an Officer of the De-
partment of State', but solely because he has
insisted upon the observance of proper
security practices and standards, and be-
cause he has testified truthfully before
a Senate committee.
This brief will examine the evidence de-
veloped at the hearing and set out the facts
established thereby with respect to the fore-
going issues. In accordance with the under-
standing reached at the conclusion of the
hearing, matters of law will not be argued or
discussed.
THE EXCELLENT RECORD OF OTTO F. OTEPICA
The reputation of Mr. Otepka for per-
sonal integrity is very high, and he -is re-
garded in his profession as one of the very
best security men in the government, one of
the most experienced, one of the most able"
(Sourwine). His reputation and standing
were attested by many witnesses who ap-
peared before the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee.
Julie 24, '1969
As for the testimony of Mr. Otepka before
that committee, Mr. Sourwine stated, "Mr.
Otepka's testimony had been very lengthy.
And we have checked many, many things he
has told us, and we have established, so far
as we know, everything he told us was true."
Mr. Otepka was born May 6, 1915, and en-
tered the federal service on July 1, 1936, as
an assistant messenger in the Farm Credit
Administration, In July 1942 he was ap-
pointed an investigator with the United
States Civil Service Commission. He was em-
ployed by the Civil Service Commission as
an investigator or as a personnel security
specialist until June 1953, except for the
period October 1943 until March 1946, when
he served in the -United States Navy as a per-
sonnel classification specialist.
On June 15, 1953, he transferred to the
Department of State as a personnel security
evaluator at the GS- 13 level, in the Office
of Security. On Oct. 25. 1954, he was pro-
moted to chief of the Division of Evaluations
in the Office of Security. On June 19, 1955,
he was promoted to the GS-15 level, and on
April 7, 1957, he was promoted to deputy di-
rector, Office of Security.
He served in this capacity until Jan. 21,
1962, when his position was abolished by a
reduction in force and he was reassigned to
the position he formerly held as chief of
evaluations.
In 1942 and 1943 (excluding military serv-
ice) Mr. Otepka's efficiency ratings as an em-
ployee of the Civil Service Commission were
"Very Good," which was next to the highest
rating that could be assigned. From 1946,
when he returned from military service, until
1953, he received ratings of "Excellent."
which was the highest attainable rating at
that time.
During the period of Mr. Otepka's employ-
ment as an officer of the Department of State
his performance ratings have been uniformly
high and complimentary. Thus, for the pe-
riod December 1953-December 1954, his
supervisor's "narrative appraisal of over-all
work performance" reads as follows:
"During the entire rating period officer
has been chief of the Evaluations Division.
In that capacity he has done an extraordi-
nary job shaping a chaotic situation into an
orderly, efficient and effective operation. He
has displayed a high degree of administra-
tive skill, an encyclopedic knowledge of per-
tinent rules, procedures and regulations, and
a profound understanding of the history
and background of subversive organizations
and influence. He is gifted with the temper-
ament, the judicial mind, and judgment
which have contributed immeasurably to the
thorough, objective end fair evaluations
which have raised the production of his
division to the highest professional stand-
ards. He is himself a drafting officer of un-
usual skill. His enthusiasm, willingness to
give unstintingly of his Lime and effort, and
his wholehearted cooperation have earned
the respect of his superiors and subordi-
nates alike and he has well earned a rating
in the upper level of satisfactory."
"EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY"
For the period December 1954-December
1955, his supervisor's narrative appraisal of
the Evaluation Division stated:
"Mr. Otepka has continued during this
rating period to demonstrate exceptional
ability in fulfilling the above work require-
ments. He has handled in an extraordinary
manner cases of a highly complex and ex-
tremely sensitive nature and maintain ex-
cellent liaison relations with other areas in
the deportment as well as other government
agencies. His superior leadership enables
such flexibility as to program the activities
of lais office to permit the expeditious liqui-
dation of the normal workload as well as
special projects assigned by higher officials
within the time limitations established. He
should be rated outstanding with regard to
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26: CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7009
.46
all aspects of ' his job requirements;" how-
ever, since the established time schedule for
the submission . of an outstanding rating
precludes the presentation of this rating, as
outstanding the incumbent, is being rated in
the highest level with the satisfactory cate-
gory."
For the period December 1955-December
1906, Mr.. Otepka's supervisor recommended
that his work as chief of. the Evaluations
Division be rated as "Outstanding." The jus-
tification for this rating stated in part:
"The subject during the rating period per-
formed every aspect of the work require-
ments set forth in his job description in a
superior and exemplary fashion. He has
shown himself consistently to be capable of
sound independent judgment, creative work,
and the acceptance of unusual responsibility.
wis attitude, sustained effort and willing-
ness to put the needs of the office and the
department before personnel preference or
convenience have set an example and pro-
vided an incentive to his subordinates and
coworkers in the division and throughout
the office.
"During the last several years the incum-
bent has directed the completion of the de-
partment's program for the re-evaluation of
all employees of the department and Amer-
ican personnel of the foreign service under
the standard as set forth in Executive Order
104501 In this effort he personnally com-
pleted a large number of evaluations on dif-
ficult or conversial cases, which have been
recognized as outstanding examples of pro-
fessional skill in the field of personal se-
curity evaluations. This crucial effort, which
is the foundation for today's personnel se-
curity program within the department and
the foreign service had to be completed by
a target date established by the White House.
"In achieving this monumental task of re-
viewing and revalidating security clearances
for thousands of employes, Mr. Otepka
demonstrated exceptional executive ability
in directing, training, and evaluating subor-
dinate personnel and in other factors of
managerial skill which contributed to the
creation of a productive and efficient orga-
nization.
"From its inception, the Federal Employes
Security Program has been a controversial
issue. Its objectives have been widely mis-
understood and misinterpreted in addi-
tion to the handicaps of inexperienced as-
sistants, paucity of standards, and shortage
of time, Mr. Otepka was obliged to combat
these misunderstandings and misinterpreta-
tions. This he accomplished as a result of
his ability to interpret and apply security
laws, and orders in a 'down-to-earth' level-
headed manner, thereby avoiding much of
the adverse publicity and contention which
was associated with similar programs in other
federal agencies.
"Other assignments of the officer which
,were completed during the period under
- review and which were of importance both
to the department and to the internal se-
curity of the United States are of such a
nature as to preclude for security reasons
their inclusion and discussion in this record.
Mr. Otepka has approached each of these as-
signments in the same reasonable manner
_and in each instance has concluded them in a
manner that reflected credit upon the De-
partment of State.
"I-lis knowledge and experience of the en-
tire security field resulted in his designation
as the department's representative on the
Subcommittee for Protection of Classified
' Government, Data, Interdepartmental Com-
mittee on Internal Security. He has .also
served as the department's alternative rep-
resentative on an ad hoe high-level, inter-
departmental special committee studying
'communications intelligence security stand-
Ards and practices.
"His services as a 'staff' adviser and assist-
ant to the director of the Office Ageurit
the administrator of the Bureau of Security
and Consular .Affairs and to secretarial-level
officers of the department can be categorized
as truly indispensable. Mr. Otepka is a recog-
nized authority within the government on
rules, regulations and procedures affecting
every phase of the federal personnel security
program. He is a veritable encyclopedia of
knowledge on communism and other oppos-
ing ideologies. He has above-average draft-
ing ability with an unusual facility with
words aided by a logical and trained legal
mind.
"Mr. Otepka has prepared many of the
communications and reports for the secre-
tary, the under secretary or the deputy un-
der secretary for administration relating to
persons suspended or separated from the de-
partment or the foreign service under pro-
visions of EO 10450. The same is true in con-
nection with investigations made by Con-
gress from time to time of the department's
security program either specifically or as
a part of a broader study.
"Mr. Otepka's understanding of the nu-
merous and highly complex directives appli-
cable to personnel security and his ability
to interpret them practically and realistically
has prevented his superior officers from stum-
bling into security administration pitfalls.
He has sense for detecting danger points and
bringing these to the attention of the appro-
priate senior officials with positive recom-
mendations as to how they can be avoided.
"His persistent exposition of the difference
between 'security' and 'suitability' risks, for
example, has enabled the department to steer
clear of the adverse publicity and embarrass-
ment resulting from improperly reporting
personnel security action to the Civil Service
Commission and the subsequently attendant
'security numbers game' fiasco. For this, he
has been cited by the administrator of SCA?
Mr. McLeod, in his testimony before appro-
priation committees of Congress (Hearings
Before the Subcommittee of the Committee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
83rd Congress, Second Session).
"The improved relationships which the de-
partment has enjoyed with the Congress on
matters relating to personnel security during
the past year or two are due in no small
part to the outstanding staff work done by
Mr. Otepka in compiling and presenting full
and complete information to the interested
committees and individuals concerned" (em-
phasis supplied).
AWARD FROM DULLES
On June 19, 1957, the Performance Rating
Committee, after considering the recom-
mendation for an "Outstanding" rating for
Mr. Otepka, decided that because of the
"very stringent and limiting" criteria for an
"Outstanding" rating Mr. Otepka's perform-
ance should be rated as "Satisfactory." In
lieu of the "Outstanding" rating, for which
he was recommended, Mr. Otepka received
a Meritorious Service Award from the secre-
tary of state, John Foster Dulles. This award,
dated April 2, 1958 and signed by Mr. Dulles
read as follows:
"Department of State, United States of
America, Meritorious Service Award. Otto F.
Otepka. For meritorious service, loyalty and
devotion to duty as chief, Evaluations Divi-
sion, Office of Security. Outstanding display
of sound judgment, creative work and ac-
ceptance of unusual responsibilities, has re-
flected great credit on himself and the de-
partment and has served as an incentive to
his colleagues."
For the period December 1956-1957, Mr.
E. Tomlin Bailey, director of the Office of
Security, submitted the following appraisal
of Mr. Otepka's performance as deputy
director:
"Mr. Otepka moved into his present posi-
tion about the middle of April 1957. He has
teen constantly called upon by me for ad-
vice and recommendations, drawing upon his
exceptional security background and high
ability. During the whole period that he has
served as deputy director we have had a
shortage of senior personnel. This has re-
quired an unusual amount of detail work by
him and placed upon him a primary burden
in connection with the inspection of the
Division of Evaluations by the foreign serv-
ice inspectors. The inspectors and I relied
upon him far more than anyone would ordi-
narily expect because of his knowledge of how
its duties fitted into the other work of the
office. In recent weeks, he has devoted his
major effort to the study of the department's
probably most celebrated security case. This
has required a full application of his legal
training as well as the characteristics al-
ready mentioned."
For the period December 19571958 Mr.
Bailey filed the following appraisal of Mr.
Otepka's performance as deputy director:
"I depend very heavily upon Mr. Otepka
for substituting for me and advice. His long
experience in the personnel security field
places him among the top operating officials
in this field in all of government. Much of
his effort in the past year has been in the
study and evaluation of the most difficult
personnel case we have had in my experi-
ence, one which has been complicated from
the points of view of both law and equity
because of procedural errors and lack of
action over the past 13 years.
"In spite of the demands of this case, Mr.
Otepka has taken upon his shoulders an in-
creased share of the operating responsibili-
ties over these he carried at the beginning
of the rating period. In addition, he has
continued to serve successfully as the de-
partment's representative on an inter-
departmental working committee on the ap-
plication of EO 10501, the basic document
providing for the protection of information
by classification procedures, proper storage,
controlled transmission and release."
(The "most difficult personnel case"
referred to by Mr. Bailey was the case of
John Stewart Service.)
For the period June 18, 1959-Sept. 30,
1960, Mr. William 0. Boswell, director, Office
of Security, filed the following appraisal of
Mr. Otepka's performance as deputy direc-
tor and acting director during Mr. Boswell's
absence:
"Security being a new field for me, I have
relied heavily on Mr. Otepka's advice and
recommendations. He has had long experi-
ence with and has acquired an extremely
broad knowledge of laws, regulations, rules,
criteria and procedures in the field of per-
sonnel security. He is knowledgeable of com-
munism and of its subversive efforts in the
United States. To this he adds perspective,
balance and good judgment, presenting his
recommendations and decisions in clear,
well-reasoned and meticulously drafted
documents. "He has brought these attrib-
utes to bear during periods totalling almost
four months when he has been acting di-
rector in my absence and throughout the
rating period as the State Department
representative on an intragovernrnental
committee concerned with security matters."
Mr. Otepka has received no performance
ratings for the periods subsequent to the
one ending Sept. 30, 1960. He attempted to
secure such performance ratings by taking
the matter up with his superiors, Mr. Bos-
well and Mr. Reilly, but without avail. Mr.
Boswell subsequently testified before the
Senate Internal Security subcommittee that
he had made up his mind he was not going
to give Mr. Otepka a performance rating un-
less he was directly ordered to do so by his
superior, Mr. Crockett.
PATTERN OF HARASSMENT
On May 31, 1963, however, John F. Reilly,
deputy assistant secretary for security, cer-
tified over his signature that Mr. Otepka's
"work is of an acceptable level of COM-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
petence," as a result of which Mr. Otepka
was granted an administrative pay raise
'effective June 9, 1963.
In addition to the foregoing complimen-
tary performance ratings and the meritori-
ous service award received from the secre-
tary of state, Mr. Otepke, received other
official commendations during the years
1955-1962.
A series of events, beginning as early as
1960, demonstrate that there was a design
and purpose on the part of the appellant's
superiors to "get rid of Otepka." Standing
alone, none of these events would be con-
clusive; taken together, however, they estab-
lish a pattern fairly leading to the conclusion
that Otepka's superiors at first undertook to
diminish his influence and restrict his ac-
tivities In security matters, and subsequent-
ly embarked upon a scheme to remove or
purge him from the Department of State by
a specious assignment, by harassment and by
contrived charges of wrongdoing.
The events further reveal the motivation
for this attack upon Otepka. Briefly stated,
the motivation was that Otepka's insistence
upon the observance of sound and proper
security practice, and his proper refusal to
approve the employment or retention of per-
sons of dubious character and background,
conflicted with the desires and policies of
his superiors and of others in high places.
In October 1960 Mr. John W. Hanes Jr., ad-
ministrator of the Bureau of Security and
Consular Affairs and Mr. William 0. Bos-
well, director, Office of Security, requested
Otepka to undertake a special project, which
was to bring up to date the personnel se-
curity files of all Department of State em-
ployes, correlating and bringing together in
those files all pertinent and available per-
sonnel suitability and security infamation.
It was estimated that this project would
take two years to complete.
SPECIAL PROJECT
When he assigned Otepka to this project
Mr. Boswell requested him to relinquish
his position as deputy director in order that
he might devote himself exclusively to the
review of cases. Otepka declined to step down
as deputy director.
Mr. Boswell stated at this time "that he
disliked Seott McLeod and that he would
take steps to eradicate the Scott McLeod
image from the State Department." Otepka
had served as a principal assistant to Scott
McLeod. It appeared that Mr. Boswell, a For-
eign Service officer, felt that during his term
as administrator of the Bureau of Security
and Consular Affairs, Mr. McLeod had dam-
aged the morale and prestige of the Foreign
Service.
By way of background to Mr. Boswell's
aversion to the "Scott McLeod image" it
should be noted that in 1956 Mr. Otepka,
under McLeod's direction, prepared a com-
prehensive study to identify those cases of
employes of the State Department on whom
there had been developed a significant de-
rogatory information of a security nature,
either in the course of FBI investigations, or
in the course of State Department investiga-
tions or investigations conducted by other
agencies.
The study included 858 cases, together
with a resume concerning each case. The in-
formation with respect to the individuals in-
volved related principally to their sympa-
thetic associations Or affiliations with Com-
munists or subversive organizations. Before
action could be taken in the matter, however,
"Mr. McLeod was appointed as ambassador
to Ireland and the list and resumes were
consigned to oblivion."
The prospectus for the Hanes-Boswell
"special project," which Otepka submitted
to Mr. Boswell in writing on May 8, 1961,
referred to the 1956 list and resumes and
proposed to use this material in connection
with the new undertaking. The prospectus
also pointed out that much personnel suita-
bility or security information and many
relevant security and intelligence reports
relating to personnel had not been assimi-
lated into the personnel security files.
Further, it was emphasized that in many
cases character deficiencies on the part of
employes had developed after security clear-
ances had been granted, but had not been
reflected in the files. The prospectus also
referred to the fact that in certain cases
derogatory information respecting employes
in the department or at Foreign Service posts
had been treated by their superiors on a
confidential basis and withheld from the file
of the employe involved.
In May 1961 Mr. Otepka organized a staff
to assist him in carrying out the "special
project." The members of the staff were Ray-
mond Loughton, Harry Hite, John R. Norpel,
Francis Gardner, Billy Hughes, Edwin Burk-
hardt, plus three clerical employes including
Mr. Otepka's secretary Eunice Powers.
As we shall see, however, the special project
was abandoned by direction of Otepka's su-
periors in April or May 1963. On June 27, 1963,
Mr. Norpel and Mr. Hughes were detailed
from the Division of Evaluations to the In-
vestigations Division and Mrs. Powers was
transferred to a low-level clerical job. The
other members of the team were also scat-
tered..
KENNEDY AIDED
In October 1960 a group of government
officials, appointed by President Eisenhower,
known as the Sprague Committee and in-
cluding Allen Dulles, George Allen, Gordon
Gray and C. D. Jackson, conducted a survey
of United States prestige abroad for the
White House. Their report was classified
"Secret." The contents of the report were
"leaked" by someone in the State Depart-
ment to the public relations director of the
Kennedy campaign headquarters, and the
information so obtained was published in
Post.
eNew York Times and the Washington
Otepka participated in the investigation
of this "leak" and the identification of those
involved, resulting in the separation of the
employe responsible for conveying the infor-
mation to the Kennedy headquarters. Subse-
quent to January 1961 the public relations
director who received this classified informa-
tion from the State Department in an un-
authorized manner, and presumably passed
it on to the press, became the head of the
executive secretariat in the office of the sec-
retary of state.
In December 1960 Otepka was selected to
meet with Secretary of State Designate Dean
Rusk and Attorney General Designate Robert
Kennedy. The meeting took place- in the
evening, after office hours, in Mr. Rusk's
temporary office. No one except Mr. Rusk,
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Otepka was present.
ROSTOW APPOINTMENT
Mr. Rusk informed Otepka that the pur-
pose of the meeting was to discuss with him,
as the top professional security officer in the
State Department, his views with respect to
the requirements of the department's secu-
rity office for the investigation, evaluation
and clearance of presidential appointees to
the department. Otepka responded that he
"would insist on complete adherence to the
rule established by the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee in 1954, stating that all
executive nominations referred to it at the
rank of assistant secretary or higher would
be approved only upon certification to the
Foreign Relations Committee that the per-
son had been given a current full field in-
vestigation by the FBI."
A "question was raised as to whether there
would be a strict adherence to the require-
ments for pre-appointment investigation."
Otepka "recommended against the use of the
emergency clearance authority?that is, the
waiver of pre-appointment investigations for
officer personnel to be appointed to the de-
partment
June 24 1969
Having ascertained Otepka's general views
Mr. Rusk informed him, at the December
meeting, that the new Administration was
considering the appointment of Wan Whit-
man Etostow to a key position in the depart-
ment. He said he had gone over the sub-
stantive data in the file, which he had on
his desk. Otepka was eked "what kind of
security problem would be encountered re-
garding the appointment of Mr. Roatow to
the department." Otepka responded that he
was quite familiar with the file and Mr. Rusk
accordingly asked for his views.
Otepka's familiarity with the file of Walt
Whitman Bestow dated from 1955 when he
evaluated Mr. Rostow as a prospective "key
person" in a project to be undertaken under
the auspices of the Operations Coordinating
Board. The project was the formulation of
psychological strategy in the Cold War. Per-
sons employed on the project were required
to have a security clearance under the strict
standards prescribed by the United States
Intellrgence Board.
R.F.K.: "AIR FORCE JERKS"
As a part of his evaluation Otepka at this
time reviewed the State Department file on
Mr. Rostow, the CIA file and the results of
reviews given to the case by both the CIA
Nand the Department of the Air Force. The
Air Force had previously made a security
finding adverse to Mr. Bestow.
As a result of Otepka's findings, Under
Secretary of State Herbert Hoover Jr., the
chairman of the Operations Coordinating
Board, decided that Mr. Bestow would not
be utilized as an employe or consultant by
the State Department in connection with the
board's project. In other words, Mr. Bestow
could not get the necessary clearance under
the strict standards applicable to the Opera-
tions Coordinating Board
Subsequently, in 1957, when Mr. Bestow
was again recommended for employment in
the State Department, Mr. Roderic O'Connor,
administrator Of the Bureau of Security and
Consular Affairs, decided, on the basis of
Otepka's 1955 summary, that Mr. Bestow was
not desirable for employment. Mr. O'Con-
nor's decision was predicated on the "politi-
cal polices of the Administration."
After Otepka informed Mr. Rusk and Mr.
Kennedy of the background of Mr. Bestow,
Mr. Rusk made no comment, but Mr. Ken-
nedy spoke disparagingly of the adverse
finding that had been made by the Air Force.
Specifically, Mr. Kennedy said "those Air
Force guys are a bunch of jerks."
After the new Administration took office
in 1961 Mr. Bestow was entered on the rolls
of the White House, so that the State De-
partment was not involved in his security
clearance. He was investigated by the FBI
in connection with his appointment to the
White House. Subsequently he was trans-
ferred to the State Department. At erksent
he is a special assistant to the President on
National Security Affairs
In September 1960 'Charles Lyons was
brought into the Division of Evaluations as
deputy chief. Both Otepka and the then chief
of the division, Mr. Emery J. Adams, objected
to the assignment but were overruled.
The prior record of Mr. Lyons is significant.
Just prior to his transfer to the position of
deputy chief, Division of Evaluations, he had
served for about two years as a security
officer in Athens, Greece. An inspection of the
post revealed that he had failed to dis-
close to his headquarters that there had
occurred at the post 52 security violations
involving official and "Confidential" material,
22 security violations involving "Secret" and
"Top Secret" matters and approximately 125
security violations involving "Official Use
Only" material.
These violations had occurred at different
times, over a period of at least a year. Lyons
ignored them all, although it was his duty
to take action. Overruling the objections of
MS. Adams and Otepka to the assignment of
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
June' 24, 1.969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Lyons as deputy chief, Division of Evalua--
tons, Mr. William 0. Boswell, the director
of the Office of Security, wrote that "Lyons
has made a serious error of judgment and
must live with the consequences. In view of
his demonstrated abilities and very good per-
formance, I do not consider that this single
error raises a fundamental question of his
integrity, nor does it indicate such a degree
of lack of respect for regulations, of reli-
ability, or of judgment, as to warrant the
action you propose.
Mr. Lyons advocated the "progressive ap-
proach" to security matters. Thus, in an
efficiency rating prepared for the rating
period ending Sept. 30, 1961, Mr. Lyons wrote,
concerning the person being rated, and con-
trasting him with members of another school
of thought:
"In common with other officers in the sec-
tion, he is inhibited by the ultra-conserva-
tive attitude which seems to have grown up
in the Personnel Security Administration of
the department over the past number pf
years, and which is reflected in the making a
monument of tradition, leaving little room
for individual opinion or new approaches.
The result is that individual personnel
security cases must be decided on a strict
corpus juris basis, and even in their physical
format must adhere to strict traditional con-
cepts. Mr. personally is of a much
more liberal bent, and with the gradual dis-
sipation which is now evident of the old
guard concepts which dominated the per-
sonnel . security program. I feel that Mr.
is well suited to be in the vanguard of
the more progressive approach now de-
manded.
"He has a commendable distaste for red
tape and if he could be made to feel that
direct realistic action would not be rejetced,
lie could do much to advance the currency
and effectiveness of the Security Program."
The conduct of Mr. Lyons as Otepka's
deputy was such that Otepka complained
about him to Mr. Boswell. As a result, Mr.
Boswell temporarily transferred 'Lyons into
the Investigations Division and then put him
on Boswell's personal staff as executive direc-
tor, thus making him his top executive
assistant.
WIELAND CASE
One of the first cases examined by Otepka
In connection with the "special project" was
the case of a high-ranking officer, William A.
Wieland, In August 1961 Otepka, who had
personally evaluated this case, coinpleted an
extensive summary and analysis of the case,
together with a digest containing some 136
pages.
Otepka's presentation dealt with allega-
tions that Wieland, as the recipient of signi-
ficant intelligence information indicating
that Fidel Castro was a Communist and a
person not to be supported by the United
States, had concealed such information, made
false statements, and exercised extremely bad
judgment. The report and digest correlated
material provided by Office of Security and
FBI investigations, as well as intelligence re-
ports. Otepka recommended that the board of
the Foreign Service should consider thecase,
to determine whether or not _Wieland had
been guilty of misconduct under the Foreign
Service Act.
Otepka presented his report and digest to
Mr. Boswell, who had primary responsibility
in the matter, but Boswell instructed him to
carry the material directly to the office of
the deputy under secretary for administra-
tion, Mr. Jones. Otepka complied with
Boswell's instructions.
He was also instructed by Mr. Pollack, a
member of the staff of the then assistant sec-
retary for administration, Mr. Crockett, to
provide a copy of his digest for Abram
Chayes, the departments top legal adviser,
and a copy for John Siegenthaler, special as-
sistant to Atty. Oen. Kennedy. He furnished
the copies as instructed. The connection of
the attorney general with the matter was
not explained.
Shortly thereafter, in September 1061, Bos-
well orally instructed Otepka to issue a secur-
ity clearance on Wieland. Otepka replied
that the department regulations and prac-
tices required a written decision on his
recommendation?which was true?and that
he could not act on or close out a case on the
basis of an oral instruction. Otepka therefore
held the case awaiting further instructions.
Late in October 1961 the Department of
State announced in a press release that a
general reduction in force in the department
would be made, because of reduced appro-
priations. On Nov. 1, 1961, Boswell sent for
Otepka and informed him that 25 persons
in the Office of Security would be affected by
the reduction in force. He stated bluntly to
Otepka "your name heads the list." '
He requested that Otepka voluntarily re-
linquish his position as deputy director in
order to avoid a "bumping" procedure, which
would enable Otepka to displace another
career employe in his occupational specialty,
with lower retention rights. Otepka refused
to waive his "bumping" rights.
Boswell then sent for Elmer Hipsley, chief
of the Division of Physical Security and a
friend of Otepka, and told him that "your
friend, Otepka, is going to displace you in
your position." It turned out, however, that
the "bumping" was avoided, when the po-
sition of chief, Division of Evaluations, was
vacated by Emery J. Adams and Otepka was
reassigned to that position, in lieu of be-
coming the chief of the Division of Physical
Security, then headed by Hipsley.
SECURITY REORGANIZATION
The reduction in force in the Office of Se-
curity, and in particular its impact on
Otepka, resulted in an inquiry by Sen. Karl
E. Mundt and an investigation by the Senate
Internal Security subcommittee. Both Otep-
ka and Hipsley testified during this invest-
igation.
In December 1961 Otepka considered the
case of John L. Topping, a career Foreign
Service officer who had served in Cuba dur-
ing the critical period when Castro rose to
power. As in the' Wieland case, it was al-
leged that Topping had displayed strong
partiality to Castro while downgrading the
president of the government of Cuba.
Otepka recommended that the allegations
concerning Topping be investigated by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. He pointed
out that the State Department investiga-
tion of Wieland had been inept, that infor-
mation about Wieland's past activities had
been ignored or glossed over and that some
of the investigators who were members of
the Foreign Service were sympathetic to Wie-
land and allowed their sympathy to color
their reports.
He said "that the FBI had greater resources
In this kind of situation and they had done
an excellent job in the Wieland case and
[he] thought they should develop all of the
leads in the Topping affair." Boswell insisted
that Topping be investigated by the Office
of Security. After Otepka's removal from
participation in the day-to-day operations
of the Evaluations Division, Mr. Topping
was cleared and became the United States
representative to the Council of the Amer-
ican States.
In January 1962 Boswell made a sweep-
ing reorganization of the Office of Security.
He abolished the position of deputy director,
Office of Security, which Otepka held, and
abolished the Division of Physical Security
which Mr. Hipsley headed. From the Division
of Physical Security Boswell created three
separate divisions. He assigned Foreign Serv-
ice officers to head two of them and made
Mr. Hipsley chief of the third. Mr. Hipsley's
authority was considerably reduced. Otepka's
authority was also greatly reduced, when
he was "bumped down" to the position of
chief, Division of Evaluations.
S 7011
As a result of the reorganization there
were five division chiefs instead of three.
The five men who had been working with
Otepka on the special project were trans-
ferred with him to the Division of Evalua-
tions. The workload of the Division of Evalua-
tions was such that the special project team
was required to give full time to routine mat-
ters and the special project was abandoned.
POINTED QUESTION
On Jan. 24, 1962, during a press confer-
ence, a newspaper reporter questioned Presi-
dent Kennedy about William A. Wieland,
whom the reporter described as a security
risk. The reporter's statement was chal-
lenged by the President. Immediately there-
after, Boswell instructed Otepka in writing
to issue a security clearance for Wieland, and
Otepka complied.
In February 1962, however, Otepka de-
veloped new evidence indicating that Wieland
had made a false statement to Otepka and
co-evaluator Harry Hits with respect to the
number of times that Wieland had per-
sonally met with Fidel Castro. Accordingly,
Otepka recommended to Boswell that the
Wieland case be reopened, reinvestigated and
readjudicated. Boswell ignored the recom-
mendation.
Upon resuming his position as chief of the
Division of Evaluations and taking imme-
diate charge of the work of that office,
Otepka reviewed the clearances that had
been granted to high-ranking appointees of
the Department of State in the year 1961. He
found gross irregularities in the handling of
these clearances.
The irregularities involved the granting of
emergency clearances or waivers to persons
who were being assigned to positions or
nominated to positions on the presidential
level requiring Senate confirmation. Waivers
of investigation had been granted to persons
who should have been investigated before
appointment, because there was unresolved
derogatory security information in their files.
Clearances had been backdated so that they
would conform to the actual dates when the
persons cleared entered on duty. Otepka
also found cases in which waivers had been
back-dated, some of them as much as 40
days.
Otepka reported these matters to Mr. Bos-
well orally in February 1962. Although the
procedures followed were in violation of
regulations, Boswell was not impressed, but
said in substance that these cases had been
handled according to the prerogatives of
management, and that Otepka was not tO
interfere.
BACKDATED CLEARANCES
On March 17, 1962, Otepka gave Boswell a
memorandum describing the cases which he
had uncovered. Boswell at this itme in-
structed Otepka not to participate further in
the survey but to turn everything over to
him and he then turned it over to the Foreign
Service Inspection Corps for investigation.
This investigation confirmed the state-
ments made by Otepka. In fact, it was dis-
covered that in one case a clearance had been
back-dated 135 days, and in another case the
clearance had been back-dated 65 days. There
were 152 waivers and 44 back-dated clear-
ances.
On March 8, 1962, in the course of testi-
mony before the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Jones
both denied any knowledge of the backdating
of clearances. On April 12, 1962, Otepka testi-
fied before the Internal Security subcommit-
tee that he had brought the matter of the
back-dating irregularities to Boswell's atten-
tion orally in the latter part of February 1962,
and later had given him a memorandum in
which a number of cases were identified.
Otepka's testimony squarely conflicted with
the testimony of Boswell.
The findings of the Foreign Service investi-
gators with respect to back-dating irregulari-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ties were reported to the Senate Internal
Security subcommittee in March. April and
May 1262.
On March a, 15032. Otepka sent Boswell a
summary evaluation of a prospective presi-
dential employe. The summary recited among
other matters that in November 1960 the pro-
spective nominee had picked up his Wife
bodily, carried leer from their house into a
public street, kicked her and had then taken
her clothing from the house and strewed it
on the lawn, over the shrubbery and into the
street. The episode was Witnessed by neigh-
bors and was reported to the police.
Boswell returned the summary to Otepka
with a note stating "the gory details of a
family fight have nothing to do with security
or meltability." The summary was therefore
rewritten and the information concerning
the episode in question was deleted, except
for a brief reference to it without details, As
a result the matter was not fully and prop-
erly brought to the attention of the secretary
of state.
This incident troubled and confused the
evaluators on Otepka's staff who, in the past,
has been instructed by their superiors to
present all Pertinent information relating to
security and suitability and to the preem-
ployment personal conduct of individuals
under consideration, for the specific atten-
tion of the responsible managerial officials.
Deletion of such information was a violation
of the professional duty of evaluators to re-
port the facts in an objective manner.
In April 1962 Boswell transferred from the
jurisdiction of Otepka the functions of re-
ceiving, reviewing, evaluating and dissemi-
nating intelligence information received from
the FBI, the CIA and other intelligence agen-
cies.
This function was important to the accom-
plishment Of the work being carried out by
Otepka. This had been pointed out in Febru-
ary 1962, in testimony before the House
Judiciary Committee by Mr. John W. Hanes.
Mr. Hanes emphasized the importance of the
correlation of all available information by
evaluators.
8255 HEARING
In his testimony before the Senate Inter-
nal Security subcommittee in April 1962,
Otepka testified to the fonts with respect to
the handling of the Wieland case by the De-
partment of State, so far as he knew them.
Following Otepka's testimony, on April 12,
1962, the record shows that the following
statements were macie:
"Sen. Hruska: I want to say I have been
very much impressed with your testimony,
Mr. Otepka, and the fashion in which you
have comported yourself here. It has been a
difficult field you are in, stretching over many
years, with, of course, voluminous records and
complicated procedures, and I thought that
it was very well done.
"Mr. Otepka: Thank you, Senator.
"Mr. Sourwine: And I would like to add
that I may have been a little rough on Mr.
Otepka today, for which I apologize, as far
as anything personal is concerned. I have
been trying to get the facts into the record.
I think Mr. Otepka has done a magnificent
job of trying to protect those matters which
he feels he is required by the department to
protect, and at the Brune time I will say
frankly I think he has gone a long way to-
wards putting his neck on the chopping block
by answering those guthtions which he felt
he could answer.
"And I want to suggest on the record for
this member here and for those who were not
here but who will read it, to me the record
seems to indicate that Mr. Otepka is on the
downgrade in the State Department. He is be-
ing shunted aside. He is being given lighter
and lighter responsibilities. And I can come to
no other conclusion than the fact his conduct
In the Wieland case and other cases and his
insistence upon What he considers good se-
curity is harming his career in the State
Department. And I think that is a matter
most to be deplored, and I Urge the ?areal-lit-
tee to do whatever it van."
On April 16, 1962, Mr. 13oswell was suc-
ceeded as director of the Office of Security by
John P. Reilly. Just before his departure,
Boswell obtained and examined the security
file of John Paton Davies. Although he asked
Otepka questions about the file, he did not
disclose the purpose of his study.
Davies was a career Foreign Service officer
who had been dismissed as a security risk
under Executive Order 10450. The charges
against Davies involved alleged disclosure of
eleeeified information and sympathy with the
cause of Chinese Communest.s. Otepk.a had
evaluated the case in 1954.
John F. Reilly had served as an attorney
in the Department of Justice from 1951 until
1961, when he transferred to the Federal
Communications Commission. After serving
for approximately 11 months with the Fed-
eral Communications Commission he trans-
ferred to the Department of State as Bos-
well's replacement. He was recommended to
the Department of State by Mr. Andrew
Oehmann, Who was executive assistant to
Atty. Gen. Robert P. Kennedy.
In a conversation shortly before Reilly
came on duty, Boswell told him that he had
been having difficulty with Otepka, that he
was concerned about leaks from the Office of
Security to the staff of the Senate Internal
Security subcommittee, for which he sus-
pected Otepka was responsible. He said spe-
cifically that he believed Otepka had informed
the subcommittee about the back-dating of
waivers, that he was upset or concerned about
that.
It was Reilly's definite understanding from
Boswell that he, Boswell, had been trying to
"get Otepka out"; and Reilly continued this
effort. In fact, in testimony before the Senate
Internal Security subcommittee on Nov. 15,
1963, Reilly admitted that at some time in
1963 he might "well have said . . . face-
tiously" that he "went down there to get
Otepka."
Although Boswell in his subsequent testi-
mony before the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee denied that he tried to get
rid of Otepka or intended to indicate to
Reilly that he was making any such effort,
he admitted that he had discussed Otepka
with Reilly and that he had in fact found
Otepka "troublesome."
WAR COLLEGE 'PLOY
He said Otepka was troublesome be-
cause of his reluctance to accept the deci-
sions of his superiors, and he mentioned the
Wieland case matter as one instance of this
difficulty. He admitted further that he had
refused to give Otepka an efficiency report
and was not going to do it unless ordered to
do it by Mr. Crockett.
Promptly after he took office as director
of the Office of Security Reilly acted to move
Otepita out of that office.
On May 7, 1962, he called Otepka into his
office and opened the conversation by saying
"where is your rabbit's foot?" When Otepka
asked what he meant, he said that Otepka
had been recommended to attend the Na-
tional War College course which began in
August 1962 and which lasted for 10 months.
He asked Otepka to indicate in wilting
whether he would be willing to attend the
War College.
The next day, May 8, Otepka sent Reilly a
memorandum stating in part, "I am pleased
that I have been accorded this honor which
came as a distinct surprise to Me in the
light of recent organizational changes in
ST." The phrase "the recent organizational
changes in SY" referred to the professed in-
tention and plan of the department to uti-
lize Otepka's special talents exclusively in
personnel security administration.
Reilly directed Otepka to delete the ref-
June 24,1969
erence to his surprise and to the recent or-
ganizational changes and to submit a state-
ment indicating only his acceptance or re-
jection of the assignment. Otepka, complied
with this instruction.
Having received Otepka's revised accept-
ance, Reilly wrote a memorandum for his
superiors, praising Otepka for "his ability
and his dedication to the security program,"
and stating "Selection for the National War
College is a high honor for a career officer
and offers almost unlimited opportunity for
career development. Therefore, although re-
leasing Mr. Otepka will work a hardship on
the Office of Security, it is my view that I
should not stand in Mr. Otepka's way, and
accordingly, I recommend that he be re-
leased as he has requeuted."
Otepka became suspicious of the motiva-
tion underlying his assignment to the Na-
tional War College. Looking into the mat-
ter, he found that normally selections for
the National War College are made in Jan-
uary and February of the year in which
the term of attendance begins.
He was informed that the Office of Per-
sonnel had given no routine consideration
to his selection and that the recommenda-
tion in his case had (nine as a surprise to
that office. He was aware anti that advanced
training in foreign affairs at the War College
was not needed in connection with his job
in personnel security administration.
He inquired of Reilly as to what his future
would be in the State Department in the
security field, pointing out to Reilly that
persons selected for the War College were
returned to their jobs when their training
was finished. This was true always with re-
spect to members of the classified Civil 'Serv-
ice as distinguished from Foreign Service of-
ficers.
Reilly informed Otepka that he would "fill
in behind" him with another person, that he
had no plans for returning Otepka to the
field of personnel security administration
and specifically he had no plans for return-
ing him to the Office of Security; that there
would be no place for him in that office.
In the light of these circumstances Otepka
"smelled a rat"; that is, he concluded that
the assignment was being given to him for
the purpose of getting him out of security.
Accordingly, on June 5. 1962, he orally re-
quested that his nomination be withdrawn;
and on June 14, 1962 he formally declined
the appointment.
On June 7, 1962, two days after Otepka
orally declined the assignment to the Na-
tional War College, the deputy under secre-
tary for administration, Roger Jones, testified
before the Senate Internal Security subcom-
mittee that the primary reason for the as-
signment of Otepka to the War College was
that he "seemed to his prior supervisor, Mr.
Boswell and his present supervisor, Mr.
Reilly, to be a tired and worried man on
whom responsibility had closed in to the
point where he needed a break." Jones testi-
fied that the purpose of the assignment was
to give Otepka "a chance to recharge his
battery."
No previous suggestion had been made to
Otepka by any of his superiors that he was
tired or overworked, or that his battery
needed recharging, and in fact he was neither
tired, overworked nor in need of recharging.
In June 1962 Frederick Traband was as-
signed to Otepka's office as his deputy. Tr-
band had been serving in the Division of In-
vestigations, where his most significant
experience was in the investigation of cases
of State Department cm byes and applicants
suspected or accused of homosexual perver-
sion. Reilly assigned hire as Otepka's deputy
without consultation with Otepka.
On July 1, 1962, David Belisle was ap-
pointed as a special assistant to Reilly, in
which capacity he acted as deputy director
of the division. Otepka was informed that
Belisle was his superior and a person with
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7013
whom he, Otepka, must consult in order to
get to Reilly.
STAFF FRICTION _
Belisle came to the State Department from
the National Security Agency, where he had
served as deputy director of the Security
Office. He was a friend of Reilly, who was
responsible for bringing him to the Depart-
ment of State. 'Fraband and Belisle partici-
pated in the subsequent surveillance of
Otepka, and signed statements from them
are attached to the charges preferred against
Otepka.
Friction soon developed between Traband
and Raymond Loughton, a member of Otep-
ka's staff. Loughton had come to the De-
partment of State from the office of the sec-
retary of defense where he was deputy chief
of security. He had wide experience as an
evaluator, especially in the field of Com-
munist subversive activities, having served
as a ranking evaluator on the Loyalty Review
Board of the Civil Service Commission. It
was Otepka's wish that in view of LoUghton's
extensive experience he should share in the
administration of the division with Mr. Tra-
band and this was resented by Traband.
In July 1962 the Division of Investigations
considered the case of a prospective nominee
to a position'as ambassador. The individual
involved had been the subject of an investi-
gation by the FBI involving fraud against
the government. Although the Department
of -Justice had ruled that no criminal prose-
cution for fraud was warranted, the file re-
flected a number of unresolved allegations
bearing on the security standards and cri-
teria of Executive Order 10450.
Loughton took the position, and Otepka
concurred, that the refusal of the Depart-
ment of Justice to prosecute was not con-
trolling; that under the regulations the De-
partment of State was required to consider
the matter independently, in the context of
the security standards. Reilly insisted that
the Department of Justice having deter-
mined that no prosecution would lie, that
was the end Of the matter.
After a number of discussions between
Otepka and Loughton on the one hand, and
Rei11.y and Belisle on the other, Reilly or-
dered that the individual be cleared, despite
the strong objections of Otepka and Lough-
ton. The unresolved allegations of fraud were
never resolved.
The treatment of the matter was not con-
sistent with the regulations. It appeared to
Otepka that "Mr. Reilly was simply trying
to accommodate someone higher up rather
than give rigid application to the security
rules and criteria of the State Department."
In July 1962, at the request of Mr. Harlan
Cleveland, assistant secretary of state for In-
ternational Organization Affairs, Otepka
talked with him about the case of Irving
Swerdlow. Swerdlow had been recommended
by Cleveland for a position in the Depart-
ment of State. Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Swerd-
low had served together in the Economic
Cooperation Administration (later known as
the Mutual Security Agency) and had also
been associated at the University of Syra-
cuse.
QUESTION ABOUT HISS
Mr. Cleveland asked Otepka about the de-
lay in the security processing of Swerdlow's
appointment. Otepka answered that he fore-
saw no early completion of the Swerdlow
investigation and evaluation. He expressed
doubt that clearance ,could be issued until a
number of matters appearing in the records
and files could be considered and resolved
by the Office of Security, which would take
a long time.
Otepka noted that Swerdlow had been dis-
missed as a security risk by the Mutual Se-
curity Agency, and that the top security
officer in the agency had conlinented "that
Swerdlow's security file was one of the rotten-
est he had ever seen." Cleveland responded
with critical remarks about the administra-
tor of the Mutual Security Agency, Harold
Stasson, He said that Stassen had extreme
views with respect to security.
Cleveland then asked "if there were any
prospects for the re-employment of Alger
Hiss in the United States government."
Otepka said there was no "chance for Alger
Hiss to be re-employed in any government
agency because by operation of law, a person
convicted of a felony is barred from a federal
job. Otepka reported his conversation with
Mr. Cleveland to Reilly.
Swerdlow was subsequently appointed to
a position in the State Department. His case
was evaluated by the man who had been
described by Charles Lyons in 1961 as of a
"liberal bent" and "well suited to be in the
vanguard of the more progressive approach
now demanded."
HARLAN CLEVELAND
As a result of his conversation with Cleve-
land and particularly because of Cleveland's
interest in Swerdlow and Alger Hiss, Otepka
reviewed Cleveland's security file. This review
was also prompted by the fact that Emery
Adams, then chief of the Division of Evalua-
tions, who had handled the security clearance
of Cleveland, had told Otepka that pressure
was exerted on him to grant Cleveland a
waiver without the completion of a back-
ground investigations.
Adams had protested, pointing to the file
showing that Cleveland had interceded for 11
employes of the Economic Cooperation Ad-
ministration and its successor agencies, whose
removal as security risks had been sought
by the Security Office. Adams recommended
that Cleveland be denied a security clearance,
but he was instructed to issue a clearance
and did so; however, at that time he alerted
Otepka to the need for maintaining the
proper continuing security surveillance over
the activity of Mr. Cleveland in the State
Department.
Otepka's review of the file also disclosed
that in his senior class year book at Princeton
Cleveland had recorded his political affiliation
as "Socialist." Further, the file revealed that
Cleveland had been highly critical of security
procedures and security officers and had been
active in recommending reforms in govern-
ment security programs which "would have
made it a lot easier for persons like Mr.
Swerdlow to get into the government without
adequate background investigation."
Pursuant to his duty to maintain a con-
tinuing security surveillance over Mr. Cleve-
land's activities in the State Department,
Otepka established a special file in his office
in which he recorded his observations as to
the persons Mr. Cleveland was bringing into
the department. He placed in the file por-
tions of FBI reports and other reports of
security officers of the department or of
other agencies.
The file was kept in his immediate office in
a small safe adjacent to his desk. As we shall
see, this safe was subsequently drilled, opened
and searched in the course of Mr. Reilly's
clandestine surveillance of Otepka.
On July 30, 1962, the New York Times pub-
lished a letter signed by one Leonard B.
Boudin. The letter appeared under the head-
ing "Screening U.N. Employes." In his letter
Boudin complained about the security screen-
ing of U.N. employes. He said that "the
careers of many devoted and brilliant inter-
national civil servants were destroyed in the
hysteria of the 1950s."
BOUDIN'S COMPLAINTS
He deplored the ?fact that "the United
States government is still enforcing President
Truman's and President Eisenhower's Execu-
tive Orders which screen, on political
grounds, American employes of the United
Nations and other International organiza-
tions. The expressed criteria include member-
ship on the attorney general's list; the
sources include derogatory information in
congressional committee files; the procedures
are based on undisclosed evidence. Such
screening is inconsistent with the Charter's
principle . . the present Administration
would now score a major achievement if it
were to ... eliminate its so-called loyalty pro-
gram in the international field." In the course
of his discussion Boudin mentioned the
resignation of Andrew Cordier from the U.N.
secretariat.
Otepka knew that Leonard Boudin had for
many years been intimately involved with
the Communist party and Communist affairs.
He had been active in defending persons
against allegations of communism, and had
represented certain officials of the United Na-
tions who were dismissed after refusing to
answer questions put to them by the
Senate Internal Security subcommittee.
An official in the Department of Justice
sent Reilly a dipping from the New York
Times containing the Boudin letter of
July 30, 1962. The clipping, covered by a
Department of Justice "routine slip" with a
personal note in longhand addressed to
Reilly, reached him Aug. 1, 1962. On Aug. 3,
1962, Reilly initialed the slip and sent it,
together with the clipping, to Otepka.
In August 1962 Otepka was officially in-
formed by memoranda to the Office of Secu-
rity that Harlan Cleveland wished to set up
an Advisory Committee on International
Organizations. Mr. Cleveland had personally
selected the eight members of the committee.
He wished them to be appointed immediately
without preappointment investigation?in
other words, he wished to invoke the waiver
procedures.
Otepka objected, pointing out that earlier
in the year emergency clearances had been
curtailed and further pointing out that
background data on certain of the indi-
viduals involved required a full investigation
and a careful review of the results of that
investigation before their entry on duty.
Otepka documented his objections in memo-
randa to Reilly, one of which, the memo-
randum of Sept. 10, 1962, is State Department
Exhibit 7, which is the basis of Charge No. 1.
COMMITTEE DISPUTE
Otepka was especially concerned about
three of the men selected by Mr. Cleveland
for membership on his committee. These
three men were Harding Bancroft, Ernest
Gross and Andrew Cordier?the same indi-
vidual mentioned by Mr. Boudin in his letter.
The record revealed that one or more of these
men had served on the personal staff of Alger
Hiss in the State Department, that all three
had close and sympathetic associations with
him, that they had stated they did not be-
lieve in his guilt, and that in their opinion
he was not a security risk.
In Otepka's opinion this derogatory se-
curity information demanded complete reso-
lution before these persons were appointed.
Otepka brought these matters to Reilly's at-
tention by memoranda.
The objections of Otepka were met or cir-
cumvented by Cleveland and Reilly, who de-
cided that the members of the committee
"would be entered on the rolls of the State
Department as consultants, and that they
would serve on an ad hoc basis, that the
positions to which they would be appointed
would be designated as nonsensitive rather
than sensitive as initially proposed. There-
fore, under the security procedures these in-
dividuals could be given assignments in the
department without a prior investigation_
thatis, before appointment?with the ex-
plicit understanding that they would be given
access to only such information as they
needed in the performance of their work on
the committee, and not to have any general
access to any other information normally
available to people in the State Department
who have full clearance."
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
On Feb. 19, 1963, the Advisory Committee
submitted a draft report to the Department
of State and the report was circulated in the
department. Otepka, obtained a copy of this
draft report from a member of the Bureau of
International Organizations, which was
headed by Mr. Cleveland. He discovered that
recommendations in the draft report coin-
cided with the position taken by Boudin In
his letter to the New 'York 7'intes: they would
have implemented the suggestion of Boudin
that pre-employment investigation of Amer-
ican appointees to U.N. agencies be dispense(
with.
Otepka observed further that in generEd
the draft report recommended a reversion to
the program and procedures advocated and
administered by Alger Hiss for ',lee screening
of American personnel in the United Nations.
In this connection Otepka recalled that in
1946 Hiss had prepared a list of 200 people
whose names were submitted by the State
Department to the U.N.as possible appointees
to U.N. jobs. It turned out that 40 of these
persons who had subversive connections were
later dinniesed from the United Nations, and
26 of the 40 invoked the plea of incrimina-
tion while testifying before the Senate In
Security subcdneraittee.
Otepke, brought the February 19 draft re-
port to the attention of Reilly, and gave hira
a detailed memorandum setting out the facts
and Otepka's views, Otepka never learned
what Reilly's views, were. "Be kept telling me
that he didn't have time to read my recom-
mendations and suggestions."
,On April 22, 1963, the Advisory Committee
submitted a revised draft of its report, from
which the recommendations coinciding with
the views of Boudin and Hiss had beets
stricken.
In August 1962 another episode, involving
Otepka and proposed appointments to an
Advisory Committee, reached a conclusion.
This episode began in February 1962 when
the State Department's Bureau of Cultural
Affairs proposed the establishment of an Ad-
visory Committee on the Arts, consisting of
members who would be placed on the rolls
of the State Department, and would give
guidance to the department's program for
sending cultural presentation abroad. The
program involved visits to the Soviet Union
and its captive nations by United States cul-
tural groups.
The names of 10 individuaas who were
nominated to serve on this committee were
sent to Otepka by the Bureau of Cultural
Affairs, with a request that the nominees
be excused from completing government
security questionnaires and other forms, and
be placed on the rolls without investigation,
but subject to post-appointment investi-
gation.
Otepka protested arongly, pointing out
that it was his duty to enforce the law and
that the law required pre-appointment in-
vestigations and the completion of security
processing forms. He said he would not be a
party to any circumvention of required se-
curity practices.
He was particularly concerned with four
of the nominees, bee; use of their question-
able past affiliations with Communist or-
ganizations and he demanded that they be
subjected to full background investigations
and that each of the appointees complete
the required forms. These forms required the
appointees to state any affiliation they might
have had with organizations an the attOr-
ney general's list. Otepka was advised that
One of the appointees positively refused to
submit the forms and another would resist
any order requiring him to complete them.
Otepka discussed the matter of the two
appointees with Reilly, who "was very anx-
ious to assist the Bureau at Cultural Af-
fairs." Reilly "had the FBI run a special-
type investigation without the use, as they
normally should have had, of government
security questionnaires completed by such
individuals." The results of the investiga-
tion, which Was in fact cursory, were sub-
mitted to Otepka.
Reilly tried to persuade Opka to make a
security determination tie basis of this
investigation, without the information and
explanations that would have been con-
tained in the security forms.Reilly said that
the two individuals need not fill out personal
history questionnaires before appointment.
In a memorandum dated June 12, 1962,
Otepka rejected Reilly's proposal.
FLEXIBLE ROLES?
In this inemorandiun Otepka insisted that
a full field investigation and an interview
with each nominee was necessary, in view of
their associations with many' Communist or-
ganizations. He stated "no professionally
competent evaluator who knows the Com-
munist movement in the United States can
favorably rationalize the conduct of either
person from the available data." He pointed
out that full field investigations and inter-
views were required by the regulations, by
which professional security officers were
bound; and that the intellectual brilliance
and distinction of the persons involved did
not exempt them from compliance with the
rules.
He concluded: "If the present security
rules are to be tempered to suit individuals
rather than government, then I think some.-
one in authority should change the rules so
that those of us on the operating level who
must follow rules may not be confused as
to how and when to determine the security
reliability of the privileged nonconformists
as compared to those who do not join or
lend their support to Commimist causes."
Otepka was overruled by Reilly, who in
August 1962 instructed Otepka to grant se-
curity clearances to the two individuals.
Otepka complied, although security ques-
tionnaires had not been filed by the ap-
pointees and no adequate investigation had
been made.
However, Otepka informed the Office of
Personnel of the details of the cases, and as
a result one of the individuals was not ap-
pointed because of the derogatory informa-
tion in his file, and the other was dropped
from consideration when he refused to com-
plete the necessary forms. The action of the
personnel office of course became known to
Reilly.
In August 1962 Reilly was promoted to the
rank of deputy assistant secretary for se-
curity. Belisle continued to hold the title of
special assistant, but in fact exercised the
functions of deputy director of the Office of
Security.
He and Reilly accelerated their harassment
of Otepka. Belisle began to send Otepka "all
sorts of hand-written notes scrawled on cal-
endar pads, torn ends of paper or on the
reverse side of memo pads criticizing Ihisi
evaluations or questioning the content of
some of [his] evaluator's reports." Neatly
typed correspondence setting out evaluative
findings or the position of the Office of Se-
curity was returned to Otepka "with inked
or penciled notations scrawled across the face
of it."
steep INDIGNITIES
Sometimes Mrs. Mary Catncci, secretary to
Reilly and Belisle, would relay their instruc-
tions to Otepka through Otepka's secretary.
On one occasion Mrs. Catucci burst into a
-age, cursed Otepka and threw objects around
the room. On another occasion she threw
herself on a couch and tore her hair. Com-
plaints by Otepka about this behavior
brought only the comment from Reilly that
this was a personal matter between him and
Mrs. Catucci.
The men on Otepka's staff were subjected
to the same kind of harassment and indig-
nity. Reilly told Otepka that Gardner was
puerile. He told Loughton that there was no
future for him in the Office of Security, and
J4rte, 24, 1969
he frequently informed Otepka that he.
Reilly, had an unfavorable impression of
Loughton.
Hite was reprimanded by longhand notes
to him from Belisle, criticizing the content
of summaries in his evaluation reports, These
notes sometimes went directly to Hite with-
out being called to Otepka's attention. Hip-
siey, who had taken a new position as chief
of Domestic Security, found his authority so
reduced and he was so harassed by members
of his staff who had been brought in by Bos-
well and Reilly, that he derided to accept
an offer from Reilly to go to Geneva, Switzer-
land, as a conference security officer. He was
succeeded by the obscure subordinate, Joseph
Rosetta Rosetti afterwards became a member
of the burn-bag team that surveilled
Otepka's trash, and a statement from Rosetti
is attached to the charges against Otepka.
On the other hand, Otepka's other subor-
dinates, Traband, Sabin and Bock, seemed to
be immune from criticism and were frequent
visitors of the offices of Reilly and Belisle.
At about this time also Belisle was designated
by Reilly as his top adviser on personnel se-
curity.
In October 1962 Reilly and Belisle issued
instructions that field investigators in the
Division of Investigatione would submit re-
porta of investigations containing only their
conclusions as to the nature of information
obtained from witnesses, This changed the
established security procedure whereby in-
vestigators were required to state the testi-
mony of witnesses in dete11.
New resocrenrees
Under the new practice, the investigator
merely listed the identity of the witnesses
interviewed and then stated that no derog-
atory information was revealed. The new
practice of course made the investigator an
evaluator. Otepka, protested, upon the
ground that investigators were "ill-equipped
by lack of training and knowledge to deter-
mine what constituted derogatory informa-
tion." Reilly overruled Otepka and issued an
order putting his plan into effect.
This was the origin of the controversy con-
cerning "short form reporting" which after-
wards developed before the Senate Internal
Security subcommittee and concerning
which both Reilly and Otepka testified at
some length. The Fogltanz report, State De-
partment Exhibit 9, which is the basis of
Charge No. 3, is relevant to this controversy.
Concurrently with his order for short form
reporting, Reilly authorised members of the
investigation division to grant security clear-
ances to clerical personnel if. in their opin-
ion, a report of investigation on an appli-
cant was entirely favorable. At the same time
Reilly delegated to personnel in the file room
the authority to receive the results of na-
tional agency checks from the Civil Service
Commission in the case of clerical personnel,
and he authorized emergency security clear-
ances-if, in the opinion of the file room per-
sonnel, no derogatory information was
revealed.
Otepka protested against these orders, as
valaxation of proper seeurity practices, but
to no avail.
Again, concurrently with Reilly's change
in the security practices. Belisle instructed
Otepka that with certain exceptions investi-
gative reports should be withheld from the
Office of Personnel. This order made it im-
possible for the personnel office to exercise
an independent judgment as to the suitabil-
ity of an appointees, upon the basis of all
the information gathered by the Office of Se-
curity. The independent judgment of the
personnel office had resulted in the rejection
of the two appointees to the Advisory Com-
mitte on the Arts, whose files Otepka had
sent to the Personnel Office.
The new seourity practices instituted by
Reilly and Belisle were in many respects
similar to the practices which had been in
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7015
effect at the National Security Agency dur-
ing the period when Belisle was deputy di-
rector of the agency's Office of Security. Be-
cause of these practices the National Secur-
ity Agency had failed? to detect serious de-
rogatory data in the files of Bernon F. Mit-
chell 'and William H. Martin, two crytology
experts who defected to the Soviet Union.
Their defection was the subject of an in-
vestigation by the Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities of the House of Representa-
tives, which on Aug. 13, 1962, issued a report
pointing out deficiencies in the National
Security Agency's security practices. The
practices criticized were the same as those
Instituted by Reilly and Belisle, and the
deficiencies identified were the same as those
pointed out by Otepka to Reilly and Belisle.
WIELAND AGAIN'
In December 1962, by letter to the State
Department, the Civil Service Commission
submitted a transcript of a pertion of the
hearings on the Wieland case that had been
published by the Internal Security sub-
committee, and the Civil Service Commission
advised the department that this transcript
contained new data not theretofore con-
sidered by the department. This reference
from the Civil Service Commission made it
mandatory to reopen the case under the
provisions of Execuitve Order No. 10,450, and
the pertinent regulations.
After the clearance of Wieland in January
1962 Otepka had continually urged upon
Reilly that the Wieland case should be re-
opened and readjudicated on the basis of new
information that had' come to Otepka's at-
tention. Upon receipt of the Civil Service
Commission letter, Otepka brought it to
Reilly's attention.
Reilly called Otepka to his office and asked
him how he felt about re-evaluating the case.
Otepka said in substance that he had spent
a great deal of time as the primary evaluator
of the Wieland case, that he had been obliged
to concentrate his attention on this and
other controversial cases, instead of giv-
ing his attention to administrative duties.
As a result he said his superiors had used
this as an excuse to abolish his position and
downgrade him. He explained that he did
not wish this to happen again. Reilly told
Otepka that he understood his concern.
Otepka said he would assign the case to
Harry Hite, a member of his staff who had
served as his co-evaluator on the first occa-
sion when the Wieland case was considered,
and that he would review Hite's evaluation.
Reilly, however, said he would give the case
to Robert McCarthy, that he wanted Mc-
Carthy to take a look at it and tell Reilly
"what was in it."
Otepka replied that this would be a
waste of time, that he was intimately famil-
iar with the case and could tell Reilly what
was in it. Reilly insisted that he wanted
someone to take a fresh look at the case and
the entire file was therefore given to Mc-
Carthy. McCarthy was a physical security
specialist, not an evaluator.
The Wieland file was given to McCarthy
in December 1962. At this time Otepka as-
signed the case to Hite for him to evaluate
"if and when he got the file." McCarthy kept
the file until April 1963, when it was turned
over to Hite. When Hith received the file It
contained no memorandum of McCarthy's
conclusions, or any indication of what, if
anything, he had done with it.
INADEQUATE REPORTS
In December 1962, Otepka complained in a
memorandum to the chief of the Investiga-
tions Division that the security officer at
Caracas, Venezuela, who was a Foreign Service
.officer, had submitted an inadequate report of
investigation on another current Foreign
Service officer. It was alleged that the Foreign
? Service office-under investigation had carried
on ari extra-marital affair with the wife of an
American businessman and that he had also
had an affair with the wife of a State Depart-
ment investigator. There were also complaints
that he had exerted his influence to obtain
the issuance of United States visas to Vene-
zuelans whose records disclo.sed Communist
activities.
The report stated that the two men as-
signed to investigate the case had been ad-
monished by their superiors that it might
prove embarrassing if all leads were followed
out too thoroughly. Robert McCarthy was one
of the two investigators. Otepka took the po-
sition that a full investigation should be
made.
He discussed the case with Reilly, who sug-
gested that the investigation and evaluation
be handled with discretion, saying that he
knew the investigator's wife who was involved
and knew her to be devoutly religious and he
could not see how she could have engaged in
such activity. Otepka agreed that discretion
was indioated but insisted upon full investi-
gation and resolution of the matter.
Otepka's files reflected that in 1957, while
posted to the American Embassy at Mexico
City, the Foreign Service officer involved in
the Caracas incident had been suspended for
15 days without pay, as a result of charges
that he had engaged in notoriously disgrace-
ful conduct.
It appeased that he admitted that he had
engaged in a sexual liaison with the wife of
the ambassador of another nation. Further-
more, in an interview with the American am-
bassador, he had defended homosexuality and
insisted that homosexuals should not be re-
garded as security risks. Following his brief
suspension he had been transferred to Cara-
cas without loss of rank.
OTEPKA OVERRULED
The case of the Foreign Service officer in
Caracas was evaluated by Raymond Loughton
of Otepka's staff, who recommended that he
be removed as a security risk. Otepka con-
curred in this recommendation in a memo-
randum dated June 19, 1963. In this memo-
randum he observed that friends of the
Foreign Service officer were protecting him
and that the Foreign Service Officer Corps
had shown bias and exercised poor judgment
in withholding information from the security
officer. Among these friends was Robert Mc-
Carthy.
Otepka also pointed out that John Ordway,
head of the Personnel Office, who had passed
judgment on the case, should have disqual-
ified himself because as a friend of the For-
eign Service officer involved, he had been
interviewed and had defended him. Mr. Ord-
way, it will be remembered, is the gentleman
who signed the letter of charges against
Otepka and thereafter held- that the charges
were sustained.
The Foreign Service officer involved in the
Caracas affair was cleared and is still with the
Department of State.
The files of the security officer reflected an-
other instance in which McCarthy had
withheld information from his reports to his
superiors. This occurred in 1961 when McCar-
thy was stationed at Caracas. The American
ambassador's automobile had been attacked
and burned by a mob and his briefcase con-
taining classified documents had been stolen.
Subsequently, the documents were disclosed
to the public by Che Guevara, a lieutenant of
Fidel Castro.
McCarthy investigated the incident and
submitted his report, which Otepka found
"uninformative." Otepka asked for more de-
tails, which McCarthy supplied. McCarthy
"was apologetic for the ambassador's negli-
gence and for the presence of an alien chauf-
feur alone in the automobile with these
classified documents." Further inquiry by
Otepka developed that McCarthy had en-
tirely omitted from his report the fact,
known to McCarthy, that shortly after the
theft of the documents an offer had been
made to return them for a sum of money.
In January 1963 the assistant secretary for
administration, Mr. Crockett, designated
Belisle as the head of a management survey
team to inspect the functions of the Office
of Security with a view to developing any
needed improvement and detecting any de-
ficiencies. In this capacity, and without the
knowledge of Otepka or any consultation
with him, Belisle ordered the "retirement"
of valuable card indices which had been
maintained in the Office of Evaluations.
These cards were useful tools for the eval-
uators, enabling them to determine quickly
in any given case whether or not there was
derogatory information in the files that
should be further explored. Belisle insisted
that the cards were needless records and
that the evaluators could work from the files
themselves. He ordered the cards wrapped
up, tied and placed in file cabinets, and in-
structed the evaluators that the cards were
no longer available to them for ready
reference.
As a result, evaluators were put to great
Inconvenience, and material in the files con-
cerning applicants for employment was
overlooked.
In January 1963 Otepka submitted to
Reilly a memorandum of the achievements
of Otepka's division, to be included in a for-
mal report to the deputy under secretary
for administration. Otepka's memorandum
contained a reference to the fact that the
Office of Security had detected that emer-
gency clearances for numerous high-ranking
appointees had been antedated after Sec-
retary Rusk had signed the waivers of in-
vestigation, and that this had led to dis-
covery that many appointees had been im-
properly appointed without the required
background investigation and without a
security clearance.
Reilly sent Otepka's memorandum to
Belisle with a long-hand note stating
"Dave?I strongly question the wisdom of
including 0.F.O.'s last page [the reference
to the emergency clearance matter]. It would
make it look as if we were endorsing the
jogging he gave Bos. & Roger Jones." The
"jogging" to which Reilly referred was
Otepka's testimony before the Internal Se-
curity subcommittee concerning emergency
clearances. Pursuant to Reilly's objection the
reference to the back-dating matter was de-
leted from the formal report to the deputy
under secretary.
J. F. K. AIDE
In January 1963 Belisle sought to designate
Joseph Rosetti to serve as the State Depart-
ment's representative on the Subcommittee
for the Protection of Classified Government
Data of the Interdepartmental Committee on
Internal Security. This committee was under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
Otepka had served on the committee since
1953 and was one of the two senior members.
Belisle said that Rosetti could represent
the department's interest better than Otepka,
because the functions performed by Rosetti
were more akin to those of the committee.
Rosetta was a young man whose record and
achievements had been obscure until Janu-
ary 1961. He had at one time served as an
aide to then Congressman John F. Kennedy.
In the period January 1961 to August 1962
he rose in grade from a GS-12 to a GS-15:
After he was notified of his proposed designa-
tion to serve on the committee, he came to
Otepka and said he was frightened at the
prospect of such service, because he lacked
the necessary experience. He also explained
his position to Belisle, with the result that
Belisle left Otepka on the committee but
designated Rosetti as his alternate.
Again, in January 1963 Reilly dropped the
name of Otepka from the list of key Office of
Security personnel who would be available
on weekends and holidays and after hours to
receive information from the FBI. Reilly sub-
stituted -Frederick Traband for Otepka on
this list. Otepka was the only division chief
omitted.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
When Otepka spoke to Reilly about the
omission of his name, Reilly said he was sub-
stituting Traband because Prebend was an
expert on homosexual matters, but that if
Otepka insisted, he would restore his name
to the list. Otepka did not insist, feeling that
it would be pointless to do so, although he
felt also that Reilly's action was a downgrad-
ing of him in the department.
DISTURBING TRANSFER
In February 1963 Reilly authorized the
transfer Of the intelligence reporting func-
tion out of the Office of Security to the Bu-
reau of Intelligence and Research. This func-
tion had previously been transferred from
the Division of Evaluations to the Executive
*Office of the Office of Security.
The effect of this transfer was that the
Division of Evaluations was required to de-
pend uPon persons outside the Office of Secu-
rity to decide what information should be
sent to the Division el Evaluations. The re-
sult in Otepka's opinion was to deprive the
Division of Evaluations of useful information
Which in the past it had received on a timely
basis, concerning the domestic subversive
scene.
This information was contained in reports
froni. the Federal Bureau of Investigation on
the activities of members of the Communist
party and foreign intelligence operatives in
the United States. The Division of Evalua-
tions coordinated such information with the
personnel security program.
Otepka was especially disturbed by this
transfer because he knew that in the Bureau
Of Intelligence and Research there were a
number of persons whose security files re-
flected activates and associations with Com-
munists. He was concerned also because the
transfer had been recommended by J. Clay-
ton. Miller, who was an office mate of William
Wieland, and shared a safe with Wieland, and
whose security file revealed "a very highly
questionable background."
It appeared to Otepka that J. Clayton Mil-
ler and Wieland were kindered spirits, as well
as office mates, and it seemed strange to
Otepka that Miller was assigned to survey
Otepka's office at the same time Otepka was
investigating Wieland. Otepka made his con-
cern known to Reilly and Belisle, but with-
out avail.
The security methods and procedures in-
troduced by Reilly and Belisle became a mat-
ter of concern to other sensitive agencies in
the government. There were complaints that
the Department of State was not adhering
to security standards. In particular, the
Atomic Energy Commission and the Civil
Service Commission complained that the
Reilly-Belisle shortcut methods and short-
form reports did not provide sufficient infor-
mation for action to be taken, and did not
meet government standards.
Otepka brought this situation to the at-
tention of Reilly and Belisle on several oc-
casions, and also discussed with them the
transfer of the intelligence reporting func-
tion out of the Office of Security. Reilly
and Belisle rejected Otepka's comments, say-
ing they had made their decision. Otepka felt
that it would be futile to carry his protests
further, since it seemed clear to him that
Reilly and Belisle had the full confidence
and support of their superiors.
In February 1963 the Senate Internal Se-
curity subcommittee called Otepka as a wit-
ness. He was notified to appear by the office
of the assistant secratary of Congressional
Relations, and he immediately notified Reilly
of this request. He told Reilly that it ap-
peared to him that he might be asked for his
views on State Department security practices
and asked for Reilly's guidance. Reilly's re-
sponse was only that he should tell the truth.
On Feb. 21, 1963, Otepka did appear before
the committee and testified to the facts con-
cerning the various reorganizations in the
Office of Security and the procedural changes
instituted by Reilly. He also testified with
respect to his attempts to secure his overdue
performance rating.
In the period from February 1963 to June
1963 Otepka appeared before the Internal
Security subcommittee on a number of oc-
casions. Among other subjects, his testimony
related to the conduct of the Wieland case,
and the back-dating of security clearances.
His appearances were arranged by notify-
ing the State Department that his presence
was requested and the record before the sub-
committee showed that he had been in-
structed by his superiors to answer the ques-
tions fully and truthfully, and not to with-
hold anything. Transcripts of Otepka's tes-
timony were furnished to the State Depart-
ment, and on all of the occasions when
Otepka appeared during that period a State
Department observer was present.
CAREFUL WITNESS
Otepka was a careful witness, who en-
deavored to be precise at all times in his
answers and who volunteered nothing.
Otepka's attitude disturbed the chief coun-
sel for the committee, Mr. Sourwine, who
had "the feeling that he was trying to pro-
tect the department, did not want to give
any information that would reflect on the
department." 'Mut, at the hearing on March
11, 1963, while Otepka was on the stand, the
chief counsel made the following statement
on the record:
"The situation here, Mr. Chairman, is that
every now and then we have a witness here
who is testifying under oath and I think we
have that situation here, a witness who is
doing his best to protect the department.
And I do not demean him for that. But it
gets like pulling teeth to try to get the in-
formation. But if we ask the right questions,
he will anSwer directly, because he's under
oath. Now, if we get a letter from the Depart-
ment of State, we will have to give a very
careful analysis of the letter and then we
will have to talk to somebody about what it
means."
In his March 11 appearance before the
subcommittee, Otepka testified concerning
the proposals of the Advisory Committee on
International Organizations with respect to
the clearance procedures for Americans em-
ployed by United Nations agencies. The com-
mittee was interested in the similarity be-
tween the propose% of Leonard Boudin and
those contained in the Advisory Committee's
draft report Otepke, was asked for a copy of
the draft report but declined to produce it.
Otepka obtained a copy of the transcript
of his testimony and furnished it to Reilly,
as he had furnished copies of his previous
testimony. Reilly's only comment was "that
Mr. Sourwine was meddling in the depart-
ment's butiness."
On March 13, 1963, two days after the
hearing on March 11 in which Otepka had
testified, Reilly arranged for the surveillance
of Otepka's burn bags. These arrangements
are described in the letter of charges, Docu-
ment No. 1 in the appeal file.
BURN BAGS SEARCHED
Reilly, Belisle and Reseal together made
the arrangements, which were that Traband
or his secretary, Mrs. Schmeizer, would notify
Rosetti when she was going to take Otepka's
burn bag to the depotitory, she would mark
the bag with an "X" and atosetti would pick
up the burn bag at the depository and bring
It to Belisle's office, where Reilly, Belisle,
Rosetti and another Reilly lieutenant named
Terry Shea would examine the contents.
On March 18 Reilly ?discussed with Elmer
Dewey Hill, one of his subordinates, the pos-
sibility of intercepting conversations in
Otepka's office. His purpose was to find out
what was going on in that office, who Otepka
was talking to, and what he was saying,
Reilly instructed Hill "to see if he could not
come up with some technique that would
Julie 2,'1969
not be too easily detected, and to report
back to me."
Thereafter Hill repositioned the wiring in
Otepka's office telephone, so as to convert it
into a listening device. This modification or
installation was disconnected two days later
after Otepka made a complaint about trou-
ble on his telephone line. Reilly ordered the
installation disconnected, one reason for this
order being that he was afraid it might be
discovered. The wiring was disconnected by
Hill in the evening, while Reilly stood outside
Otepktes office as a lookout.
"BUGGING' DENIED
While the installation was in place Hill
listened in from time to time and two reels
of tape, recording Otepka's telephone con-
versations, were made. According to Hill's
subsequent testimony before the Senate In-
ternal Security subcommittee he turned
these two reels of tape over to an individual
who was a stranger to him. He swore that he
did this on Reilly's instructions, and that
Reilly had someone listen to the recordings.
In his testimony at this hearing, however,
Reilly swore that he had no recollection
whatever of any interception of Otepka's
telephone conversations, or of any record-
ings, or of hearing any tapes played, or of
ordering Hill to turn any tapes over to any-
body. His mind, he said, was a complete blank
on the subject, and he could neither admit
nor deny the truth of Hill's testimony.
He swore also that when he was questioned
about the matter by Mr. Ehrlich, of the Legal
Advisor's Office, and Under Secretary Ball, in
November 1963?approximately eight months
after the incident occurred?his memory
even then was a blank so far as telephone
intercepts and recordings were concerned.
In response to a demand by counsel for
Otepka that the State Department produce
the recordings and any transcripts made from
them, counsel for the department'stated that
he had been informed that the recordings
had been erased and that no transcripts were
made. Department counsel further stated
"that there has been no identification of the
stranger" to whom Hill said he gave the
tapes, "although efforts have been made."
Beginning in March 1963 and continuing
through May 1963, Otepka, members of his
family and neighbors observed that a parked
car with a male occupant frequently ap-
peared near Otepka's home or in front of
it. When Otepka notified the police authori-
ties, the man never reappeared again. He
identified himself as a "credit investigator."
At the time Reilly ordered the surveillance
of Otepka's office and of his burn bags Otepka
had not done anything wrong, so far as
Reilly knew. Reilly swore in this hearing that
the reason for his order was that he sus-
pected that Otepka "mieht be privately fur-
nishing information to Mr. Jay Sourwine,
chief counsel of the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee."
He said the grounds of his suspicion, in ad-
dition to his early conversation with Boswell,
in which Boswell voiced similar suspicions,
were (I) that in a conversation with Mr.
Sourwine, shortly after Reilly took office,
Sourwine asked him about a pending matter
being considered within the department.
which Reilly thought Nc s the appointment of
Archibald McLeish to the Advisory Commit-
tee on the Arts, and (2) that early in 1963
Sourwine had told him "shortly we are going
to haste Otepka here and have him testify
concerning the department, and then when
that is done, we will probably have a few
questions for you."
SAFE OPENED
On or about March 13, 1963, on orders from
Reilly, Otepka's safe was surreptitiously
drilled, opened, and searched. Among many
sensitive files relating to security problems
which Otepka kept in this safe were the
security files of Harlan Cleveland and Sey-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
mour Janow. heti Otepka's burn bags were
opened and examined by Reilly, Belisle and
Rosetti, Reilly stated that he was especially
interested in any papers relating to the case
of Cleveland and Janow.
Otepka had the Cleveland and Janow files
in his safe so that he might maintain a record
of their activities, as his duty required him
to do. With respect to Cleveland, he "was
interested in seeing who he was recommend-
ing for positions in the department."
In the case of Janow, he was holding the
file pending resolution of serious derogatory
information with respect to Janow. Specifi-
cally, there was an allegation that Janow,
while an official of the Agency for Interna-
tional Development, had retained a financial
interest in a private business which was sup-
plying services to AID, under contract with
the federal government.
The file disclosed that the Department of
the Army was still investigating Janow's in-
volvement in this 'possibly illegal venture;
but nevertheless, over the objections of
Otepka's office, the nomination of Janow
to be assistant administrator for the divi-
sion of Far Eastern Affairs of ArD was sub-
mitted to the Senate for confirmation, and
he was confirmed Feb. 1, 1961.
The submission of the nomination to the
Senate before an adequate investigation had
been completed was in violation of both the
? Senate rules and White House policy. Accord-
ingly, Otepka was holding the Janow file so
that he might correlate the report of inves-
tigation, when received, with the file.
Following Otepka's appearance before the
subcommittee on March 19, 1963, Chief Coun-
sel Sourwine told him he had met with Reilly
Off. the record, that he was dubious about
Reilly and that he planned to call him as a
witness. He asked Otepka if he would suggest
questions that could be asked of Reilly.
Otepka did prepare certain questions, based
upon published testimony given by Boswell
In March 1962, concerning the department's
plans to spend large sums of money for elec-
tronics equipment, and based also on infor-
mation given to Otepka by a former depart-
ment employe, George Pasquale. PasquaIe's
Information related to the conduct of Elmer
Hill, who was in charge of the electronics
program.
NIGHITIME VISIT
The carbon paper used in typing these
questions Was thrown into Otepka's burn
bag by his secretary. It was retrieved by
Reilly and the questions appearing thereon
are reproduced and attached as an Exhibit
to the (State Department] charges, Docu-
ment No. 1.
On the night of March 24, 1963, at about
10:30 p.m. when Otepka chanced to be in
his office, Belisle walked in, accompanied
by Terence Shea, an investigator from the
Division of Investigations, who had served
with Belisle in the National Security Agency.
They appeared surprised to see Otepka
and said nothing for a moment; Belisle
then said he thought he had seen a char-
woman enter the office and he had fol-
lowed her. Having been there for some time,
Otepka knew that no charwoman or anyone
else had come into the office shortly before
he entered. Otepka concluded that Belisle
and Shea were there for the purpose of con-
ducting some sort of surveillance of his office.
On March 4, 1963, Otepka was visited in
his office by George Pasquale, an electronic
engineer whose employment by the State De-
partment had recently been terminated on
the recommendation of Reilly. Pasquale re-
lated to Otepka that in April 1962 he had ac-
tompanied Elmer Dewey Hill, a member of
Reilly's staff, on a trip to Warsaw, Poland.
Pasquale described to Otepka a number of
? instances of misconduct on the part of Hill
during the trip. The misconduct, which had
occurred in public, consisted of "vulgarities
and obscenities and intoxication."
Pasquale had made a written report on
Hill's conduct, but this report was sequest-
ered by Reilly and was not placed in Hill's
file. No action was ever taken against Hill,
but shortly thereafter Reilly terminated
Pasquale's employment.
In addition to his written report, Pas-
quale orally informed Belisle and Rosetti
about the conduct of Hill in Warsaw. Belisle
suggested that Pasquale should take his
complaint to the Internal Security subcom-
mittee, and Rosetti gave Pasquale the tele-
phone number of the chief investigator for
the subcommittee. Pasquale did take the
matter up with the subcommittee.
In March 1963 the Civil Service Commis-
sion made one of its regular routine inspec-
tions, as provided in Section 14 of Executive
Order 10450, into the manner in which the
security program was being carried out by
the Department of State. As was customary.
Otepka dealt with the inspector on behalf of
the department.
The inspector brought with him a list of
files that he wished to examine, among them
being the file in the William Wieland case
and the file on Elmer Dewey Hill. The Wie-
land case was selected as a representative
security case, and Hill's file was examined
because he had taken office subsequently to
the last previous inspection.
In connection with the Hill file Otepka
advised the inspector to see if it contained
any derogatory information. The inspector
reported that he found no derogatory in-
formation in the file. Otepka then told him
about the Pasquale report.
The inspector asked Reilly where Pas-
quale's report was and Reilly responded that
he could not have this information, and
"warned him not to get involved in the
Elmer Hill case." After representations were
made to Reilly by the Civil Service Commis-
sion the inspector was given the Hill file but
it still did not include the derogatory report.
Late in March 1963, while Otepka's regular
secretary, Mrs. Powers, was ill, Mrs. Schmel-
zer, who was Mr. Traband's secretary, sub-
stituted for her. Otepka noticed that Mrs.
Schmelzer was "unduly curious" about ma-
terial in Otepka's safe, containing the secu-
rity files of Harlan Cleveland and Seymour
Janow.
His observation of Mrs. Schmelzer's activi-
ties caused Otepka "to suspect by this time
that there was something peculiar going on,
and I felt that she possibly was a part of a
group in my office that had been asked to
maintain some sort of a surveillance over
me." Because of his suspicions Otepka had
the combination to his safe changed. Mrs.
Schmelzer was later revealed to be a member
of the burn bag surveillance team organized
by Reilly and Belisle.
On April 5, 1963, Otepka was instructed to
confer, and he did. confer with Leo Harris, a
staff assistant to the department's legal ad-
viser, Abram Chayes. Mr. Harris wanted
Otepka's views with respect to the pending
attempt by a former employe of the depart-
ment, who had been removed as a security
risk, to gain reinstatement. The discussion
related to the department's regulations pre-
cluding the re-employment of any person
who had been dismissed as a result of ad-
versary proceedings under Public Law 733.
Mr. Harris told Otepka that Reilly had
endorsed a proposed change in the regula-
tions which would permit the re-employment
of former employes who had been dismissed
as security risks. Harris said that considera-
tion was being given to the re-employment
of John Paton Daves, who was precluded from
re-employment in the State Department by
the existing regulations; that Reilly favored
the proposed change which would permit the
re-employment of Davies.
Otepka said he was opposed to any such
change in the regulations, and pointed out
that Davies had been dismissed after a hear-
ing before a Security Hearing Board, that the
S 7017
vote of the Hearing Board was five to nothing
for dismissal, and that Secretary Dulles had
concurred. The case of John Paton Davies
had been evaluated by Otepka in 1954, and it
was his findings which had resulted in the
dismissal of Davies as a security risk.
PHONE TAP?
It will be recalled that just before he was
succeeded by Reilly in April 1962, Boswell ob-
tained the security file of John Paton Davies,
and worked on it in secrecy. Otepka's con-
versation with Mr. Harris in April 1963 sug-
gested to Otepka that Reilly was carrying on
a project that Boswell had started.
In April 1963 Otepka and his secretary,
Mrs. Powers, noticed that Otepka's office tele-
phone "was acting in a very peculiar man-
ner." After dialing, the phone appeared to be
dead. On other occasions a loud clattering or
clicking was heard, and sometimes audible
conversations of strangers on the line were
heard. A member of the Domestic Security
Division, called in by Otepka to listen, im-
mediately stated "your phone is bugged." A
professional engineer, Stanley Holden, was
then called in to check the telephone.
Mr. Holden reported that the telephone ap-
peared to be in a normal condition, but gave
Otepka a cautious admonition that it might
be tapped. He indicated he did not desire to
discuss the matter further because of a pos-
sible reprisal against him. Shortly after this
conversation between Otepka and Holden,
Reilly appeared in Otepka's office, said he
heard Otepka had been having trouble with
his telephone, and remarked that he had been
having trouble with his phone too.
On May 14, 1963, Stanley Holden told
Otepka that the room which he, Otepka, oc-
cupied contained a concealed listening de-
vice which enabled someone at a remote
monitoring point to overhear telephone con-
versations as well as other conversations in
the room. He said the installation of this de-
vice was ordered by Reilly because Reilly was
personally embarrassed by information with
which he was confronted in his appearances
before the Senate Internal Security subcom-
mittee, that Reilly was upset about Otepka's
testimony before the subcommittee.
Holden said that the monitoring was being
done under the direction of Elmer Hill, chief
of the Division of Technical Services, and
that the operation was known to Rosetti,
who, as chief of the Division of Domestic
Operations, was Holden's immediate superior.
Holden added that Belisle had enlisted
Otepka's assistant, Frederick Traband, to
keep Belisle informed of Otepka's activities
and any remarks that he made within the
hearing of Traband. At about this same time
Otepka received similar information from
George Pasquale reiterating that Pasquale
had told Otepka before.
On several occasions during the month of
May, Otepka noticed that strange sounds
were coming from his telephone although the
receiver was in the cradle. The sounds were
a humming noise, and the sound of voices?
in other words, the telephone was broad-
casting. Otepka concluded from all of these
facts "that there was an organized campaign
being directed against me, either to purge
me or to embarrass me in some way in con-
nection with my duties."
SEVERAL CLASHES
During the month of May 1963 Otepka
clashed with Reilly and Belisle or Traband in
connection with several personnel security
cases. ,
In one case Otepka and Traband inter-
viewed a prospective appointee concerning
his alleged Communist activities, and Otepka
recommended against his employment on the
ground that he was a security risk. The ap-
plicant was cleared after Otepka was ousted.
Another case involved a prospective ap-
pointee to the staff of the United States
ambassador to the United Nations. The ap-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
pointment was pushed by an assistant to
Harlan Cleveland. Otepka insisted on full in-
vestigation of the individual's past activities,
many of which Were a matter of public record
in the files of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities; and in particular,
Otepka urged a full investigation of an alle-
gation that this man was involved in running
arms and ammunition through the Congo to
Angola in support of rebels who were seeking
to drive the Portuguese from Angola. Otepka
was overruled and the man was cleared and
appointed.
In the third case, although the applicant
was unsuitable, 'Prebend argued that Otepka
"should yield to reality because the applicant
had strong political backing," that it was
Otepka's "duty to accommodate the top."
The applicant was rejected by the Office of
Personnel as unsuitable.
A fourth case involved the wife of a deputy
assistant secretary for Far Eastern affairs.
The wife was an applicant for an important
position in the Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, specializing in Far Eastern affairs.
In 1954 Otepka had considered the case of
the husband and recammended that he be
suspended in the interest of national security.
Otepka based his recommendation on the
applicant's notoriout pro-Communist record
on Far Eastern matters and the employment
of him and his wife by the Institute of Pacific
Relations, an organization which had been
cited by the Senate Internal Security sub-
committee as a group controlled by persons
with Communist background and leanings.
The administrator of the Bureau of Se-
curity and Consular Affairs concurred with
Otepka in 1954, but they were overruled.
The man was not charged or suspended as a
security risk. The individual's wife, who was
in the department at the time, and whose
record was equally bad, subsequently left the
department voluntarily and was now, in May
1963, seeking to return as an intelligence
specialist. Otepka objected but was over-
ruled by Belisle and Reilly and the lady was
appointed.
In two other eases in May 1963 Belisls
signed security clearances for two applicants
without notice to Otepka and without any
proper investigation.
Full field pre-appointment investigations
for all applicants and employes of the State
Department occupying sensitive positions
were require by law in the absence of a
waiver signed by the secretary. Belisle had
granted clearances to the two applicants
without any full field investigations or
waivers.
Having obtained the security files of the
two applicants and ascertained these facts,
Otepka wrote a memorandum for the record
stating that he would accept no respeiasibilty
for the clearance of the two persons because
he had not been allowed to participate in the
clearance processes. He noted that the re-
quirements of the law 'and the regulations
had not been met.
Belisle responded with a scrawled note in
blue crayon demanding the files. The note
said "give them to me," followed by several
exclamation points.
REILLY TESTIPIES
On April 25, 1953, Reilly testified again
before the Internal Security subcommittee.
Returning to the department late in the
afternoon, he went to Otepka's office. He
appeared to be upset. He told Otepka that
Sen. Dodd "had given him a bad time," after
he had testified that Otepka had voluntarily
disqualified himself from further participa-
tion in the Wieland case.
He asked Otepka if he could confirm to
Sen. Dodd or to the subcommittee that he
had in fact withdrawn from the Wieland
case. Ottpka responded that if called as a
witness he would testify precisely about his
conversation with Reilly concerning his
participation in the Wieland case.
Otepka felt it was not necessary to argue
the matter with Reilly at thet time, since he
believed that Reilly well knew when he testi-
fied that Otepka had not in fact withdrawn
from the Wieland case, and he believed fur-
ther "that Mr. Reilly was a very devious per-
son who had been working hard to discredit
me or get rid of me in any way he could, and
I felt it unwise and very foolish to confide
in him that I'?what I was going to say in the
event I was going to testify before that
committee again."
Shortly after April 25, 1963, Mr. Sourwine
permitted Otepka to see the transcript of
Reilly's testimony of that day. At this time
Sourwine told Otepka that all of the senators
who participated in the hearing believed
that Otepka had told the truth, that he was
a knowledgeable security officer who always
was properly responsive to the subcom-
mittee's questions, and he further informed
Otepka that Sen. Dodd, who had interrogated
Reilly closely and at length, thought that
Reilly was lying and was being evasive.
Sourwine said that Otepka had always
done his best to protect the State Depart-
ment's Interests, had made no criticism of
his superiors and had respected the oath that
had been administered to him. Sourwine
Concluded in effect that Otepka "now had a
problem."
Reading the transcript of April 25, 1963,
Otepka observed that Reilly testified that
the Division of Evaluations had been oper-
ating inefficiently when Reilly got to the
State Department and that Otepka was a
bottleneck, that Otepka held many things
and did not delegate enough authority,
especially to Traband. No such complaint
had ever been made to Otepka by Reilly or
Boswell, either orally or in writing.
Otepka also read Reilly's testimony, in
which Reilly swore that Otepka had volun-
tarily excused himself from participation in
the Wieland case. Reilly also assured the
subcommittee that the fact that the Depart-
ment of Justice had declined to prosecute
Wieland for false statements made no differ-
ence in the State Department's evaluation of
the case. Otepka knew this was not A fact,
and it subsequently developed that Belisle
had Robert McCarthy prepare a written clear-
ance predicated on the decision of the De-
partment of Justice not to prosecute.
In appearance before the subcommittee on
April 30, 1963 and May 21, 22 and 23, 1963,
Reilly at one time or another repeated his
testimony that Otepka had voluntarily with-
drawn from the Wieland case. With respect
to the appointments of the Members of the
Advisory Committee on International Orga-
nizations, Reilly testified that Otepka had
given him information about only one of the
prospective appointees.
He further testified he had not seen the
Leonard Boudin letter in the New York
Times, discussing the matter of security
clearances for the staffs of international
organizations, until Otepka showed it to him.
He also swore that he, Reilly, had obtained
and given to Otepka the draft report of the
Advisory Committee, which reflected the
Boudin proposals.
The facts were that Otepka had not volun-
tarily withdrawn from the Wieland case, that
he had specifically and in Writing directed
Reilly's attention to the cases of three pros-
pective appointees to the Advisory Commit-
tee, that Reilly had received the Boudin
article from the Department of Justice and
sent it to Otepka with a covering memoran-
dum, and that Otepka had obtained the draft
report and given it to Reilly, together with
his comments on the contents of the report.
The effect of Reilly's testimony about these
matters was, first, to justify the removal of
Otepka from the Wieland cape, and second,
to absolve Reilly of any responsibility for
questionable appointments to the Advisory
Committee and from responsibility for failure
to perceive the similarity between the recom-
June 24, 1969
mendations in the committee's draft report
and the proposals of Leonard Boudin. It was
Reilly's duty to correlate the Boudin pro-
posals with the recommendations of the draft
report; and having failed to do so, he at-
tempted to pass the matter off by disclaim-
ing knowledge of the Boudin letter and
shifting the responsibility to Otepka.
By claiming that he had submitted the
draft report to Otepka. he sought to give
the impression that he had performed his
duty, by alerting Otepka, whereas in fact
Otepka had alerted him.
In his testimony of May 21, 1963, Reilly
said that Otepka had submitted a memo-
randum making recommendations for short-
form reporting on applicants, that these rec-
ommendations had been put into effect, and
that Otepka had then testified before the
subcommittee objecting to the procedure
which he hmiself had recommended.
The fact was that Otepka had recommend-
ed short-form reports on clerical applicants
alone, but that Reilly had ordered short-
form reports on all non-derogatory cases of
State Depatrnent applicants, a pocedure
which in effect tuned investigtors into eval-
uators.
When this procedure came under attack
before the Senate subcommittee as one in-
volving bad security, Reilly by his testimony
attempted "to convey the impression that
what he had done was precisely what Mr.
Otepka had recommended and therefore,
that since he had depended upon Mr. Otepka.
Mr. Otepka was at fault.- In connection with
what he described as Otepka's "recanting" of
his memorandum on short-form reporting,
Reilly testified further on May 21, 1963, that
Otepka struck him as mentally unbalanced
and emotionally overwrought.
Following Reilly's appearance before the
subcommittee on May 23, 1963, Mr. Sourwine,
chief counsel for the subcommittee, com-
municated with Otepka and asked Otepka to
come to see him at his office. As a matter of
convenience to Mr. Sourwine, the meeting
between him and Otepka took place after
Otepka's normal working hours but there was
nothing clandestine or secretive about it; in
fact, during the same period of time Mr.
Sourwine and members of his staff were in-
terviewing other State Department employes
with the knowledge of the department. The
interview with Otepka was in accordance
with the subcommittee's usual practice in
preparing for hearings.
In his interview with Otepka shortly after
May 23, Chief Counsel Sourwine pointed out
to him that there had been sharp conflicts
between Otepka's testimony and that of
Reilly. He mentioned the conflict with re-
spect to the information Otepka had given
Reilly about the members of the Advisory
Committee on International Organizations,
and showed Otepka marked transcripts re-
flecting other instances of conflict or ap-
parent conflict. "And I told him that?I for-
get whether I wanted him to, or the com-
mittee wanted him to, but I was attempting
to convey to him that it was up to him
to put up or shut up?his boss in effect had
called him a liar, and if he had any evidence
to support what he had told us, I wanted
him to bring the evidence in and put it in
the record."
EVIDENCE PRODUCED
Otepka said he was sure he could support
every bit of testimony he had given, and
that he would attempt to produce the evi-
dence to support it. Sourwine gave him cop-
ies of the transcript and had them marked
to indicate the conflicts, and told him to
traverse all of those points, be ready to testi-
fy further with respect to all of those points,
when he was called back to the stand.
As a result Otepka prepared a memorandum
with respect to Reilly's testimony, giving
Otepka's comments and indicating the er-
rors in Reilly's testimony. The statements in
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June' 24,
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
1-969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 7019
the memorandum were supplemented by sev-
eral documents supporting the testimony
Otepka, had already given.
The memorandum and documents were
turned over to Chief Counsel Sourwine by
Otepka. The memorandum was keyed to the
transcript of Reilly's testimony; that is, the
comments in the memorandum were keyed to
specific pages of the transcript of Reilly's tes-
timony, and traversed Reilly's testimony on
the points in dispute.
According to the letter of charges the type-
writer ribbon used in producing Otepka's
memorandum concerning Reilly's testimony
was retrieved from Otepka's burn bag by
the burn bag surveillance team on May 20,
1963. The letter recites that the ribbon was
read "and the contents were reproduced"
as Exhibit B in the charges. Exhibit B to
the charegs is in fact the department's own
garbled version of the memorandum which
Otepka submitted to Chief Counsel Sour-
wine.
Attached to Otepka's memorandum com-
mentineon and rebutting Reilly's testimony
was a five-page memorandum dated Sept.
10, 1962, from Otepka to Reilly on the sub-
ject of "Francis 0. Wilcox, Arthur Larson,
Lawrence Finkelstein, Marshall D. Seymour,
Andrew Cordier, Ernest Gross, Harding Ban-
croft, Sol Linowitz."
IMPORTANT MEMO
This memorandum, which is State De-
partment Exhibit 7, is the basis of Charge
1 against Otepka. It went to the heart of
the most important conflict between the tes-
timony of Reilly and that of Otepka. Specifi-
cally, it demonstrated that on Sept. 10, 1962,
Reilly had received in writing from Otepka
information about the eight individuals
named in the memorandum, who were pros-
pective appointees to the Advisory Commit-
tee on International Organizations staffing
and for whom emergency clearances were de-
sired by Harlan Cleveland. Reilly had testi-
fied that Otepka had alerted him to the
ease of only one of the eight individuals.
Also attached to Otepka's memorandum on
Reilly's testimony was a copy of a memoran-
dum dated Sept. 17, 1962, from Reilly to
George M. Czayo, entitled "Processing of Ap-
pointments of Members of the Advisory Com-
mittee on International Organization Staf-
fing." This memorandum, State Department
Exhibit 8, is the basis of Charge 2 against
Otepka.
HOW MANY NAMES?
It too was directly relevant to the issue be-
ing explored by the subcommittee with re-
spect to the conflict between Reilly and
Otepka. It demonstrated that Reilly not only
had received and understood the information
from Otepka about the questions raised with
respect to the members of the Advisory Com-
mittee on International Organization Staff-
ing, but that Reilly had dealt with the mat-
ter himself, by sending a memorandum con-
cerning it to Mr. Czayo. The question of how
many Individuals on the list had been
brought to Reilly's attention by Otepka was
an important and material matter pending
before the subcommittee.
Although the memorandum of Sept. 10,
1962, State Department Exhibit 7, and the
memorandum of Sept. 17, 1962, State Depart-
ment Exhibit 8, were classified "Confidential,"
the members of the Internal Security sub-
committee and its chief counsel had been
granted clearances for access to classified in-
formation which entitled them to receive
such documents,
The memoranda of Sept. 10, 1962 and Sept.
17, 1962 (State Department Exhibits 7 and 8)
contain no investigative data. The only sub-
stantive data contained in the memorandum
of September 10 (State Department Exhibit
7) consists of references to certain matters
Which had been mentioned in published re-
ports or hearings of the Senate Internal Se-
curity subcommittee Or which were other-
wise in the public domain, or available to the
subcommittee.
The memorandum of Sept. 17, 1962 (State
Department Exhibit 8) contains no substan-
tive data whatever with respect to the pro-
spective appointees, but relates for the most
part to the procedural steps involved in their
clearance.
SHORT VS. LONG FORM
Also attached to Otepka's memorandum on
the Reilly testimony was a copy of a long-
form report dated May 21, 1960, on one Joan
Mae Fogltanz, an applicant for a clerical po-
sition in the Department of State. This docu-
ment, State Department Exhibit 9, is the
basis of charge Number 3 against Otepka. It
was directly relevant to the conflict between
Otepka and Reilly with respect to Otepka's
recommendations for short-form reporting.
On Oct. 29 1962, Otepka had submitted a
memorandum to Reilly expressing the view
that in cases of applicants for clerical posi-
tions, such as young ladies fresh out of high
school who had no employment history and
whose backgrounds were impeccable, long-
form reporting was unnecessary and a waste
of time. Otepka had given Reilly the lengthy
Fogltanz report as a "horrible example" of
a long-form report, illustrating what he was
talking about in his memorandum.
Nevertheless, over Otepka's objections,
Reilly ordered that Short-form reporting be
adopted for all non-derogatory cases, includ-
ing the cases of officer applicants. There-
after Reilly had testified before the sub-
committee that his order had only carried
out Otepka's recommendation and that
Otepka in his testimony before the subcom-
mittee had repudiated his own memorandum
to Reilly. In an attempt to support this
testimony Reilly produced and turned over
to Mr. Sourwine a copy of Otepka's memo-
randum to him dated Oct. 29, 1962.
The Fogltanz report, which Otepka had
given to Reilly with this memorandum,
demonstrated exactly what Otepka was talk-
ing about in the memorandum, and confirmed
Otepka's statement that Reilly knew per-
fectly well what Otepka's recommendation
had been.
In his memorandum prepared for Mr. Sour-
wine and the subcommittee Otepka com-
mented at some length on Reilly's testimony
about short-form reporting and Otepka's
memorandum dealing with the subject.
In addition to the two documents relating
to Reilly's testimony concerning the person-
nel of the Committee on Staffing Interna-
tional Organizations, and the Fogltanz report
relating to his testimony on short-form re-
porting. Otepka attached to his memorandum
various papers and documents that were rele-
vant to other questions which were pending
before the subcommittee and concerning
which Reilly had testified. Otepka's memo-
randum also discussed these questions.
SOURWINE'S ROLE
The documents produced by Otepka, and
specifically the documents referred to in
Charges 1, 2 and 3, were directly relevant
to questions posed to Otepka by the sub-
committee. Had he failed to produce those
documents, and particularly had he failed
to produce the documents referred to in
Charges 1, 2 and 3, he would have failed
to respond fully to the questions posed by
the subcommittee. Furthermore, docu-
ments containing similar information had
In the past bebn furnished to congressional
committees, and nothing had "been said
about the Truman order [Directive of
March 13, 19481 preventing it."
The investigation by the Senate Internal
Security subcommittee, in which Otepka
and Reilly, were involved, was an investiga-
tion of security practices at the Department
of State. The subcommittee was "trying to
get at the facts with regard to the security
situation in the department."
As chief counsel for the subcommittee,
Mr. Sourwine was responsible for preparing
for the hearings by interviewing witnesses,
arranging for their appearance, conducting
the basic examination of witnesses before
the committee, and doing any necessary re-
search. In all of his dealings with Otepka,
Mr Sourwine acted pursuant to these re-
sponsibilities, in his official capacity as chief
counsel of the committee, and on behalf of
the committee.
Any request that he made of Otepka was a
request of the Internal Security subcommit-
tee. Moreover, everything said and done by
Otepka, was in response to such requests. He
was not a volunteer witness, but one whose
appearance had been requested by the sub-
committee, who had been sent by the State
Department to the subcommittee and who
had testified with the knowledge of the de-
partment.
CODE OF ETHICS
Otepka did not take the matter of Reilly's
false and misleading testimony up with his
superiors, before submitting his memoran-
dum and the attached documents to the sub-
committee. In the light of the facts known
to him he reasonably believed that for many
months his superiors had engaged in or ap-
proved a campaign to harass, frustrate and
discourage him so that he would abandon
his key job in the department's Office of
Security.
Taking the matter up through the chain
of command would have required him 1.0
confide in some of the very superiors whom
he believed to be engaged in the effort to
purge him from the department. He knew
from his long experience that employes of
the department who reported on the mis-
conduct of a superior through the chain of
command were often pilloried while those
guilty of misconduct were protected. In his
judgment, based upon his experience, there
"was a mutual protective society amongst
those whose advice I might have sought."
In making his decision to submit informa-
tion and documents to the Internal Security
subcommittee, Otepka took into account the
Code of Ethics for government service which
Is set out in House Concurrent Resolution
No. 175, agreed to by the Senate on July 11,
1958.
This Code of Ethics includes a statement
that every government employe should put
loyalty to country and to the highest moral
principles above loyalty to any party, person
or government department. The Code was
supported in the Senate by the then Majority
Leader Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, who spoke in
favor of it. A copy of the Code was received
by Otepka as an attachment to a State De-
partment circular addressed to all depart-
ment employes.
In his deliberations about what he should
do with respect to Reilly's testimony and the
subcommittee's requests for information.
Otepka also gave consideration to the pro-
vision of 5 U.S. ()ode, Sec. 652(d) that "the
right of persons employed in the Civil Serv-
ice of the United States, either individually
or collectively, to petition Congress or any
member thereof or to furnish information to
either House of Congress or to any commit-
tee or member thereof shall not be denied or
Interfered with."
In determining upon his course of con-
duct with respect to the subcommittee's re-
quest for information, Otepka also considered
the question of whether or not his submis-
sion of this information would contravene
what he knew or believed to be the accepted
standard of conduct for employes of the
Departmnet of State.
He considered his proposed or contem-
plated course of conduct against the pattern
which he believed to have been established
by the conduct of State Department officers
and employes which had been approved by
the department. He "was familiar with many
such cases, and [he] gave consideration to
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-R0f'71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the conduct of those persons with Which
[he] was familiar and [he] noted that their
conduct was excused'
7NGIPPE5N CASZS
Among these cases in which infractions of
regulations or other misconduct were ap-
proved or condoned by the department were
the following:
(1) The case of John Stewart Service
(supra) the Foreign Service officer who ad-
mitted that he had furnished 18 documents,
some of them classified "Secret," to Philip
Jaffe, the publisher of Anteraqa magazine,
a person on whom there was a considerable
record of Communist activities and affilia-
tions. Service Was honorably retired.
(2) The case of Elmer Dewey Hill (supra)
whose misconduct in Warsaw was condoned
and covered up by Reilly.
(3) The case of William Wieland (supra)
whose misconduct by way of false statements,
misrepresentations and concealment of in-
fer/nation. was condoned by the department.
(4) The case of Charles Lyons (supra) who
as a security officer in Athens. Greece, had
failed to report a large number of security
violations but who nevertheless was ap-
pointed deputy thief of the Division of
Evaluations.
(5) The case of the presidential nominee
(supra) who had publicly assaulted his wife
and strewed her clothing on the lawn, over
the shrubbery and in the street.
(8) The case of Irving Swerdlow (supra)
who had been dismissed as a security risk
by the Mutual Security Agency, but was
appointed to a position in the State Depart-
ment.
(7) The case of the Foreign Service of-
ftcer (supra) who, while stationed in Mexico
City and again while on duty at Caren-is,
Venezuela, had been guilty of serious sexual
misconduct, including a liaison with the wife
of the ambassador of another nation, but
whose conduct had been condoned,
(8) The case of Robert McCarthy (supra)
who had withheld information from his re-
ports to his superiors concerning the loss of
classified documents by the American am-
bassador at Caracas, but who became a
trusted lieutenant of John F, Reilly.
(9) The case of Seymour Janow (supra)
who was appointed to high office without res-
elution of allegations that he had been in-
volved In an illegal conflict of interest.
(10) The case of the security officer sta-
tioned in Moscow who was enticed to her
apartment by a Russian woman. The NVOIDAD
turned out to be a KGB agent. Using con-
cealed cameras, the Soviet Secret Police
photographed the security officer and his
Soviet companion, in bed, both being in the
nude. The security officer was then con-
fronted with the photographs and an attempt
was made to induce him to spy for the So-
viets. He rebuffed the attempt and reported
his misconduct to his superiors Although he
had exposed himself to the mast elemental
recruitment tactics, known to even the
greenest novice, he was not disciplined.
(11) The case of a security officer stationed
in an Eastern European country. Ile was
married to an American, who accompanied
him_ He gave lectures to his associates, in-
stzucting them to avoid any personal rela-
tions with foreign nationals. Nevertheless, he
openly consorted with a local woman. His
conduct was observed by his associates and
reported to superiors. Subsequently, when
his wife divorced him for his misconduct he
requested the department's permission to
marry his alien paramour and permission
was granted, notwithstanding the fact that
there was information indicating that the
woman was a foreign agent. He was not dis-
ciplined, but continued as a security officer.
(12) The case of a Foreign Service officer,
formerly a security qficer, who owned two
automobiles When he was transferred to a
new poet. Although entitled to have only one
automobile shipped at government expense,
he had the second automthile concealed in
a lift van and represented it as household
furnishings on the invoice. His case was re-
/steed to the Department of Justice for pros-
ecution and he was not disciplined, except
that he was required to pay for the trans-
portation of the second automobile.
(13) The case of a Foreign Service officer
who admited to the security officers of the
department and to the department's medical
authorities that he had engaged in homo-
sexual acts. The department's medical oilicers
found hien unfit to serve abroad because in
their professional Judgment his homosexual
tendencies made him a potential security
risk. He was not disciplined, but again sent
abroad and assigned to a critical post behind
the Iron Curtain.
(14) The case of a Foreign Service officer
who, on his application form and in inter-
views with department personnel, concealed
the fact that he had been e member of the
Young Communist League and of the Com-
munist party. He is still employed in the
State Department.
(15) The case of a Foreign Service officer
stationed in an Eastern European poet who
admitted homosexual tendencies and other
personal misconduct but was given respon-
sibility for supervising Marine guard person-
nel at the American Embassy. His negligence
permitted foreign agents to have access to
classified reports at the embassy. He received
normal promotions in the Foreign Service
and is still in the department.
(16) The case of a Foreign Service Officer
on duty in the department who borrowed
money from the State Department Credit
Union and forged the endoresment of a fellow
employe, a lady, to his application for the
loan. This individual was given an important
assignment in the White House.
(17) The case of a Foreign Service officer
who, while station in an Eastern European
country, fathered a child out of wedlock by
a national in that country. Boswell, who was
then director of the Office of Security, se-
lected this man to be a security officer at a
Far Eastern post.
(18) The case of a Foreign Service officer
who sexually violated his own daughter but
was never disciplined, and In fact was later
designated as a part-time security officer at
a post which did not have a full-time pro-
fessional security man.
PATTERN ESTABLISHED
All of the foregoing cases were within the
personal knowledge of Otepka and they all
occurred in recent years, at or about the time
of Otepka's difficulties with Reilly. Otepka
was familiar with many other cases of a
similar nature, in which the conduct of
State Department employes had not resulted
in disciplinary action.
These cases established a pattern and
standand of conduct upon which Otepka
was entitled to base his conclusion thin his
action in furnishing information and docu-
mentation to the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee was not a breach of the stand-
ard of conduct expected of an officer of the
Department of State.
Otepka requested John R. Norpel, a mem-
ber of his staff and a former FBI inspector, to
compile pertinent data for use by Otepka in
substantiating his testimony before the sub-
committee. Norpel reported to Otepka that
he had mentioned the assignment to Ro-
sette, who in turn had reported it to Reilly,
and that thereafter Reilly had told Norpel
"Otepka is a nut?I came here to do a Job
and I am going to do it."
Later, in a conversation between Norpel,
Robert McCarthy and Rosetti, McCarthy
asked Norpel, "Why is Otepka fighting, what
is his price to quit? Every man has a price."
Norpel replied that no one could buy Otepka
for any price and that his reason fer fight-
June 24, '1969
bag was to remedy wrongs and to uphold his
principles.
Early in June 1963 Reilly again evinced
an interest in Otepka's activity with respect
to Harlan Cleveland, by sending Otepka a
memorandum concerning Cleveland's se-
curity file and stating that Otepka had tak-
en no closing action on Cleveland's security
clearance. Reilly also stated that Otepka had
not answered Belisle's memorandum to
Otepka dated Jan. 15, 1963, on the Cleve-
land case. Reilly accused Otepka of dilatory
tactics.
Otepka replied with documentation prov-
ing that he had answered Belisle's memo-
randum within seven days, and he pointed
out that Cleveland had been cleared by Sec-
retary Rusk on Aug. ln 1961, thereby clos-
ing the case. Oterace added that if Reilly
wanted to know why he. Otepka, as the chief
evaluator, bad Cleveland's security file in
his possession he would be happy to explain
it to Reilly. Reilly did not ask for the ex-
planation.
On June 25, 1963, Otepka observed that
one of his subordinates, Joseph Sabin, had
put aside certain work that Otepka had
assigned to him to be handled on a priority
basis and was working on the security file
on Seymour Janow. The next day, noticing
that Sabin again was working on the Janow
file, Otepka asked what it was that he was
evaluating in that case.
Sabin replied that he had been instructed
by Reilly to prepare a chronology of certain
events in the case otepka noticed that
Sabin had such a chronology on his desk.
Otepka took the chronology and the file to
his desk, where he saw that one item in the
chronology made a false reference to Otepka.
Otepka handed the chronology to his sec-
retary and asked her to make a copy of it for
him.
Shortly thereafter Reilly burst into Otep-
ka's office and shouted io him, "When I as-
sign a case to a member of your staff, I do
not expect you to interfere." He accused
Otepka of taking the chronology from the
Janow file and asked if Otepka had it in
his possession. When Otepka acknowledged
that he head it, Reilly demanded that he give
it to Reilly immediately Otepka complied.
Reilly then asked how many copies of it he
had reproduced. Otepka said he had not
reproduced any but hest intended to do so,
Reilly took the file and the chronology
and'left Otepka's office, Within a few min-
utes two porters came to Otepka's office and
removed Otepka's Thermofax machine. One
of them told Otepka that he was removing
the machine on Reilly's instructions.
On two occasions during May and June
1953 Otepka asked Tralsisnd whether he, Tra-
band, was keeping Otepini under surveillance.
On the first occasion, in May, Traband denied
that he had Otepka under surveillance and
this ended the matter. On the second occa-
sion, in June 1963, Traband accompanied
his denial with an ninny outburst to the
effect that Otepka had no right to question
his integrity. It subsequently appeared that
Prebend was; in fact acting at that time as
a member of Reilly's binn bag surveillance
teem.
On the morning of June 27, 1963, Reilly
sent for Otepka and in sire presence of Belisle
handed Otepka a mcinisrandum stating in
part:
"Effective inernedieney I am tempceiarily
detailing you to devote your full time and
, attention tie preparing guidelines for evalu-
ating and developing recommendations to me
relative to updating and reviewing the Office
of Security Handbook. During the course of
this temporary detail, you are relieved of your
present official responsibilities. You will, for
the duration of this assignment, occupy
Room 38A05. Such stenographic and/or typ-
ing assistance as you will require to carry
out these aseignmente, will be made available
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June 24, -1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE S 7021
as you make such needs known to Mrs. Ca-
tucci or Mrs. Mitchell."
At the same time Reilly announced to the
Division of Evaluation in another memoran-
dum that Belisle would take over Otepka's
duties as chief of the division. After handing
Otepka the memorandum relieving him of
his duties, Reilly and Belisle accompanied
Otepka back to Otepka's office. When they ar-
rived at Otepka's office five security officers at
once followed, obviously by pre-arrangement.
These officers, all members of Rosetti's staff,
were Rosetti himself, Robert McCarthy, Rus-
sell Waller, Joseph McNulty and Frank
Macak.
Reilly asked for the combination to all of
Otepka's safes and when they were produced
the five security officers proceeded to change
all the combinations of the safes and file
cabinets and to close and lock them.
This operation, which took place in view of
Otepka's subordinates, was supervised by
Reilly and Belisle. While it was going on
Otepka sat at his desk. For a while Reilly
stood guard over Otepka, then he motioned
to Rosetti to take his place and Rosetti did
so. Finally Otepka told Rosetti that if he had
no objection Otepka was going to lunch. Ro-
setti said he had no objection and Otepka
went.
FILES RESTRICTED
Returning from lunch Otepka found his
secretary, Mrs. Powers, in tears. She informed
Otepka that Reilly had called her in and
handed her a memorandum notifying her
that she was being transferred to the Wash-
ington Field Office where she would be tran-
scribing from dicta-phone 'cylinders. This was
aa, low-level clerical job far beneath her
capabilities.
Otepka also learned that Norpel and
Hughes, two of his associates, had been de-
tailed by Reilly from the Division of Evalua-
tions to the Investigations Division located
in another building. Reilly informed them
that they would be assigned to investigative
duties.
After learning of the re-assignment of Mrs.
Powers, Norpel and Hughes, Otepka went to
Reilly's office and asked for an explanation.
He found Belisle with Reilly. Reilly at first
refused to give any explanation but finally
said something to the effect that when he
first came on board he had emphasized to
Otepka "the need of institutional loyalty."
Otepka replied that he recalled no such
lecture, but he wanted Reilly to know that
lie never had and never would subordinate
loyalty to his principles and to his country to
loyalty to any institution.
Otepka then asked whether he were to be
permitted access to classified information.
Reilly said the nature of Otepka's job did not
require such access. Otepka asked if Reilly
was terminating his security clearance?
which would have required a hearing?and
Reilly said no, repeating the word "no" sev-
eral times.
Otepka said there were materials in his
office that would be relevant to his work on
the handbook. Reilly replied that Belisle
would accompany Otepka to his office and
assist him in identifying the material that
he could use. Belisle did accompany Otepka,
to his office and spent the rest of the day in
going over Otepka's material and deciding
what Otepka could keep.
On the following day Belisle announced
that Reilly was leaving on a vacation, that
he, Belisle, would be acting director of the
Office of Security and that he was designating
another man, Raymond Laugel, to sit with
Otepka during the screening of Otepka's ma-
terial. Mrs. Powers, Otepka's secretary, also
assisted in this work, until Belisle came in
and told her to "pick up your things and
get out."
Otepka's safes contained many unique and
Valuable records and files containing_ person-
nel, security data and information. These rec-
ords had been collected and preeerved by
Otepka over the years. Many of them related
to persons currently occupying key posts in
the Department of State.
Otepka pointed out to Belisle that these
records were particularly useful to evaluators
in assuring that all relevant information was
included in reports, investigations and re-
search data on applicants and employes. Be-
lisle responded that the records were duplica-
tions and unnecessary material that need not
be kept around cluttering file cabinets; that
if an evaluator needed something he could go
to a central security file and rely only on
that.
Files and records of Norpel and Hughes
were also impounded by Reilly on June 27.
The combinations of their safes were also
changed and the safes were locked. Norpel,
however, was permitted to return and retrieve
his cigarettes from his safe.
Hughes and Norpel were assigned to routine
investigations of low-level clerical applicants.
Hughes had been one of Otepka's top evalua-
tors, having been of great assistance in ob-
taining material on the Wieland case. Norpel
who had served in the FBI for 13 years, in-
eluding duty as an inspector, was also a top
evaluator. Mrs. Powers, who had been
Otepka's secretary for 10 years and was an
expert stenotypist, was put to work transcrib-
ing from distaphone cylinders.
Other members of Otepka's special staff,
Hite, Gardner and Loughton, remained in the
Division of Evaluations for the time being,
but were transferred to the Bureau of Inter-
American Affairs as administrative officers
In March 1964. Loughton was informed by
Belisle that there was no future for him in
the Office of Security and he therefore ac-
cepted an assignment as a consular officer in
Mexico.
Gardner accepted a similar assignment
after finding that there was nothing for him
to do in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.
Hite likewise found no work for him in. the
Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, and he
"just sat around reading newspapers and
waiting for the day to pass."
Reilly testified in this hearing that Hughes
and Norpel were transferred because "they
were Close companions of Mr. Otepka" and he
wanted to get them out of the Division of
Evaluations. He testified also that he knew
that Norpel, Hughes, Hite, Loughton and
Gardner were all friendly to Otepka or close
to him.
On June 27, 1963, instructions were issued
that no files from the file room were to be
charged to Otepka, Norpel, Hughes or Mrs.
Powers. On July 2, 1963, Traband issued in-
structions that Otepka was not to obtain any
file or material from the Evaluations Divi-
sion. On July 23, 1963, Belisle orally in-
structed Otepka that he was not to enter
the offices of the Division of Evaluations, and
that if members of that division wanted 1,o
talk to Otepka they could come to the office
to which he had been transferred. Later in
the day Belisle issued a memorandum to
this effect. The memorandum read:
"This will confirm my instructions given
to you on July 23, 1963, that you are not
to have access to the space occupied by the
Division of Evaluations. In the event that you
require any information for the performance
of your detail, you may discuss it with my-
self or Mr. Reilly and we, after determining
the need, will make the necessary arrange-
ments."
On July 22, 1963, the day before this order
was issued, Belisle instructed the employes
of the Division of Evaluations, Special Re-
view Branch, that no information relating to
any case being handled in that division
should be given to Otepka and no cases
should be discussed with him.
A 10 BY 14 OFFICE
Otepka was assigned to a small room some
distance from his former office. The room
was located on a blind corridor in the Office
Of Security area, directly across the hall from
the electronics laboratory containing all of
the department's equipment for electronic
intelligence and surveillance operations.
The office had one telephone, which was
an extension from the telephone located in
an adjoining office where the call bell was
also located. When Otepka had an incoming
call it was necessary for a young lady in the
adjoining office to come in and tell him, and
he then would take the call on his extension.
The office, which was approximately 10 by
14 feet, contained two desks, bookcases and
file cabinets Mail reached Otepka through
the person next door. None of the usual de-
partmental circulars and regulations, and
no classified material whatever, were sent to
Otepka. Personal mail addressed to him, in-
cluding some registered mail, was sometimes
opened before it reached him.
For about a year after June 27, 1963,
Otepka had no secretary. One June 27, 1963,
Reilly had offered the services of his secre-
tary, Mrs. Catueci, the lady who had-there-
tofore cursed Otepka and torn her hair in
his presence, but Otepka, not unnaturally,
declined to avail himself of her services. In
August 1963 Reilly suggested that Otepka
might use the services of a temporary sum-
mer employe, but Otepka felt that such an
employe was not the kind of person he cared
to use. The services of Elmer Dewey Hill's
secretary were then tendered to Otepka but
were also declined.
Finally Otepka was given a dictaphone but
without a transcriber, so that his dictation
had to be transcribed elsewhere. A tran-
scriber was later supplied to him, but after
a short while it was taken away.
Otepka's exile to his little room under
these conditions has continued to the pres-
ent day. Protests by him against his working
conditions have been unavailing.
On July 29, 1963, Otepka learned that
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion were interviewing his former associates,
Loughton, Norpel, Hite, Hughes, Burkhardt
and Gardner. Otepka was informed by these
former associates that the FBI agents had
questioned them regarding their knowledge
as to whether Otepka had furnished classi-
fied data to an unauthorized person, namely,
J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel for the Senate
Internal Security subcommittee. The former
associates denied that they had any such
knowledge.
They were also asked if they had seen tran-
scripts a Reilly's testimony before the In-
ternal Security Subcommittee and they de-
nied having seen such transcripts, or that
they had any knowledge of Otepka's having
seen the transcripts.
Otepka's former secretary, Mrs. Powers, was
also interviewed by the FBI, and she in-
formed Otepka that the agents questioned
her about a portion of an FBI report on
Harlan Cleveland and a memorandum pre-
pared by Otepka with respect to Charles
Lyons, several memoranda concerning the
appointment of certain persons to the de-
partment's Advisory Committee on Inter-
national Organizations, and a note addressed
to Otepka by Mrs. Powers setting out infor-
mation provided to her by Mrs. Schmelzer
to the effect that Mrs. Schrnelzer suspected
that Otepka's telephones were tapped. Mrs.
Powers told the agents that all of these
papers had either been prepared by Otepka
or were in the safe.
On Aug. 12, 1963, Otepka was recalled as
a witness by the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee, his appearance having been
requested by the subcommittee through the
office of the assistant secretary of Congres-
sional Relations.
On this occasion Otepka produced his
memorandum with attached exhibits, which
he had prepared for submission to the com-
mittee, and the memorandum with the ex-
hibits was received in evidence and made a
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA7RDP711300364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
87022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
part of the official record off the Internal
Security subcommittee.
The transcript of Otepka's testimony on
this occasion, together with the text of his
memorandum and attached exhibits, is
printed in Part 20 of the transcript of the
subcommittee's hearings, page 1639-1758, and
has been received in evidence as Appellant's
Exhibit A in this hearing. The transcript re-
fleets that Otepka testified in part:
"Mr. Sourwine: Mr. Otepka, are you aware
that Mr, John Reilly, in his testimony before
this committee, controverted many state-
ments previously made by you when you
testified?
"Mr. Otepka: Yes; I was given to under-
stand that it did.
"Mr. Sourwine: Did you have an opportu-
nity to examine .Mr, Reilly's testimony, the
transcript Of his testimony?
"Mr. Otepka: Yes, sir.
"Mr. Sourwine: Did I furnish you with a
copy oe this testimony and ask you to pre-
pare a memorandum of reply covering point
by point all of those instances in which you
felt Mr. Reilly's testimony was inaccurate
or untrue?
"Mr. Otepka: Yes, sir.
"Mr. Sourwine: Did you prepare such a
memorandum?
"Mr. Otepka: I did, sir.
"Mr. Sourwine: You prepared it yourself?
"Mr. Otepka: Yes, sir; I did.
"Mr. Sourwine: Is this it?
"Mr. Otepka. That is the memorandum I
prepared.
"Mr. Sourwine: That memorandum is ac-
companied by certain exhibits Nos. 1 through
13?
"Mr. Otepka: Yes, sir; which were intended
to be used by me.
"Mr. Sourwing: The exhibits were fur-
nished by you in connection with the memo-
randum for the records of this committee?
"Mr. Otepka: The exhibits were intended
to be used to refresh my recollection in con-
nection with my forthcoming testimony be-
fore this committee of which I have previ-
ously been apprised."
On Aug. 14, 1963, Otepka was called to the
field office of the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation to be interviewed by two agents. The
interview lasted through the afternoon of
August 14, all day on August 15, and
throughout the morning of August 16. Otepka
was advised at the outset that he was being
investigated to determine Whether he had
been guilty of violations of the Espionage
Act, a criminal statute.
Among other things, he was asked whether
he had turned over to Mr. Sourwine certain
documents which had been in his safe, in-
cluding memoranda or reports on Seymour
Janow and Harlan Cleveland. He denied hav-
ing turned these papers over. to Sourwine.
At the conclusion of the interview he signed
the statement which is attached to the
charges as Exhibit A. Otepka freely answered
all the questions the agents asked him, did
not conceal or attempt to conceal anything,
and told the truth, because he felt he had
nothing to conceal. His written statement,
Exhibit A, attached to the charges, was the
truth. He admitted turning over documents
to Mr. Sourwine, including those referred to
in the charges.
Reilly had discussed Otepka with Mr. Alan
Belmont of the FBI at some time prior to
June 27, 1963, while the surveillance of
Otepka's burn bag was going on. According
to Reilly he went to the FBI at that time
because a surnniary sheet or a reproduction
of a summary sheet from an FBI report re-
lating to Harlan cieveland had been found
in Otepka's burn bag, and it appeased to
Reilly "from this reproduction of an FBI re-
port, or indication of it, that there might
have been a mishandling of it, and I wanted
then to know, and I felt it should be looked
into." According tho Reilly, at that time, "Mr.
Belmont merely, thanked me for the infor-
mation."
In the latter part of July 1E/63 Reilly con-
ferred again with the FBI; they wanted to
know what he knew about Otepka and who
might be interviewed in their investigation.
On Aug. 14 and 15, 1963, pursuant to in-
structions from William J. Crockett, deputy
ender secretary of state for administration,
Reilly issued written instructions to all per-
sonnel of the Office of Security that they were
not to appear before the Senate Internal Se-
curity subcommittee, or have any contacts
with or interviews by members of the sub-
committee staff, without clearing in advance
with Crockett personally.
While he was being interviewed at the
offices of the FBI on the morning of Friday,
August 16, Otepka received word through one
of the FBI agents that his presence before
the Internal Security subcommittee was re-
quested, and he did appear and testify that
afternoon. As he had spent the afternoon
of August 14 and the entire day of August
15 in the FBI offices, he had not received the
Crockett-Reilly orders of August 14 and 15
and did not receive them until the following
workday, Monday, Aug. 19, 1963.
On July 29, 1963, in the course of his testi-
mony before the subcommittee, Belisle was
asked whether he had any information con-
cerning the interception of conversations in
Otepka's office. He replied that he did not.
On Aug. 6, 1963, Reilly appeared before the
committee and was asked whether he had
ever engaged in or ordered the bugging or
tapping or otherwise compromising tele-
phones or private conversations in Otepka's
office. He answered in the negative.
The charges against Otepea were served
upon him Sept. 23, 1963.
On September 30 Stanley Holden informed
Otepka that his present office (Room 38A051
was under "technical surveillance," meaning
that the teleehone was adjusted to intercept
conversations in the room while the receiver
was both on and off the cradle. Holden said
the telephone operations were directed by
Elmer Hill, who had "bugged" the telephones
of other employes, including the phone of
Holden himself. This information was con-
ined to Otepka on October 2 in a conversa-
tion with George Pasquale.
On Oct. 4, 1963, Sen. Thomas Dodd, vice
chairman of the Senate Internal Security
subcommittee, delivered to Secretary Rusk
a letter in which he stated that the subcom-
mittee had knowledge of the tapping of
Otepka's telephone, how it was done, and
who did it.
Reilly suspected that Holden had given in-
formation to the Internal Security subcom-
mittee about the tapping oe Otepka's tele-
phone. Accordingly, he sent Joseph Rosetti
and Robert McCarthy to see Holden at Hold-
en's house.
While there McCarthy questioned Holden
about his knowledge of leaks of information
to the subcommittee concerning the tapping
of Otepka's telephone. In the course of the
conversation McCarthy became loud and
abusive and shouted at Holden, saying in ef-
fect that he was going to get Holden if
Holden had been responsible for the leak and
would not so inform him.
He asked Holden if he was acquainted with
George Pasquale and if he had given Pasquale
any information about the tapping of Otep-
ka's telephone. He reminded Holden of his
"loyalty, particularly to Joseph Rosette" This
incident occurred in October 1963.
On Nov. 5, 1963, Sen. Dodd stated on the
floor of the Senate that the committee had
evidence that Otepka's phone had been
tapped. He mentioned the possibility of
prosecutions for perjury of witnesses Who
had denied that the tapping occurred. The
next day, Nov. 6, 1963, Reilly and Belisle ad-
dressed letters to the subcommittee, express-
June 24, 1969
lug a desire to "amplify" their previous testi-
mony about bugging and wiretapping.
On Nov. 14, 1963, Belisle appeared before
the committee and admitted that contrary
to his previous denial he did in fact have
specific information about the compromising
of Otepka's telephone. On Nov. 15, 1963,
Reilly appeared and admitted that his pre-
vious denials, with respect to the compromis-
ing of Otepka's telephone, had been untrue.
Shortly after his November appearance be-
fore the subcommittee Reilly resigned from
the State Department by request. He left the
payroll in February 1954. On Sept. 1, 1964,
after a period of private practice, he became
a trial attorney with the Federal Communi-
cations Commission, in which capacity he is
still employed. Belisle is still employed by the
Department of State.
CONCLUSION
The facts that have been recited are clearly
established by the evidence. They speak for
themselves so eloquently that extended ar-
gument and discussion are unnecessary.
Beginning in 1960 there was a schism be-
tween Otepka on the one hand and his su-
periors in the Department of State on the
other, caused by Otepka's insistence upon
the observance of sound and proper security
practices, and his refusal to approve the em-
ployment or retention of persons of dubious
character and background.
This schism was not a mere disagreement
about matters concerning which reasonable
men might properly differ. The cases that
have been described establish a pattern of
deliberate attempts on the part of Otepka's
superiors to disregard or violate the security
regulations and sound and proper security
practices.
The evidence demonstrates that Otepka
resolutely and consistently opposed these at-
tempts and that his opposition earned him
the animosity of his superiors. No other rea-
sonable conclusion from the facts is possible.
It is not reasonable to conclude, as may
be suggested, that Otepka fell into disfavor
because he was inflexible and opinionated.
His magnificent record and reputation, built
up and acquired over the years prior to 1960.
belie any such suggestion. Surely a man of
his demonstrated ability, integrity and ac-
complishment did not become overnight an
incompetent sorehead, constitutionally un-
able to work in harmony with his superiors.
and consistently wrong.
Nor is it reasonable to conclude that the
animosity of Otepka's superiors was produced
only by the fact that he furnished informa-
tion to the Senate Internal Security subcom-
mittee. His cooperation with the subcommit-
tee was a mere excuse, seized upon in an at-
tempt to justify his removal from office.
In this connection it will be remembered
that Reilly admitted in this hearing that so
far as he knew Otepka had done nothing
wrong when on March 13, 1963, he, Reilly.
instituted his extraordinary surveillance of
Otepka.
It is plain that Otepka was an impediment
to those in the Department of State who were
not in sympathy with the security system
and who were determetiecl to disregard or
circumvent the security regulations. In fur-
therance of this purpose they resolved to
purge Otepka by fair means or foul. They
finally resorted to the tactics of the secret
ponce and the device of synthetic charges.
PRIVATE VENDETTA?
It may be suggested that the measures
taken against Otepka by Reilly and Belisle
were the result of a private vendetta under-
taken by them without she knowledge or ap-
proval of their superiors. The suggestion does
not withstand analysis.
It is obvious that the conflict was not be-
tween Otepka on the one hand, and Reilly
and Belisle on the other, but between Otepka
and those in high places whose actions
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
'June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Otepka was properly attempting to restrain.
Reilly and Belisle were only the instruments
of management policy. -
It is n.ot reasonable to believe that their
treatment of Otepka did not have the ap-
proval and. F3uPport of their supdriors. By
the same token, it is not reasonable to con-
tend that Otepka should have appealed from
Reilly and Belisle to those same superiors.
No claim tias ever been made that Otepka
has at any time failed to tell the truth, either
In his appearances before the Senate Internal
Security subcommittee or in his statement
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or in
his testimony at this hearing.
Moreover, it cannot be denied that in giv-
ing to the Senate Internal Security subcom-
mittee the documents involved in the charges
against him he was actuated by the highest
motives. Specifically, he was correcting
Reilly's false testimony; more generally, he
was fulfilling his duty to assist the commit-
tee in its investigation by telling the truth.
He was not a volunteer witness but one who
had been regularly and properly summoned
by the committee.
In view of the circumstances it is difficult
to understand the contention that he con-
ducted himself "in a manner unbecoming
an officer of the Department of State," that
his actions constituted "a breach of the
standard of conduct expected of an officer of
the Department of State," and that his dis-
missal is therefore justified. Assuming that
his production of documents was a technical
violation of some directive or regulation?
which we do not concede?it is plain that
many more serious derelictions on the part
Of officers of the Department of State have
not resulted in the dismissal, but rather have
been condoned.
The charges against Otepka are a make-
weight, contrived in" an attempt to destroy
an honorable man who has done no more
than his duty. The charges should be dis-
missed and Otepka should be commended for
his actions and restored to duty.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER ROBE,
Attorney for Otto P. Oteplat.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FANNIN. I yield.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
have been interested in this case ever
since it first began. I felt all along that
a grave injustice had been done Mr.
Otepka. I think that we have the oppor-
tunity here today to change those injus-
tices and bring back some justice.
I have not been amused, because it is
difficult to be amused' by people who
write in a vicious way by trying to insin-
uate, as some of our large eastern news-
papers have been doing, that something
is wrong with the man.
We keep hearing references in the de-
bate here today to the days of McCarthy,
as if we are to assume that McCarthy-
ism implies guilt by association and so
forth.
I can recall the terrible furor the New
York Times put up about McCarthyism.
Yet, they are practicing it in this case.
I remember how upset the Washing-
ton Post became because Joe McCarthy
and McCarthyism became evil terms.
Yet, today we see the same thing going
on.
This man has not been tried iv the
Senate. He has not been tried by any
proper court of justice. He has been tried
In the pages of our newspapers by some
honest and some dishonest columnists,
some of whom have a very congstent
record of never being accurate.
Yet, I am very pleased to read in the
report of the nomination of Otto Otepka
a few things from other sources. The
New York Daily News on March 21, 1969,
in an editorial entitled "Justice For
Otepka," said:
Mr. Otepka, as a State Department secu-
rity officer, was a victim of a departmental
vendetta of the most contemptible kind?
because he gave information to the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee headed by
Senator James 0. Eastland (Democrat-Mis-
sissippi). He was relegated to a Meaningless
State job.
The President now seeks to grant Otepka
a measure of belated justice. As was to be
expected, professional "liberals" are trying
to wreck this Presidential effort?with the
other New York morning newspaper leading
the snapping, snarling pack_
The Senate can best rebuke these gentry
by confirming the Otepka nomination forth-
with. And Congress could do nothing better,
we believe, than to pass a new subversive ac-
tivities law reversing the Earl Warren Su-
preme Court decisions which have clipped
so many of the SACB's original claws.
Mr. President, the April 8, 1969, issue
of the Stars and Stripes, under the by-
line of Vera Glaser, carried this asser-
tion:
Otepka's two decades of experiences in the
field would make him, if confirmed, the only
Board member with the credentials to man-
age a wide-ranging evaluation operation.
Mr. Clark Mollenhoff, a Pulitzer Prize-
winning reporter known for objectivity
and honesty had this to say in part
among other comments of his appearing
in the report:
Despite the care with which Otepka re-
lated his case, I had difficulty in believing
it was as one-sided as it appeared. I made
every effort I could to determine if the facts
were glossed over or omitted by Otepka or
'the Senate committee.
? But there was no hint froth anyone that
Otepka was involved in either subversion or
crime * * * No one could or would cite a
case of irresponsibility or lack of balance in
any Otepka evaluation * * *.
Mr. President, I think it is good that
In the traditional American way this is
being finally brought out to the Amen-
den public.
I know that my mail reflects over-
whelming support for Mr. Otepka and
represents also the wish to have an op-
portunity to say thanks to a man who
had the courage to do what was much
needed at the present time; namely,
supply the papers that proved him to be
Innocent and at the same time brought
out the facts that many people had felt
to be true, that there was something in
the State Department not just quite right
in the matter of personnel there.
I am proud to join With my colleagues
In the Senate in urging a favorable vote
on Mr. Otepka's nomination after we
have roundly and soundly defeated the
motion of the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I join
with my colleagues in enthusiastically
endorsing the nomination of Otto
Otepka. I, too, have had some experience
in these matters. I have gone to the
trouble of doing a little research to find
out exactly what happened. Much of it
has already been covered. I hope my col-
leagues will bear with me for a few mo-
ments if I repeat to some extent what
S 7023
has already been said. There is great
conviction.
Mr. President, any fairminded person
who will take the trouble to do the re-
search necessary to gain an understand-
ing of the facts in the Otepka case can
hardly fail to come speedily to the con-
clusion that Mr. Otepka could not in
good conscience have done anything but
what he did.
All of the facts in the case are avail-
able to anyone who will take the time to
read. I propose to discuss just one as-
pect of the case, and for the benefit of
anyone who wants to go more deeply into
the matter, let me say the documenta-
tion for my statements here today will
be found in part 7 and 20 of the hearings
of the Internal Security Subcommittee
on State Department Security, 1963-65,
and in part IV of the report of the same
Subcommittee on State Department Se-
curity, and in the legal brief filed by Mr.
Otepka's counsel, which was printed in
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of Decem-
ber 14, 1967, beginning at page H17048.
What I want to make clear here today
is the background of the particular in-
formation furnished by Mr. Otepka to
the Internal Security Subcommittee,
which was the basis for the only three
charges against Mr. Otepka, out of 13
charges originally made, which the State
Department did not withdraw.
On July 30, 1962, the New York Times
printed a long letter to the editor dated
6 days earlier and signed by a Leonard
Boudin. Mr. Boudin is a lawyer, of suf-
ficient notoriety, I believe, to be known
to the Times management. He was a
lawyer with scores of clients. He was
well known as a lawyer who over the
years had achieved the reputation of de-
fending many people who had been in-
volved or who had been apparently
friendly toward the Communist cause.
Among those he has represented were
secret American Communists who had
colonized the United Nations, during
1945 and 1946, and who invoked the
fifth amendment before the Senate In-
ternal Security Subcommittee. Mr.
Boudin also represented the Communist
Party U.S.A. in proceedings before the
Subversive Control Board.
In his letter to the Times, Mr. Boudin
complained that President Eisenhower's
security screening procedures for em-
ployees of international organizations
such as the U.N. were too harsh, and
should be relaxed. Mr. Boudin explained
he was writing to the Times because, he
said:
The public is_ not aware that the careers
of many devoted and brilliant international
civil servants were destroyed in the hysteria
of the 1950's.
He also complained that information in
congressional files was used against these
persons.
In due course, a clipping of Mr. Bou-
din's letter to the Times was routed to
Mr. Otepka's superior, John F. Reilly,
who passed it on to Mr. Otepka on Au-
gust 3, 1962, without comment. Mr. Otep-
ka, noting that the letter praised one man
who had just resigned as executive assist-
ant to the Secretary General of the U.N.,
retained it for appropriate evaluation.
The letter coincided with data received
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7024 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
by Mr. Otepka a few days earlier, advis-
ing him that the Assistant Secretary of
State for International Organization
Affairs had proposed, after a discussion
with Under Secretary of State George
Ball, the formation of a committee with-
in the State Department to be known as
the Advisory Committee on International
Organization Staffing. This committee
was to prepare procedures for "strength-
ening" U.S. Influence in the stating poli-
cies of International organizations.
At the outset the Under Secretary per-
sonally selected eight persons to serve on
the committee. Later he added two more
as replacements.
The Under Secretary requested that all
the persons selected be brought into the
DepartMent of State under a waiver of
security investigation.
Here we have the ludicrous situation
of those who were to write the rules for
security checks being brought into the
Department without being submitted to
any security checks themselves.
Due to extensive research undertaken
by Mr. Otepka during the Eisenhower
administration, while on an assignment
dealing with persons involved in loose
security practices, Otepka had studied
and surveyed previously hidden material
which was available, and he found that
the security files of three of the nominees
contained unresolved derogatory infor-
mation of long standing which, under
the regulations of the State Department,
needed to be fully resolved by a current
FBI investigation and State Department
evaluation, before the appointment of
the individuals to positions in the Depart-
ment.
Mr. Otepka's superiors, who were seek-
ing primarily to accommodate the Un-
der Secretary of State, disagreed with
Mr. Otepka's desire for a preappointment
investigation. They prevailed. The result
was that these three members of the
Cleveland Committee, about whom Mr.
Otepka was principally concerned, en-
tered on duty without the required in-
vestigation. Thereafter, under the pro-
tective influence of the Under Secretary
of State and his helpers in the Depart-
ment's Office of Security, the committee
set about its task, allegedly to improve
U.S. security precedures to apply to
Americans employed by international
organizations.
In February 1963, Mr. Otepka obtained
a draft report embodying the findings
and recommendations of the committee.
The report contained the endorsements
of the three men in question, among
others. In making his analysis of this
report, Mr. Otepka opposed the commit-
tee's recommendation. The recommen-
dation was similar to the recommenda-
tion made earlier by Mr. Boudin, in his
letter to the New York Times, that the
requirement for a full background in-
vestigation before appointment to a U.N.
agency be eliminated. Mr. Otepka fur-
nished his comments to, Mr. Reilly, who
apparently ignored thein and did not
transmit them to the Under Secretary
involved.
Because the security procedures which
the 'Under Secretary% group sought to
strike from a Presidential order had
been mutually developed by the execu-
tive branch and the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee, and since Mr.
Otepka was already under a summons to
testify regarding all security practices,
he informed the subcommittee of the
proposed changes and why he opposed
them: In his judgment, the elimination
of the security checks in advance of ap-
pointments to U.N. agencies would
weaken rather than strengthen security
operations.
I must say that I heartily agree, be-
cause, having some knowledge of the
activities of those days, I believe that
many, many mistakes were made, for
which we are still paying dearly.
After Otepka testified, he was called
as a witness by his superior, Mr. Reilly.
There followed a series of appearances
by the two men, which developed a sub-
stantial number of serious contradic-
tions, which were so well reported by the
distinguished Senator from Connecti-
cut (Mr. DODD) . For instance, Mr. Otepka
testified that he had? furnished Mr.
Reilly with memoranda about the three
men in question. Mr. Reilly swore
Otepka had told him about only one of
the proposed appointees. When Otepka's
attention was called to this conflict of
testimony, and he was instructed to pro-
duce what evidence he could to show that
his version was correct, he produced
relevant documents which showed exact-
ly that.
The documents in queetion included
substantive information about the three
nominees in question. When the sub-
committee notified the State Depart-
ment of its intention to publish the
names, Under Secretary , of State Ball
and Deputy Under Secretary for Ad-
ministration William J. Crockett, waged
a protracted contest witli the subcom-
mittee in an effort to suppress the pub-
lication. If successful, the State Depart-
ment would have blotted out, most ef-
fectively, the main points in Mr. Otepka's
case.
After 11th-hour arguments, the sub-
committee ordered the punlication of the
documents regarding the, three names,
the objections of the State Department
to the contrary notwithstanding. The
Department had made it obvious that
Mr. Otepka had stepped on some tender
toes. Prominent persons, aided by left-
wing elements, had been in a big hurry
to go to work on the emasculation of
Government security procedures.
The subcommittee's release of the
documents was reported in the New
York Times of October 2, 1966. The Times
story quoted Mr. Crockett as saying to
the subcommittee that the publication of
the documents "could cause undue em-
barrassment and distress to the persons
involved." Times Reporter John D. Mor-
ris added to this his interview with Mr.
Crockett, who told hini that "the publi-
cation of the Otepka memorandum was a
great disservice to the Men involved."
It is important to remember, Mr.
President, that it was the committee,
not Mr. Otepka which ordered this mate-
rial published. Mr. Otepka furnished
the information to the committee not for
the purpose of embarrassing anyone, but
for the purpose of supporting his pre-
vious testimony that he had furnished
June 24, .1969
his superior, Mr. Reilly, with a memoran-
dum about these individuals.
This is the story of the beginning of
one of the most unfortunate experiences
to condemn any man. I believe, who ever
worked in the Government. I believe that
Mr. Otepka did what he had to do, that
he acted properly, and that he acted in
line with his training, his duty, his tra-
dition, and his sense of patriotism. That
he should have been persecuted because
of this, for a period of more than 5 years.
would be beyond belief if it had not hap-
pened.
Mr. President, I submit that if we had
had more Men like Otto Otepka and
stronger security checks in our national
background during the last few years,
our country would have far fewer prob-
lems than we have to face today, both at
home and in our international relations.
Therefore. I have spoken most enthu-
siastically in behalf of Otepka, and I en-
thusiastically endorse his nomination. I
hope that all Senators will join in this
endorsement.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
case of Otto Otepka must, in final analy-
sis, stand in the history of this Nation
along with other contests and efforts to
preserve the security of our great coun-
try.
This is a case of a man who stood up
for his country, who stood up for his
principles, who asked the question, "Is
it right?" and not whether it would meet
with the favor of his superiors.
Mr. President, because this man stood
for what he believed in, he was ostracized
in spite of the fact that what he did was
legal and in accordance with the public
policy of this Nation as enunciated by
the Congress and public law of the Fed-
eral Government. The law to which I
refer is contained _in the United States
Code, title 5, section 652(D) and states:
The right of persons employed in the civil
service of the United states, either individ-
ually or collectively, to petition Congress, or
any member thereof, or to furnish informa-
tion to either House of Congress or to any
committee or member therof, shall not be
denied or interfered with.
Mr. Otepka availed himself of this law,
this statement of public policy, when he
confidentially offered to the Subcomit-
tee on Internal Security certain docu-
ments which illustrated the deterioration
of security practices which were designed
to protect the security of this Nation.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Oteeka
furnished no substantive material from
personnel files that was not already a
matter of record in public or in the
subcommittee, and his sole purpose was
to demonstrate that his description of
these documents was accurate, thereby
showing that his superiors had ap-
parently lied under oath.
Mr. President, the facts of this case are
not in dispute and it is now public record
that when Mr. Otepka's action became
known the State Department began an
extraordinary campaign of harassment
and intimidation. His telephone was
tapped, his safe was sealed, and he was
demoted to a meaningless job; and
finally, in December of 1967, the then
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, ruled
that Mr. Otepka was guilty of conduct
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 7025
Tune 24, 1969
unbecoming a State Department officer
and issued orders prohibiting him from
ever having any access to security files
again. This was a summary judgment
designed to punish a man who was con-
cerned about the security of his Nation.
Now, Mr. Otepka has been vindicated.
President Nixon's action in appointing
Mr, Otepka to the Subversive Activities
Control Board speaks for itself. In this
new position, Mr. Otepka will deal with
the security of this Nation and certainly
no man has more clearly proven his
ability to act in this field and his great
dedication to the purpose of protecting
his country.
The Committee on the Judiciary of
the Senate has favorably reported the
nomination of Otto Otepka and I concur
with their finding and the majority re-
port of the committee.
MT. President, I support the confirma-
tion of Mr. Otepka as a member of the
Subversive Activities Control Board.
Mr. President, much has been written
about the Otepka case. However, an ex-
cellent summary of the principal aspects
of the case recently appeared in the
weekly newspaper, Twin Circle, edited
by the Rev. Daniel Lyons, S.J. For those
who want to refresh their memory about
the case, this article "Otepka's 5-year
Struggle Ends," by Vincent J. Ryan, is
one of the best summaries I have seen,
and I commend it to all my colleagues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that this article, from Twin Circle,
March 30, 1969, be printed in the RECORD
at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Twin Circle, Mar. 30, 19691
tively, to petition Congress or any member ?
thereof or to furnish information to either
House of Congress or to any committee or
member thereof shall not be denied or in-
terfered with."
But in the case of Otto Otepka, civil serv-
ant, loyal American, such a right was
"denied," was "interfered with."
Although fired by Rusk in June 1963, and
although he appealed his ouster immedi-
ately. Otepka had to wait until June 1967
for a departmental hearing. As a result of
the hearing, which was held behind closed
doors only three of thirteen charges against
him were retained. And those dealt with an
alleged violation of a directive that Pres-
ident Truman issued in 1948 forbidding gov-
ernment employees from divulging informa-
tion from personnel security files to mem-
bers of Congress.
Otepka does not deny that he provided
the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
with certain information from the security
files, but he had to do so to show that he, and
not his superiors, had told the truth to the
Subcommittee.
In December 1967 Secretary Rusk upheld
the charges against Otepka, reprimanded him
and demoted him, and then assigned him to
work outside the security field.
Otepka immediately appealed to the Civil
Service Commission. In September 1968 he
lost his appeal when the Commission upheld
the findings of an examiner who ruled that
Rusk was legally justified to demote, repri-
mand and bar Otepka from security work
and that the Truman directive of 1948 takes
precedence over the act of Congress protect-
ing government employees who testify before
Congress.
But let's look at the record:
Otto Otepka began his government career
as a messenger in 1936. By 1942 he had won
a law degree from Catholic University. After
services in the Navy during World War II,
he returned to his position as a personnel
security specialist with the Civil Service
Commission.
In June 1953 Secretary of State, John Fos-
ter Dulles, brought Otepka into the Depart-
ment of State to us his talents to implement
Executive Order 10450 which set security
standards for all federal employees. Under
this directive, if there is any doubt about the
loyalty or integrity of an individual the de-
cision made by the evaluator must be in the
national interest and not in the interest of
the individual.
In 1958 Otepka, who had risen to the rank
of deputy director in the Office of Security,
received from Secretary Dulles the Meritori-
ous Service Award for an "outstanding dis-
play of sound judgment, creative work and
acceptance of unusual responsibilities."
Late in 1960, during the transition period
between the outgoing Eisenhower adminis-
tration and the incoming Kennedy admin-
istration, Otepka conferred with the future
Secretary of State Dean Rusk about security
measures and procedures at State. Specifi-
cally, Rusk wanted to know if Otepka would
give security clearance to one Walt W. Ros-
tow. Otepka replied that he had refused Ros-
tow clearance in 1955 and in 1957 and would
have to deny him clearance again. Neverthe-
less Rostow joined the White House staff as
an assistant on national security to Presi-
dent Kennedy. In 1961 he transferred to the
State Department, where he chaired the Pol-
icy and Planning Committee. In 1966 he
transferred to the White House as special
assistant for national security affairs.
When Otepka refused to clear obvious se-
curity risks, like Rostow, Secretary Rusk be-
gan to sign security waivers, a minimum of
152 of them. (During the Eisenhower ad-
ministration, only five waivers were signed
at State.) Rusk's waivers were even back-
dated to indidate that a thorough security
check had been made on the particular in-
dividual.
?TEMA'S 5-YEAR STRUGGLE ENDS
(By Vincent J. Ryan)
Having tried for over five years to regain
his position as Chief of the Evaluations
Division in the Office of Security in the De-
partment of State, Otto F. Otepka has
decided to accept from President Nixon an
appointment to the Subversive Activities
Control Board (SACB). This body handles
cases from the Department of Justice that
deal with Communist organizations and
Individuals.
Otepka, regarded by a fellow professional
in the security field as "one of the very best
security men in the government, one of the
most experienced, one of the most able," was
fired from his State Department job in 1963
by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who as-
serted that Otepka had behaved in a man-
ner "unbecoming an officer of the Depart-
ment of State."
Otepka's "unbecoming" behavior was that
he told the Senate Internal Security Sub-
committee the truth about the laxity or
lack of thorough security investigations in
the State Department. When told by the
Subcommittee's counsel that he would have
to prove his charges against the Department
in order to avoid a possible perjury indict-
ment. Otepka felt duty bound?both legally
and morally?to cite specific instances and
to name names.
He cited eighteen cases where security
In the State Department was either lax or
,nOn-eXistent. And the individuals he named
as responsible for such laxity were none
Other than his immedate superiors. And
so Rusk fired for conduct "unbecoming an
officer of the Department of State."
According to the U.S. Code, "the right of
persons employed in the Civil Service of the
United States, either individually or collec-
And security matters at State continued
to deteriorate.
For example, Otepka was asked one day by
Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs Harlan Cleveland if he
would approve the hiring of convicted per-
jurer Alger Hiss. (Hiss, a top State Depart-
ment aide during the Roosevelt-Truman era,
was convicted of perjury for denying under
oath that he was a Communist.) Otepka told
Cleveland that no one who has been found
guilty of a felony may work for the govern-
ment.
Because of his penchant for strict security
checks on Department personnel, Otepka
became the official Department trouble-
maker. He found it increasingly difficult to
do any real security evaluating. In a reorgan-
izational shuffle, he was demoted from depu-
ty director of the Office of Security to chief
of the Evaluations Division. His staff was tor-
mented and demoralized, his telephone was
bugged, and his files rifled. Matters came to a
head when he testified before the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee. His testi-
mony and that of his superiors was in direct
contradiction. One of his superiors ques-
tioned his sanity. Finally the FBI was called
in to investigate Otepka for possible viola-
tion of the Espionage Act. The investigation
ended almost before it started. There was no
case against this honest public servant.
During the .1968 Presidential campaign, Mr.
Nixon promised that he would "order a full
and exhaustive review of all the evidence in
this case with a view to seeing that justice
is accorded this man who has served his
country so long and so well."
But earlier this year, in what seemed to
be a setback for Otepka, President Nixon's
Secretary of State William Rogers informed
Otepka that all remedies for redress both
in the Department and with the Civil Service
Commission had been exhausted and that
Otepka's only avenue of action would be the
courts.
But time and money (some $50,000 to
date) were running out. Otepka simply
wanted vindication. He wanted to have the
record show that he had done no wrong,
that the best interest of his country was his
only consideration. And what is more, if
Otepka were to go into court, the public
testimony could prove very embarrassing to a
lot of people still in high places in Washing-
ton. The entire sordid story, this gallant fight
for truth and justice, would become known
around the world.
But more pragmatic minds prevailed. Otep-
ka's attorney Roger Robb assured him that
a Presidential appointment, in this case to
the SACB, was tantamount to complete vin-
dication. Senators Everett Dirksen (R.-I11),
Barry Goldwater (R.-Ariz.), and Strom
Thurmond (R.-S.C.) also advised him to
accept the Presidential appointment. And
he did.
One interesting development is the intro-
duction by Senator James 0. Eastland (D.-
Miss.) of S. 12, a bill which would create a
Security Administration for Executive De-
partments. This agency would conduct all
security checks on government employees
now handled on a departmental basis. The
administrator of the new body would be the
chairman of the SACB, appointed by the
President.
According to Human Events, the respected
Washington weekly, "if S. 12 becomes law,
it is likely that Otto Otepka will be involved
in more security work than he had ever
been in the State Department."
Let us hope so.
Mr. THUR,MOND. Mr. President, I
hope the Senate will promptly approve
Mr. Otepka,
(At this point. Mr. HOLLINGS assumed
the chair.)
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, we
agreed earlier that we would not vote
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7026 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
before 2:30. I think we can vote by that
time because evidently I am the last
speaker in the procession and I shall
take only a few minutes.
First, Mr. President, I would like to
have printed in the RECORD an excerpt
from the report of the committee on the
nomination because it is as good a report
as I have seen in a long time. I include
therein the minority views of the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY)
and the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
TYDINGS). I ask unanimous consent that
the excerpt, together with minority and
individual views, be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the ma-
terial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
ExcErters FROM REPORT ON NOMINATION OP
OTTO F. OTEPKA
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which
was referred the nomination of Otto F.
Otepka, of Maryland, to be a member of the
Subversive Activities Control Board for the
remainder of the term, expiring August 9,
1970, vice Edward C. Sweeney, deceased, hav-
ing considered the same, reports this nomi-
nation favorably to the Senate and recom-
mends that the Senate advise and consent
to the appointment of the nominee.
HISTORY AND PROCEEDINGS ON THE
NOMINATION ,
This nomination Was transmitted to the
Senate by, the President on March 20, 1969,
and has received careful consideration. No
effort has been made to rush action on the
nomination.
An ad hoc subcommittee (consisting of
Senators Eastland, McClellan, and Hruska)
was appointed in due course to consider the
nomination, and notice of an open public
hearing on the nomination was published in
the Congressional Record of April 3, 1969.
The hearing was held on April 15, 1969. No
one appeared in opposition to the nomina-
tion.
The subcommittee unanimously reported
the nomination favorably to the full com-
mittee.
Thereafter Mr. Otepka, who had not been
questioned at length on the occasion of his
appearance before the subcommittee named
to consider his nomination, was called upon
to answer a detailed questionnaire with re-
spect to his personal finances and his asso-
ciations, which was made a part of the
printed record under date of May 9.
On May 13, 1969, Mr. Otepka VMS called be-
fore an executive session of the Committee on
the Judiciary and Senators were given an op-
portunity to question him further before the
committee voted on the nomination.
With 13 Senators Present, the vote was 10
in favor of confirmation and three opposed.
It was agreed that absent Senators might re-
cord their votes if they wished, since the
result could not be changed thereby. The
final vote was 12 to 3 in favor of the nominee.
The minority asked that a written report
be prepared, with the majority to be given 2
weeks (including 1 week after the preparation
of the majority report) in which to file a
minority report. This was agreed to without
objection.
BACKGROTIND AND EXPERIENCE OP THE NOMINEE
At the age of 54 (his birthday was May 6)
Otto Otepka is a fine example of the best type
of career civil servant, one who has risen in
government through his own efforts and
ability.
Mr. Otepka started working for the U.S.
Government in 1936, as a measenger. For 6
years he occupied minor positions in the
Farm Credit Administration and the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. Per 3 of those 8 years he
went to law school at night.
In 1942, the Civil Service Commission ap-
pointed him an investigator and security offi-
cer, and he served in that capacity until 1943,
when he entered the U.S. Navy as an appren-
tice seaman.
In 1946 he was honorably discharged from
the Navy with the grade of petty officer, first
class. He returned to his job with the Civil
Service Commission, where he continued to
serve as an investigator and security officer
until 1953, when he was appointed as a secu-
rity officer in the Department of State.
In August 1953 he became Chief of the
Evaluations Division of the State Depart-
ment's Office of Security.
In September 1955, the then Director of the
Office of Security stated in ,,43, memorandum
that Mr. Herbert Hoover, Jr., had "gone out
of his way to express appreciation for Mr.
Otepka's work," stressing particularly "form,
substance, and objectivity of presentation."
In April 1957, Otto Otepka was appointed
Deputy Director of the Office Of Security, and
became working head of the State Depart-
ment's personnel security organization.
That same year Mr. Loy W. Henderson.
Deputy Under Secretary of State for Admin-
istration, wrote a memorandum declaring Mr.
Otepka deserving of "special commendation"
for his handling of many "delicate" cases of
security clearances for Presidential appoint-
ments.
At the State Department's. Honor Awards
ceremony in April 1958, Mr. Otepka received
a meritorious service award.
In October 1960, Mr. Otepka's superior ad-
vised him in writing that he was being placed
on special detail "to establish an organization
and methods and proceduresi to review the
security files of all Foreign Service officers and
of all general schedule employees of the De-
partment above the GS-14 level." The memo
indicated Mr. Otepka was being given this job
because he was "the security officer best qual-
ified in the field of personnel pecurity."
In May 1962, the Head of the Office of Se-,
e,urity wrote a memorandum praising Mr.
Otepka's "ability and his dedication to the
security program," declaring that "over the
years Mr. Otepka has made a very real and
substantial contribution to the Office of Se-
curity and hence to the national security."
In September 1964, the then Under Secre-
tary of State for Administration, Mr. Crock-
ett, described Otto Otepka as "a knowledge-
able, realistic security man."
In December 1967, the Senate Internal Se-
curity Subcommittee reported that Otepka
"had established a nationwide reputation as
a top security officer."
WHAT HAS BEEN CHARGED? WHAT HAS
BEEN PROVED?
In the light of what appears to have been
substantial efforts to develop information
derogatory of Mr. Otepka, or otherwise ad-
verse to the approval of his nomination, it
is important that we understand clearly what
has been charged and what has not been
charged, and what has or has not been proved.
There is no evidence, and not even an
allegation, that Otto Otepka ever performed
an act or made a statement harmful to his
COUTEtTy.
Even before the State Department with-
drew 10 of its 13 counts against Mr. Otepka,
Secretary of State Rusk and Deputy Under
Secretary Crockett each testified, before the
Senate Internal Security subcommittee, that
he did not consider Mr. Ottpka to be a
security risk.
No specific charge has been made, and
there is no evidence that Mr. Otepka ever
committed an unpatriotic act or uttered an
unpatriotic statement.
No specific charge has been made, and
there is no evidence, that Mr. Otepka, ever
discriminated against any person because of
race, color, or religion.
No specific charge has been made, and
there is no evidence, that Mr. Otepka ever
Jane 24, 1969
said or wrote anything that could be de-
scribed as "racist" in tone or purpose.
Yet Mr. Otepka has been called awe-
Semitic with no stronger justification than
allegations that he has been supported by
laiem: characterized as Nazi.
There is no evidence that Otto Otepka. ever
His truthfulness was called into question
in 1963 when two of his superiors gave testi-
mony contradictory to testimony already
given by Mr. Otepka. Confronted with this
conflicting testimony, Mr. Otepka produced
documentary evidence which established
conclusively that his own testimony had
been truthful.
Otepka's superiors, whose testimony
fatepka had refuted in this way, charged him
with "conduct unbecoming a State Depart-
ment officer" in bringing forth the evidence
to prove that he had not lied.
There has been no direct charge that
Otepka lied when he said he had no con-
nection with the John Birch Society or the
liberty Lobby. But those who profess to
disbelieve Mr. Otepka's statement challenge
his veracity by necessary implication.
With regard to American Defense Fund
and Defenders of American Liberties, there
has been no direct charge that either orga-
nization is controlled by or is subservient to
either the John Birch Society or the Liberty
Lobby.
Mr. Otepka has not been directly charged
with having been controlled or improperly
influenced by any Nazi or Fascist or other
totalitarian organization.
But, however far implications of this nature
have fallen short of a direct allegation that
Mr. Otepka's "basis of strength" is, in fact.
"the Liberty Lobby and the John Birch So-
ciety," it seems undeniable that such ques-
tions were intended to be raised.
WHAT IS "GUILT BY ASSOCIATION"
It is not correct to label all inquiries re-
specting a person's contacts and dealings
with other individuals, or with groups or
organizations, as "guilt by association." In
considering an alleged conspiracy, associa-
tion and contact with others, especially when
correlated with concert of action in suport
of mutual objectives, may be among the
most important factors for consideration.
It is, of course, highly improper to impute
to any individual, in the absence of any ex-
pression or action on his own part, opinions
held or actions taken by his friends or as-
sociates. On the other hand, no person
should be discharged completely from re-
sponsibility for deciding whom he wants GS
friends, or for determining the nature and
extent of his associations with other indi-
viduals or with particular groups or orga.-
ni zations.
If all of the support for an individual
comes from a single group, or from a single
stratum of our society, or from indiViCillaiS,
groups, or organizations which can be cate-
gorized as haying joined in service to some
special interest. it may not be improper to
inquire whether the individual or proposal
being supported partakes of or will serve or
has served the same special interest. But it
would be egregiously unfair to impute to 3
nominee or candidate, whose support comes
from various levels of our social strata and
from individuals, groups, and organizations
having widely divergent views and organiza-
tions, a particular view or objective of just
one or two of the supporting forces.
THE PROPER STANDARD
In the security field, the proper criterion
(under Executive Order 10450) is whether
the person whose security is being evalu-
ated maintained "sympathetic association"
with individuals, groups, or organizations
known to be subversive in character. (It is
noteworthy that Mr. Otepka was cleared un-
der this standard, after an FBI investigation.
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
ApproNied For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7027
before his was sent to the
Senate.)
the United States
standard, refer-
ass ton." 1
lliffhTIC" OR "MEAN-
' OCIATION
Yard a shadow of
a 'to Ottlra has had no sympa-
odiatiBriTivith any individual, group,
On?Of a subversive nature; that
fa "meaningful association" with
individual, or group,' or organiza-
, from which it would be proper to draw
inferences that he is or has engaged in a
co pira.by, or that he has aided or abetted
any Such individual, group, or association in
attaining any improper objectives. There is
no evidence of any probative value that Mr.
Otepka shares, or is even 'friendly to, any
subversive or unpatriotic or totalitarian
views or principles or activities of any such
person, group, or organization.
WHO HAS SUPPORTED OTEPKAP
If the question is "Who has supported
Otto Otepka?" there are many possible
answers.
Veterans' organizations have passed for-
mal resolutions supporting Otto Otepka.
(The Americon Legion passed resolutions in
Otepka's behalf at two national conven-
tions.)
The American Civil Liberties Union sup-
ported Mr. Otepka by issuing a statement
protesting the State Department's refusal to
grant him an open hearing.
Otto Otepka has enjoyed the support of
the Young Republican organization, and of
the League of Republican Women.
Various editorialistS, columnists, and com-
mentators have supported Mr. Otepka. For
Instance, the New York Daily News, on
March 21, 1969, in an editorial entitled "Jus-
tice for Otepka," said:
"Mr. Otepka, as a State Department se-
curity officer, was a victim' of a departmental
vendetta of the most contemptible kind?
because he gave information to the Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee headed by
Senator James O. Eastland (Democrat-Mis-
sissippi). He was relegated to a meaningless
State job.
"The President now seeks to grant Otepka
a measure of belated justice. As was to be ex-
pected, professional 'liberals' are trying to
wreck this Presidential effort?with the
other New York morning newspaper leading
the snapping, snarling pack.
"The Senate can best rebuke these gen-
try by confirming the Otepka nomination
forthwith. And Congress could do nothing
better, we believe, than to pass a new sub-
versive activities la W reversing the Earl
Warren Supreme Court decisions which have
clipped so many of the SACB's original
claws."
Under the headline "Otto Otepka Kept
Personal Honor," columnist Holmes Alexan-
der said on Saturday, March 22, 1969:
"He would not accept the hidden bribes.
He would not bend the knee. He would not
yield to threats. He would not accept the
upward-and-out promotions that would have
saved his dark, handsome, gentle, puzzled
face.
"Otto Otepka's personal honor, his profes-
sional pride, his Slavic blood that runs rich
with stubborn principle?all these kept him
fighting for 8 years, and brought him at last
to a victory that is a victory for us all?for
our freedoms.
"For those who like to be around when his-
tory provides a landmark case, this is a time
to remember. It will be written that Otto
Otepka, civil servant, was true to his oath of
office. He would not bend the regulations and
ant the wholesale 'waivers' on security
clearances, even at the command of the At-
torney General and the Secretary of State. It
will be written that Otepka struck a blow for
freedom of information and for the Constitu-
tion's checks and balances, when he gave the
Senate what the State Department was try-
ing to hide. It will be written that he was
made to suffer long for choosing national
loyalty above what the bureaucracy called
organizational loyalty."
The April 8, 1969, issue of the Stars and
Stripes, under the byline of Vera Glaser,
carried this assertion:
"Otepka's two decades of experience in the
field would make him, if confirmed, the only
Board member with the credentials to man-
age a wide-ranging evaluation operation."
Commentator Ron David, on station WTOP
on April 12 and 13, 1969, said:
"In fact, Otepka is simply a hard-working
bureaucrat who tried to do his job, and
apply security standards in a uniform man-
ner. He was attacked because he wouldn't
make exceptions for political favorites?he
simply wanted full investigations. He wasn't
calling anyone a Communist without
cause. * * * Anyone who does the research
on this case necessary to testify is almost
certain to conclude that Otepka is a much
maligned and much harassed individual.
"Otepka is a man with lengthy experience
in the security field. He has a record that
shows he cleared Wolf Ladejinsky, a liberal
who had been unjustly accused, by Agricul-
ture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson, of being a
security risk.
"It is not necessary to argue whether
Otepka is the only man for the Subversive
Activities control Board or not. He is an
American citizen. He has no criminal record.
He has a clean record as a Government em-
ployee for more than 30 years, and he was
given the State Department's Meritorious
Service Award by Secretary Dulles in 1957.
"Otepka deserves a fair break. He deserves
better than the "smear" by uninformed peo-
ple. I believe that most of the critics would
favor Otepka if they would simply do the
research."
On April 26, 1969, in an address to the
Bipartisan Council Against Communist Ag-
gression, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter,
Clark Mollenhoff, paid tribute to Otto
Otepka for "moderation, patience, and con-
scientious hard work on the seemingly im-
possible problems that face our society," and
expressed the hope that Mr. Otepka's nom-
ination will have been confirmed "within a
few weeks." Said Mr. Mollenhoff:
"I hope his term on the SACB will be
marked by the same thoughtful and balanced
actions that have characterized his approach
to his six years of trial * * ? Otepka, man-
aged to keep the bitterness to himself and
avoided the temptation to engage in a public
name-calling contest.
Mr. Mollenhoff declared:
"Every investigation I made of Otepka's
story demonstrated that he was accurate on
the facts, and balanced in his perspective
* * * he was amazingly objective in view-
ing his own case, had in judgment about the
men who were alined against him. He had
the restraint and judgment to draw lines
between those who were actively engaged in
illegal and improper efforts and those who
seemed to be simply trapped into a position
by carelessness or to present a united politi-
cal front."
Mr, Mollenhoff told his listeners:
"Despite the care with which Otepka re-
lated his ease, I had difficulty. in believing
it was as one-sided as it appeared. I made
every effort I could to determine if the facts
were glossed over or omitted by Otepka or
the Senate committee.
"But there was no hint from anyone that
Otepka was involved in either subversion or
In cases involving affiliation with the
Communist Party, the Supreme Court of the
United States has ruled that the association
must be "meaningful" in order to be the basis
for legal sanctions. See Rowoidt vs. Per fetto,
355 U.S. 10:
crime * * ? No one could or would cite a
case of irresponsibility or lack of balance in
any Otepka evaluation."
SENATORS ALSO SUPPORT OTEPKA
Numerous Senators, including those filing
this report, have supported Otto Otepka in
the past, and support him today.
On October 31, 1963, the members of the
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
signed a letter to Mr. Dean Rusk, then Secre-
tary of State, in which, after stating that
Mr. Otepka had "performed a substantial
service for his country," the Senators de-
clared:
"We would consider it a great tragedy if
the services of this exceptionally able and
experienced security officer were lost to the
U.S. Government."
No inference is justified that any Senator,
by supporting Mr. Otepka in the past, or by
supporting this nomination now, is doing the
bidding of any special interest group or serv-
ing any interests except those of the United
States of America. For ourselves, individually
and collectively, as well as on behalf of those
of our colleagues holding similar views, we
reject any such implication.
WHERE OTEPKA'S STRENGTH LIES
Otto Otepka's strength lies in his record
of outstanding service to his country over a
period of more than 30 years, in the respect
and admiration accorded him by professional
security officers both in any out of the Gov-
ernment; above all, in his "courage in the
right" as God gives him to see the right.
COMMITTEE FINDINGS
We find that Otto F. Otepka is an ex-
perienced Government administrator. He is
intimately familiar with the civil service
rules, regulations and personnel practices.
Mr. Otepka is recognized by the intelli-
gence community as an outstanding secu-
rity officer, especially skilled in the field of
personnel security evaluations.
Mr. Otepka has a legal education, and we
do not think it detracts from his merit that
he had to go to school at night for 3 years in
order to get his law degree.
Mr. Otepka is a man of honor, integrity,
and ability. His personal and family life are
exemplary. He is respected in his community
and liked by his neighbors.
Otto F. Otepka is a career civil servant
still in the prime of life, though with more
than 30 years of service to his government
and his country already behind him.
Mr. Otepka is a man of equable tempera-
ment and balanced judgment, able to be
more than usually objective in his considera-
tion of a situation.
The position for which Mr. Otepka has
been nominated represents a Republican
vacancy, and Mr. Otepka is a Republican.
As long ago as 1955 the then Secretary of
State, Mr. Dulles, cited Otto Otepka as one
who had "shown himself consistently capable
of sound judgment, creative work, and the
acceptance of unusual responsibility." All of
the pertinent eveidence available to us sup-
ports the same conclusions today.
MINORITY VIEWS OF MESSRS. KENNEDY. AND
TYDINGS
The undersigned members of the Judiciary
Committee respectfully dissent from the re-
port of the majority of the committee. That
report omits the facts of the personnel ac-
tions relating to the nominee at the State
Department. It also omits meaningful dis-
cussion of the financing of the nominee's
legal efforts during his dispute with the
State Department. While we have serious
questions regarding the standards of "asso-
ciation" to which the majority appear to
subscribe, we believe that application here
of even much less rigorous standards would
have required more careful consideration of
the relevance of the nominee's major sources
of financing to his suitability for the posi-
tion at issue. Finally we have serious doubts
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R0005002801301-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7028 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
as to the need for confirming any nominee
at this time as the fifth member of an
agency which has hardly enough work to
occupy one member full time.
When created by Congress, the Subversive
Activities Control Board was given exceed-
ingly broad powers to perform what was con-
sidered to be a highly sensitive function.
The broad sweep of Board power has been
significantly circumscribed by the Supreme
Court, where it was found Violative of the
individual constitutional rights of American
citizens. The question before this committee
Is, given the purpose and intended func-
tions of the SACH, Is the nominee qualified
to hold the post of Board member? That
this has been considered a high Government
post is reflected not lightly in the salary
accorded by the Congress to those holding
the position.
To fullfill the intended functions of the
office, It is clear that a member of the SACB
must be capable of highly judicious conduct
In the performance of his duties, and that
his qualities of judicial impartiality and ob-
jectivity must be beyond reproach.
The nominee before this committee has
not demonstrated these qualifications for
office.
His activities in the State Department led
to his removal from matters involving ad-
ministration of personnel security functions
This nation was eusteined by a Democratic
Secretary of State and pointedly not re-
versed by his Republican successor. In light
of the latter position, taken within the cur-
rent administration, it is difficult to under-
stand the justification for nominating him
to a position higher than that from which
he was removed.
We have highest regard for the principle
that the President ought to have the broad-
est possible latitude in making his appoint-
ments. However, We equally believe that the
function of advice and consent places upon
the Senate a constitutional obligation to
verify the fundamental qualifications of
such nominees as the President submits. We
feel that our concerns in the areas discussed
require us to exercise our advice and con-
sent functions by declining to support the
pending nomination.
EraveRe M. KENNEDY.
JOSEPH D. TYDINGS.
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF MR, AIATHIAS
I do not believe the information of record
justifies interference in the wide discretion
permitted the President in submitting nom-
inations, and did not oppose Mr. Otepka. I
do not beliete, however, that the record jus-
tifies or the occasion demands all of the
assertions in the majerity report and there-
fore associate myself with the separate views
of Senators Bay/a and Burdick.
CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS.
? ?
perament and ability to perform his dude
even if it is only probable that he will hay
duties.
A member of the Subversive Activitie
Control Board should be an individual whos
background evidences balanced judgrnen
and a sensitivity to the probable areas of hi
potential endeavors.
I am not persuaded that the nominee has
demonstrated these qualities.
PHILIP A. HART.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I als
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD the introductory state
ment which I made when I presented Mr
Otepka to the subclimmittee that heard
the testimony with respect to the
nomination.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF HON. EVERETT DIRKSEN,
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the committee, I am here to urge the
approval by the subcommittee and the full
committee of the Otto Otepka appointment,
and his confirmation by the Senate; that is,
the appoinment to be on the Subversive Ac-
tivities Control Board.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the Otepka story
Is a little fantastic, and I say that advisedly
as a member of the Internal Security Sub-
committee, and having chaired some of the
hearings where Otepka was involved.
I have often thought that maybe James
Bond, or Agent 007, or whatever it is, ought
to write the story, but Otepka has been in
the Federal service for 33 years. He came into
the service as an assistant messenger in the
Farm Credit Administration. Then he be-
came an investigator and security specialist
for the Civil Service Commission.
Later, he entered the U.S. Navy and he
became a personnel classification specialist
and then moved to the State Department in
1952 as a personnel security evaluator.
Now, his ratings, while he has been in the
service have been good, satisfactory, and ex-
oellent. I read the appraisals of his service by
his superiors and thee appraisals were very
high.
From Seeretary Dulles he received the
Award for Meritorious Service, but his ad-
venture really begins in 1960 when he under-
took the evaluation of 858 cases in the State
Department under the Security Director Scott
McLeod.
Well, Scott McLeod was subsequently ap-
pointed as our Ambassador to Ireland and
somehow the whole project was then dropped.
When Secretary Dunes and Gordon Gray and
others proposed a survey to examine and
determine why the U.S. prestige abroad was so
mpaired, the results were marked "Secret."
Somebody leaked it to the campaign head-
marters of the late President Kennedy, and
,hey were also published in the Washington
Post and the New York Times.
Otepka investigated, and the guilty person
were separated from the service.
The public relations director for the Ken-
iredy campaign, who received the report, was
eter made head of the Secretariat in the office
-f the Secretary of State.
In December of 1960, Otepka met with Sec-
etary Dean Rusk and then Attorney-General
esignate, the late Robert Kennedy. They
ished to discuss the criteria to be used for
ecurity purposes. Otepka insisted that the
ules established by the Senate Foreign Re-
ations Committee should be followed,
At the time, the State Department was
considering the name of Walt Rostow for
.ppointment. he Air Force had filed an ed-
erse report on Rostow. Herbert Hoover, Jr.,
'fro was then Under Secretary of State,
ceasedRostow unqualified. The comment of
he Attorney General-designate was, "Those
hum 24, 4969
s, Air Force guys are et lot of jerks." That is the
e end of the report.
Rostow was assignee to the White House.
s There was an FBI ohaa and later, lbs tow
S was transferred to the hate, Department.
t At some point in time, one Charles Lyons
S was named Deputy Chief of Evaieations. Nei-
ther Otepka or his Resceiate, Mr. Adams, liked
It very much. For 2 'are, Lyons server) an
security officer in the 'el' S. Embassy in Athena',
Greece. In that time, there were 52 violations
of security regulations on confidential ma-
o terial; there were 22 violations involving se-
cret and top secret matters; and, 125 viola-
- tions of the rule on "Official Use Only."
. That was the Lyons record.
At one point came Oa case of William A
Wieland who wagon duty in Cuba, and it was
widely publicized in 'Wieland's files, the al-
legation that he had concealed information
on Cuba and Castro. Otepka's superior gave
Otepka an oral instrue:ron to clear Wieland.
Otepka. replied that it most be in writing, and
. he refused to do it unless it was in writing.
When John A. Topping was named as
Cuban Service officer, Otepka' insisted that
Topping be investigate,d. Otepka, was removed
From the investigation. Topping was subse-
quently cleared to the Council of American
States.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, eou spoke of Wieland
He was in charge of the Caribbean?Cuban
desk, wasn't he?
Senator Dreamer. He was.
The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it tree that informa-
tion from all the Security agencies reached
that desk?
Senator DIRKSEN. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. And that Castro was a
Communist--
Senator Dreams'. Thet's right.
The CHAIRMAN. And it never got beyond
that desk to his superiors?
Senator DIRKSEN. That is right, and that
is the thing that Otepka instated on investi-
gating and evaluating, and very properly so.
Now, when be was named to the staff of
the War College, with the suggestion that
E was a very high honor, he rather naively
and simply inquired about his return to the
State Department. He received an evasive
answer, SO he declined the assignment, re-
gardless of the honor that might have been
involved.
Year after year, Mr. chairman, this sort
of thing went on. He was urged to give
waivers on job applicants when he knew
they should be investigated for serenity rea-
sens, and he steadfastiy stood his ground
and refused, as he understood the law, the
regulations and the intent of the Congress.
There was a veritabte cavalcade of su-
periors over the years?a Mr. Bassin, a Mr.
Reilly, a Mr. Belisle, a. Mr. Prebend. and
others. Time and time age in Otepka was pro-
moted, he was demoted, he Was shifted, he
was transferred, he war. pressured, he was
snubbed, he was ignored and he was har-
cased, but he stood firm. He regarded his
responsibility to investiette applicants for
jobs in the State Department where there
was an allegation of Communist taint, as a
solemn duty, and he resisted all presseree
to waive such investigati ens or to clear such
persons on Instructions from his superiors.
Of the 13 charges that were made against
him, 10 were withdrawn and of the other
three, only one was am itally emphasized.
That related to his delivery outside the De-
partment two memrwaredums and a report
rmating to the security investigation of a
certain person Those were delivered up here.
Mr. Otepka justified his action under sec-
tion 652(d) of the Code which provided as
follows: "The right of persons employed in
the Civil Service of the United. states either
individually or collective- v to petition Con-
gress or any Member th+-reof or to furnish
information to either House of Congress, or
to any committee or member thereof shall
not be denied or interfered with."
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. BAYII AND
BUIMICK
We voted in the committee to report favor- I
ably for nomination of Mr. Otto F. Otepka
to be a member of the Subversive Activities
Control Board because of our belief that, in
the absence of convincing evidence to the
contrary, the President should be allowed I
considerable leeway in choosing major officers. I
However, we do not fully concur with all a
the conclusions cited in the report regarding
the qualifications and associations of the r.
nominee, Accordingly, we do not join in the d.
majority report.
Bicn BATH,
QUENTIN N. BURDICK.
INDIVionAL H
VIEWs OF MR. ART
It is with reluctance that I disagree with a
majority of the corrunittee on this nomina- a
tion,
A President should he permitted to have w
whomever he chooses to aid his administra- d
tion provided the nominee possesses the tern- t
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
. .
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
What significance do you attach to the fact
that that was done and the case proceeded
only on three charges?
Senator DimsEN. Simply bemuse of the
harassment that was involved and shall I say
the suspicion that existed there In the Bu-
reau? Who shall say Whether that burn bag
was not loaded by somebody else When the
investigators came upon it, and that I
thought was made reasonably clear in the
course of those hearings that I attended.
Senator HRTJSKA. Then, there was bugging
and wiretapping of Otepka's phone that made
quite a furor at the time, and there was
sworn testimony by two witnesses who were
in the State Department at the time they
had no recollection or no knowledge of wire-
tapping or bugging of Otepka's phone on his
premises.
They took a letter from Senator Dodd, of
Connecticut, as I remember, or maybe a
speech on the Flo.or?the letter I think was
addressed to Secretary Rusk, saying that the
committee had information of bugging and
wiretapping and only then were the two wit-
nesses' memories &oat of refreshed a little
bit and they appeared before the subcom-
mittee and indicated they wanted to clarify
their testimony. The clarification consisted
of the statement, well, now, they did re-
member that wiretapping was affected, that
it was attempted and in some instances con-
summated.
NOW my further recollection is that one
on and who he was contacting. , of these witnesses is still with the State De-
Sheehan has been calling a number of Now then, there was testimony before the partment, notwithstanding that rather sordid
citizens in Illinois?all highly reputable?, Senate Appropriations Committee that they failure to recall an event as significant as
to ascertain what Otepka was doing at Certain had perhaps a thousand cases over there, and wiretapping Otepka's phone.
cocktail parties. at long last, the former Attorney General, The other one was discharged or at least
Now, parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, a Ramsey Clark, came to my office and said, he resigned and after a few months in law
ought to interpose here and say that one "I am advising you today that I am sending practice he turned up as an employee of an-
reason I am interested in this is that Otepka six cases to the Board." other agency, I believe the Federal Com-
as from Illinois. His elderly father and mother Since the transistion from one adminis- munications Commission.
still liye in Chicago. He has a brother out tration to another, the new Attorney Gen- Now, here we have charges against Otepka
there who has been very successful in busi- eral has advised me that he has also sent in which he was found guilty eventually by
nesaa and so Mr. Sheehan took it upon him- some cases to the Board and there are a lot the Secretary of State of doing things which
self to call a number of people. He called were illegal and yet we find that the two em-
of others.
one James Stewart, of Palatine, Ill., director I mention, Mr. Chairman, that that is the ployees involved in this bugging and wire-
of the American Defense Fund which raised only agency in the executive branch of this tapping incident were not only not disci-
- some money for Atepka's defense, and sought Government that has the authority and that plined, but apparently they were rewarded.
to pin a John Birch Society tag on Mr. Stew- exercises the responsibility and the duty of Would you have any comment as to the
art, pursuing things in the internal security do- consistency of any such Judgments or any
He questioned not only Mr. Stewart but main, and instead of trying to weaken that disposition of those two cases?
also Otepka on the latter's presence at a Board, it ought to be strengthened and it Senator DIRKSEN. Well, as I recall, I think
New England "Rally for God, Family, and ought to be given a longer lease on life, and I was there at one of those hearings, or more,
Co ntr " and sought to put a John Birch it ought to be given perhaps some additional and I thought I handed one of these particu-
authority, but for the moment at least we lar people a screwdriver and I askednow,
tele hone but he was
June 24,1969
That is in the statutory code. it would take hours and hours, and I am not
So, Mr. Chairman, it is a fair question going to weary the committee with that kind
Whether an Executive lader of the President, of recital, I just conclude by saying this?
Or the clear terms of the statute shall pre- if there is any man in this entire land who
vail, but in any event, the Secretary of State has demonstrated his capacity and compe-
accepted the findings of the hearing officer tence as an investigator and who manifested
when they had a hearing on Otepka and his loyalty and devotion to the United States,
then administered discipline. Ultimately, that man is Otto Otepka. He is ideally suited
Otepka was given leave without pay and he to serve on the Subversive Activities Control
remains in that status as of this day. Board, and I urge his approval by the sub-
There have been hearings and appeals, and committee, the full committee, and his con-
appeals and hearings, the last of which was firmation by the Senate.
appeal from the Secretary of State's find- I think the President is to be commended
ings to the Appeals Section of the Civil for his appointment.
Service Commission and that appeal was Now, with respect to the Subersive Activi-
denied, ties Control Board, you will recall the long-
The action taken in the Otepka case is a running fight we had after the Supreme
sad commentary on the handling of security Court decisions that were virtually putting
matters in the executive branch of Govern- the Board out of business. I undertook to pro-
merit and could easily induce the belief that vide all the necessary amendments, with staff,
there was no resolute effort to prevent per- and I think we amended the Internal Secur-
sons with a Communist taint from finding ity Act in at least 19 different places in order
positions in Government. But, Otto Otepka's to make it conform to the Supreme Court
devotion to duty and his dedication to his decision. But, they tried to put the Board out
country was such that he was willing to en- of business and then they tried through their
dure harassment rather than yield. appropriations committee to knock out all
But, Mr, Chairman, the harassment is not the appropriations for the Board, and then,
over. Since his name has been submitted to of course, it was spread all over the country,
the Senate for appointment to the Subver- they were. paying the salaries of the Board
sive Activities Control Board, the New York when they had nothing to do.
Times has assigned a reporter 'named Neil It was not the Board's fault, it is the cul-
Sheehan to investigate Otepka arid to smear pability of the Attorney General of the
him, at least that is what I felt after I read United States, because under the Security
Sheehan's article and knew what was going Act, it is up to him to send those cases over
d and he did not do so.
S 7029
brand on that rally. It was held in Boston,
and it has been taking place annually. It
will make little difference what kind of a
smear may come out of Reporter Sheehan's
typewriter, the simple fact was that the rally
was addressed by such people as Clarence
Manion, former dean of Notre Dame Law
School, Lloyd Wright, past president of the
American Bar Association, J. Fred Schafley,
who ie a very prominent lawyer in Alton, Ill.,
and I know him very well and I know his
wife very well, who has been very active po-
litically and otherwise, and by Clyde Watts,
a retired brigadier general and prominent at-
torney in Oklahoma City, and there were
others.
Well, the very idea of trying to put a Birch
tag on a rally like that, because there were
a thousand people there, and as for Otepka's
presence at the rally, he and his wife, who
happens to be a schoolteacher and who were
taking a little vacation, went up to a little
town called Hingham, Mass., and while up
there, became aware of the rally, and inci-
dentally they stayed in Hingham the entire
time of their vacation; and when they be-
came aware of the rally, they went down to
Boston as did the others. This is the New At a later time, however, and before the or er a
York Times' way of paying Otepka back for case was appealed to higher authority within would occur to me, because of his devotion
investigating the leak of the survey on our the Department, nine of those charges per- to the country, that he was quite in the right
prestige abroad, which found its way to the taming to the burn bag evidence and to some in submitting what he had there in the in-
public relations man in the political head- of the other things, disclosure of documents terest of our security.
- quarters, and then into the New York Times, unfairly and illegally, charges four to 13 were Mr. Chairman, in connection with his testi-
So, looking into this thing in the large, dismissed and cut away from the entire pro- mony I think there ought to be submitted
and if Mr. Chairinan, I recited this record, cedure. for the record a brief that Mr. Otepka's at-
will leave it stand. s
Otto Otepka would be an execellent mem- very reluctant and didn't want to do it, and
ber on that Board, because of his long back- of course I could not make him do it.
ground in the evaluation and in the investi- Senator HRUSKA. The hearings were long. I
gation of those things that fall in the in- think your statement is a very restrained
ternal security domain. version and a summary and reference to
That is it. them, but I do reoall this big issue came up,
The CHAIRMAN. I will say I think you put that apparently one of the issues was whether
your finger on it, the devotion to duty is Otepka's loyalty should be on a parity like
the cause of the trouble he had. this, State Department first, the country and
Senator DIRKSEN, Exactly. the Congress somewhere dawn below first
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? priority, and that is clearly not the listing
Senator HRUSKA. Senator Dirksen, as a re- in the Code of Ethics that the State Depart-
suit of the hearings which were held, and merit has promulgated, nor is it in keeping
they were protracted and extended over a with that section 652 that you read from.
long period of time, in the Internal SecUr- Do you agree that there is a little bit of
ity Subcommittee, with reference to the se- disproportion in expecting a man to really
curity system and the reorganization of the compound fabricated testimony out of loyalty
Bureau of Consular Serivce to the Department as compared to an idea of
Senator DIRKSEN. Consular Security, clearing up what would be even fabrications
Senator HRUSKA. Security, there were event- and maybe even falsehoods before the corn-
ually charges filed against Otepka, and they mittee of the Senate which is charged by law
were 13 in number, as I remember. And, there to have oversight over all of these things?
was a hearing, and the hearing officer of the Senator DIRKSEN. That provision in the
Department heard the testimony and found Code is so explicit and so clear, and when
against Otepka on all 13 charges. duty comes in conflict with an Executive
cd-.atutory provision,it
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000
500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7030 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
torney filed beeeetlee it is fully documented and from independent inquiry if necessary, expenses, travelling
up to the end. 1. Mr. Otepka's source of income, other penses since 1961.
LEGAL n.PENS13
and it starts at the beginning and goes right the facts on the following subjects:
Secondly, I think that Mr. Sheehan's re- than his State Department salary, since 1961.
Total legal expense incurred in connection
ports in the New York Times ought to be 2. The precise sources and amounts of
carried in the record and third, I think the financing for Mr. Otepka's legal fees, living with Mr. Otepka's case has amounted to
editorial which wise written in pursuance expenses, travelling expenses, and other ex- $26,135, of which $2.5,127 represented legal
of the Sheehan stories should also be in the penses since 1961. fees and $1,008 represent ed reimbursement of
record. I Would like to see the whole bus!- 3. Any formal or informal connections he- cash disbursement by counsel. These legal
-
ness there, because that is the only way you tween Mr. Otepka and (1) Mr. Willis Carto, expenses have been met by voluntary con
can point out bees easily it can be refuted (2) the John Birch Society. (3 th
and whether or not that isn't a punitive Iii
attitude on the part of the New York Times.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.
(The documents referred to will be found
in the appendix.)
Senator Ileusice. Mr. Chairman, I wonder
if the purpose of the record, so that it would
be available for general inspection of any
Member of the Senate who wants to get
into it, or anybody else, would it not be well
to attach also and include in the record the
report of the hearing officer as originally
made, I believe that was Edward A. Dragon,
it looks like, and his signature, and that was
in December 1967; and then there was a
decision on appeal to the Civil Service Com-
mission and a decision on that, and finally
the- decision on appeal that was signed by
Secretary Rusk on this subject.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted.
(The documents referred to will be found
in the appendix.)
Senator Ilettsice, I have no further ques-
tions at this time, Mr. Chairman. es
Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Otep-
ka may speak for himself, and I simply mar-
vel at his "stick-to-it-tiveness" as they used
to say, and his willingness to go through all
of these things. lie has endured all this for
a 5-year period, and I suppose some adverse
comment might be made with retpect to the
James Stewart of Palatine, rm.. to raise a
defense fund for him. I don't know how Mr.
Otepke would have gotten along if it had not
been for that, because it certainly could not
have been done out of his wife's salary,
which was probably the only income he had.
So, I will salute him for his devotion to
the country and to the cause of internal
security.
I thank the subcommittee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone present who
desires to testify against this nominee?
(No response.)
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Otepka will you identi-
fy yourself for the record?
June' 24, 1969
expenses, and other ex-
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD letter signed by the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. BUR-
Dem), the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
TYDINGS), and the Senator from Michi-
gan (Mr. HART), with respect to certain
matters in the noMination and with
respect to Otto Otepka, which was con-
tained in a letter to the chairman of the
full committee, dated May 5, 1969.
There being no abjection, the letter was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
U.S. SENATE,
Washingtov , D.C., May 5, 1969.
Hon. JAMES 0. EASTLAND,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with
the discussions at the Committee meeting
last week, we believe that before the Com-
mittee takes up the nomination of Otto
Otepka to the Subversive Activities Control
Board, there should be included in the
printed record information relating to the
recent questions raised about Mr. Otepka's
finances and connections. In particular we
suggest that the Mail Obtain from Mr. Otepka,
Lobby, or (4) any other persons or organisa-
tions actively associated with Mr. Carto, the
Society or the Lobby.
4. The accuracy of a report that Mr. Otepka
stated in response to questions about his as-
sociations: "I am not going to discuss the
Ideological orientation of any one I am as-
sociated with; and, if the report is accurate,
Mr. Otepka's opinion as to the applicability
of a similar standard to others being con-
sidered for federal employment or otherwise
under inquiry in connection with security
matters.
5. Mr. Otepka's opinion as to the possibility
that individuals and groups of the type gen-
erally described as "radical right" or indi-
viduals or groups generally described as
"Nazi" might under certain circumstances
constitute a threat to domestic security.
6. The extent to which the issues raised
in the preceding questions were investigated
and considered in the course of the Executive
Branch's pre-nomination procedures regard-
ing Mr. Otepka.
We are confident that all the members of
the Committee join us in feeling that fairness
to the nominee and to the public requires
that these matters, wilich have been raised
publicly, be aired and resolved within the
Committee before it passes on the nomina-
tion. We are hopeful also that Mr. Melaka
will feel free to take this opportunity to make
any further comments he wishes regarding
the office to which he has been nominated
and his suitability for it.
Sincerely,
tributions from more than three thousand
different contributors. Most of the contri-
butions were in relate ely small amounts,
ranging from $1.00 to $100.00. Over $21,000
of this amount was relied by American De-
fense Fund, organized in 1964 by James Stew-
art of Wood Dale, Illinois (now living in
Palatine, Illinois) in eempliance with the
laws of the State of Illinois.
Mr. Stewart volunteered his assistance,
after having read in the newspapers of Mr.
Otepka's intention to pursue fully all of his
administrative remedies, and to take his case
into the courts, if necest ley Mr. Stewart ap-
pears to have made a full accounting for
the purpose of complying with State law, and
also has filed an accounting with the U.S.
Post Office Department.
American Defense Fund has no connec-
tion of any kind with the John Birch So-
ciety, the Liberty Lobby, or Willis Carto, ac-
cording to Mr. Stewart, who stated his in-
terest in the Otepka case was sparked by a
newspaper article in September 1963, and
that in the fall of 1964 he undertook to
raise money for Otepka's defense after he
learned that contributions from other sources
were not meeting the growing legal expenses
of the case. Mr. Stewart said he acted as an
individual and without any assistance or
prompting from any organization.
All contributions forwarded by Mr. Stew-
art went directly to Mr. Otepka's counsel,
Mr. Roger Robb.
The remainder of the leqal expense in con-
nection with Otepka's case ( between $4.000
and $5,000) was paid by eluntary contribu-
EDWARD M. KENNEDY. tions from individuals net associated with
QUENTIIV BURDICK. American Defense Fund (Many of theee
JOSEPH D,. TYDINGS. contributions were made in checks mailed
PHILIP A. HART. directly to Mr. Otepkaa counsel, and checks
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I also received by Mr. Otepka personnally were
turned over by him to his attorney. Mr.
ask unanimous consent to have printed Otepka did net cash any such checks, nor
in the RECORD a memorandum that was receive or retain the proceeds therefrom.)
prepared with respect to the various Of these independent contributions, only one
question's that were raised, was in a very large amount, to wit: a check
There being no objection, the memo- for $2,500 received by Otepka's counsel on
randurn was ordered to be printed in the '
April 21st 1964, from Defenders of American
RECORD, as follows: Liberties, non-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Illinois for
MEMORANDUM the purpose of defendine civil and human
To: Senator Eastland.
From: J. G. Sourwine.
Subject: Inquiries of Senators Hart, Ken-
nedy, Burdick, and Tydings respecting
finances and connections of Otto otepka.
In compliance with your Instructions the
staff has obtained from Mr. Otepka, and
from independent inquiry as necessary, the
facts called for by the questions propounded.
The questions are repeated below, seriatim.
and the facts obtained by the staff with re-
epect to the subject matter of each question
ale set forth, immediately thereafter.
1. Mr. Otepka's source of income, other
than his State Department salary, since 1061.
Since 1961, Mr. Otepka has had income,
other than his State Department salary, only
from the following sources: (A) interest on
savings accounts and stock dividends; (B)
wife's salary as a school teacher (from 1965
only); (C) daughter's salary (during 1968
only); (D) director's fees (family corpora-
tion); (E) sum received by wife in 1966 by
gift and devise from her aunt.
2. The precise sources and amounts of
ilnancing for Mr. Otepka's legal fees, living
Mee 9, 1969. rights. All other independent contributions
were in very much smaller amounts.
In an effort to determine the nature of
the organization known as Defenders of
American Liberties, the Subcommittee staff
questioned both Dr. Robert Morris, first
president of the organization (who resigned
in 1962 to become presideiit of the Univer-
sity of Dallas, and who le now president of
the University of Plano) and Mr. J. Fred
Schlafly of Alton, Illinois, who succeeded
Dr. Morris. Both Dr. Morrie and Mr. Schlarly
denied any personal connection, formal or
informal, with the John Birch Society, the
Liberty Lobby, or Mr. Willis Carto. One of
fourteen persons identifieri as directors of
Defenders is Dr. Clarence Manion, former
Dean of Law at the University of Notre Dame,
Who is reported to have stated he is a mem-
ber of the John Birch Society_ Other direc-
tors of Defenders of American Liberties, be-
sides Mr. Schlafly, are Mr Roger Follansbee
(Chairman of the Board) of Evanston, Illi-
nois; Dr. Edna Fluegel, chairman of the De-
partment of Philosophy at Trinity College,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Lyle Munson, pub-
lisher, of Linden, N.J.; Mr. Bartlett Richards,
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500280001-2
'June 24, 1,969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7031
Of Florida; General William Wilbur of High-
land Park, Illinois; Mrs. Carl Zeiss of Phoe-
nix, Arizona; Mr. Don Tobin, realtor, of
Dallas, Texas; Mr. Charles Keating, Jr., of
Cincinnati, Ohio; Mr. Norris Nelson of Chi-
cago, Illinois, former publisher of the Calu-
met (Illinois) News and former assistant di-
rector of the Republican National Commit-
tee; and Mr. Brent Zeppa of Tyler, Texas.
None of these, according to Dr. Morris and
Schlaily, is known to either of them as
a member of or connected with the John
Birch Society or the Liberty Lobby.
TRAVELING EXPENSES
Since 1961, Mr. Otepka has made three
round trips, by air, to the West Coast, in-
cluding visits to San Diego and Los Angeles,
California, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle,
Washington, which trips were not paid for
by Mr. Otepka out of his own private funds.
Two of these trips were paid for by a num-
ber of individual citizens who had no formal
group or organization but who had become
interested in Mr: Otepka's case as a result of
newspaper publicity, and wanted to hear him
discuss it. Mr. Otepka talked to theXe.,Indi-
viduals at informal gatherings only, -and
confined himself to discussion of his own
case, avoiding politics or on other matters.
At no time did Mr. Otepka accept an honir
rariurn of fee for any speech or talk. The third
trip referred to above was sponsored by a
formal group, which desired to give Mr.
Otepka an award. Because his appearance on
this occasion was to be publicly advertised,
Mr. Otepka sought and obtained the State
Department's approval of this trip before
undertaking it.
Total amounts of income (exclusive of his
own salary) available to Mr. Otepka and his
family during the period in question, which
became available for financing his expenses,
as indicated above, were as follows:
A. Interest on savings accounts and divi-
dends on stock owned, $1,711.00.
B. Director's fees (Web Press Engineering,
Inc., Addison, Illinois, a family corporation),
$100.00. (This corporation does not have any
government contracts whatsoever, and Mr.
Otepka does not own any stock in the cor-
poration.)
C. Mrs. Otepka's gross earnings, before
taxes, as a teacher employed by the Mont-
gomery County (Md.) Board of Education:
1965, $3,260.00; 1966, $8,432.00; 1967,
$9,217.00; 1968, $10,558.00. (Since 1968, when
Mr. Otepka first went on leave without pay,
his family has had to depend solely upon his
-wife's salary, and the earnings of his daugh-
ter (referred to below) to meet family living
expenses.)
D. Mr. Otepka's daughter was first em-
ployed during 1968, and in that year earned
$765.00 from the Washington Post Company
(WTOP-TV) and $1,189.00 from the D. L.
Printing Company, Washington, D.C.
E. By gift and bequest to Mrs. Otepka,
from her aunt, Mildred Simon (1966),
$3,400.00.
For ready reference, information on total
amounts of income available to the Qtepka
family during each of the years 1961 to 1968,
inclusive, is shOwn on the chart below..
1961 1962
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
Interest from savings 101.75 80. 00
Stock dividends 26.88 35.46
Director's fees, Web Press Engineering
Wife's gross income (salary)
Daughter's gross income (salary)
Gift and bequest to wife from aunt 3, 400. 00
80 312 23 233. 00 309
42 59 11 24.84 47
254
72
100
3,268 8, 432. 00 9,217 10, 558
1, 954
Total 128. 63 115. 46 122 371 3,294 12, 089. 84 9, 573 12, 938
3. Any formal or informal connections be-
tween Mr. Otepka and (1) Mr. Willis Carto,
(2) the John Birch Society, (3) the Liberty
Lobby, or (4) any other persons or organiza-
ticms actively associated with Mr. Carto, the
Society or the Lobby.
Mr. Otepka states he does not have and
has not had any formal or informal oonnee-
tions with the John Birch Society, or the
Liberty Lobby, or Mr. Willis Carto, or with
any other persons or organizations known to
him to be actively associated with any of the
above three. Mr. Otepka has met Mr. Carta,.
having seen him two or three times, includ-
ing one occasion on which he lunched With
Mr. Carto at the latter's invitation. Nothing
was discussed at this luncheon except the
legal aspects of Mr. Otepka's case.
4. The accuracy of a report that Mr. Otepka
stated in response to questions abOut his
associations, "I am not going to discuss the
ideological orientation of anyone I am asso-
ciated with"; and, if the report is accurate,
Mr. Otepka's opinion as to the applicability
of a similar standard to others being consid-
ered for federal employment or otherwise
under inquiry in connection with security
matters.
Mr. Otepka states: "This is substantially
the tenOr of an answer which I gave on two
separate occasions to two newspapermen, Mr.
Neil Sheehan of the New York Times and lyfr.
Tim Wheeler of the Daily World, both of
whom were, in my judgment, seeking to bait
me irito making some statement that could
be used against me. I would consider such
an answer entirely within the bounds of pro-
priet7 if made by any person under similes
questioning by such reporters in like circum-
etaneee. On the other hand, in the case of a
question regarding either my associations or
my associates, asked of me by a representa-
tive or official of the U.S. Government having
reason and authority to inquire. I should be
as fully responsive as my knowledge would
permit; and I would expect any other person
similarly questioned by authority and with,
reason to be comparably rdsponsive."
5. Mr. Otepka's opinion as to the possibil-
ity that individuals and groups of the type
generally described as "radical right" or in-
dividuals or groups generally described as
"Nasi" Might under certain circumstances
constitute a threat to domestic security.
"From my general knowledge of history
and my 27 years of experience as a security
officer, I arm acutely aware Of the potential
dangers to the security of any country from
acquisition of excessive influence by totali-
tarian organizations or individuals of either
the right or the left. I would resist with every
resource at my command any attempt to es-
tablish in this country a Nazi, or Fascist, or
Communist government, or any other form
of totalitarianism."
6. The extent to which the issues raised in
the preceding questions were investigated
and considered in the course of the Executive
Branch's prenomination procedures regarding
Mr. Otepka.
The staff has been advised by a spokesman
for the Executive Branch that Mr. Otepka's
nomination followed the usual course, in-
cluding an investigation by the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation and a security clearance
under the standards of Executive Order
10450. -
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I also
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD a synopsis which has been
prepared by the Department of Justice,
and the Pederal Bureau of Investigation,
which is actually a synopsis of testimony
by J. Edgar Hoover on May 18, 1968. I
request to have printed only that testi-
mony which begins in the middle of page
6 and goes to the end of page 12 because
I think it is pertinent to this matter since
Mr. Otepka is being nominated for the
Subversive Activities Control Board.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
COMMNNIST PARTY?U.S.A.
In spite of their factional differences, a
"communized America," said Mr. Hoover, is
the "common objective" of pro-Moscow, pro-
Chinese and Trotskyite wings of the com-
munist movement. While the Communist
Party, USA, has been more open in its activi-
ties since its National Convention in 1966,
"its objectives have remained the same?to
destroy faith in the American system, to
shake confidence in its leadership, and to
subvert the ideals of its younger generation,"
testified the FBI Didector.
"Winding as a thread through the whole
fabric of the Party's program is its unswerv-
ing opopsition to the war in Vietnam," said
Mr. Hoover. This position was never more
clearly than during a speech by Party leader
Gus Hall at the 50th Anniversary of the
Great October Revolution held last Novem-
ber in Moscow. According to Mr Hoover, Hall
declared that the "Communist Party, USA,
will continue to regard the struggle against
United States imperialism as its primary task
until every last United States warship, tank,
plane: soldier, and corporation have been re-
moved from foreign soil."
The communists, Mr. Hoover told the Sub-
committee, advocate the linking of civil
rights and antiwar protests into ". one
massive movement which they hope will ul-
timately change our Government's policies,
both foreign and domestic."
In its continued effort to influence the
younger generation, leading communist rep-
resentatives made 54 'speaking appearances
on college campuses during the 1966-1967
academic year. With its desire to capitalize
on the radicalism of the youthful New Left
movement, the Party also hopes, through
this speaking campaign, to gain recognition
as a legitimate political party on the Amer-
ican scene.
With a self-estimated membership of
13,000 and the assistance of a reported
100,000 sympathizers, the Party plans to
broaden its sphere of influence, said Mr.
Hoover, through re-establishing its daily
newspaper. This desire has approached real-
ization by the inheritance of half of a Brook-
lyn builder's $2,600,000 estate by three
trusted Party members.
DEMONSTRATIONS
Among the 700 individuals who registered
for the Washington, D.C., conference of the
National Mobilization Committee to End the
War in Vietnam were more than 300 mem-
bers of the Communist Party, its youth affili-
ate, the W. E. B. DuBoise Clubs of America,
and other subversive organizations. This
conference with others led to the massive
demonstration at the Pentagon in October,
1967, where armed Federal troops were re-
quired to turn back the demonstrators whose
primary purpose was to "shut down" that
establishment.
Commenting on the New Left movement,
which he termed as "anarchistic," Mr. Hoover
testified that its primary spokesmen have
"hand in hand" with the DuBois Clubs and
the Students for a Democratic Society ". . .
encouraged youth to resist the draft and sub-
ject the Selective Service System to harass-
ment and agitation." Mr. Hoover emphasized
that the Students for a Democratic Society
Is "infiltrated by Communist Party members
and Party leader Gus Hall has described the
*
Approved For Release 2001/07/26: CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
S 7032 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
organization as part of the 'responsible left'
which the Party has 'going for us.'"
CIVIL RIGHTS LNVESTIGATIONS
An all-time high of 5,366 civil rights cases
were handled by the FBI during fiscal year
1967, said the FBI Director, and this repre-
sented an increase of 157 percent in the five-
year period since 1962. These individual civil
rights cases were in addition to more than
5,000 cases handled by the FBI dealing with
alleged discrimination in places of public
accommodation, public facility, public edu-
cation and employment since enactment of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As an example of the priority attention
the FBI gives to its civil rights investiga-
tions, Mr. Hoover cited the 1964 case of three
civil rights workers who were murdered near
Philadelphia, Mississippi. The FBI Director
disclosed that this successful investigation
cost an estmated $815,000 and, at its height,
required the assignment of 258 Special
Agents. "During the summer of 1967," testi-
fied Mr. Hoover, assignment of FBI Special
Agents to civil rights cases "at times ranged
upward to nearly 1,500" men.
ORGANIZED CRIME
During the 1967 fiscal year, FBI-investi-
gated cases resulted in a total of 197 convic-
tions of organized crime and gambling fig-
ures. This far outstripped any prior fiscal
period, said Mr. Hoover, who noted that new
record accomplishments in this field were in
the offing due to "more than 600 hoodlum,
gambling and vice figures awaiting trial in
Federal court for violations Rifling within the
Bureau's jurisdiction."
Based on organized crime information dis-
seminated by the FBI to local, state and other
Federal agencies?which totalled more than
287,000 items during fiscal year 1967?these
other agencies arrested 3,748 vice figures,
mainly on charges of gambling, prostitution,
and illicit alcohol; seized more than $997,000
in currency and gambling paraphernalia; and
broke up dozens of professional gambling op-
erations handling literally millions of dollars
a year in wagers. Cooperation of this type has
led to the conviction of many gangland
leaders cited by Mr. Hoover, who testified
that the FBI has made important strides in
penetrating the organized crime conspiracy.
SOVIET MENACE
Director Hoover deplored a growing public
apathy ". . . toward communism, its danger
to this country and also toward the activi-
ties of the Soviet Government." He noted
that certain elements belittle United States
responsibilities to the free world and incor-
rectly view those who speak out against com-
munism as "alarmists."
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, finally,
I wisii to read portions of a letter. This
could be the entire letter, but it is a let-
ter addressed to a distinguished Member
of this body, the Senator from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. Kgmauy) by Mrs. Otepka.
Now, Mr. President, you know there
are three heroes in this drama. The first
one is Otto Otepka, who continued this
vigilence for 5 long years, because he
thought he was right and he did not per-
mit his convictions to relent for one mo-
ment. He continued his struggle, and
some 3,000 friends put up nickels, dimes.
quarters, dollars, anything they could
get, for the defense fund, and at last par-
tially to sustain the Otepkas.
When the minority report against this
nomination appeared, Mrs. Otepka, wrote
to the distinguished Senator from Massa-
chusetts, and here is part of her letter_
She stated:
As a working wife, I OZMIIM personally re-
main silent regarding the implications of
your question that you be provided with
"the precise sources and amounts of the
financing for Mr. Otepka's living expenses
since 1961."
I want the people of this country to know
that the economic reprisals taken against
my husband for telling the truth to a con-
gressional committee necessitated the follow-
ing measures in order to save money for our
use in the long battle to obtain justice:
1. I cut my husband's hair every two weeks.
2. I made all Ely clothes and my daugh-
ter's.
3. I washed and ironed My husband's
shirts.
4. I dry cleaned all the family clothing.
5. I canned tomatoes and other vegetables
from our home garden.
6. My husband cleaned and froac his
catches of fish and crabs for frequent sum-
mer meals.
7. We seldom ate family meals in restau-
rants.
8. My husband bought ready-made, -Max-
pensive but serviceable suite of clothing.
9. I went to work in order to supplement
our income.
Mrs. Otepka began teaching school in
1965 in order to carry on this vigil with
her husband. She is the heroine in this
drama which has lasted for 5 years.
Speaking for myself, as a member of
the Internal Security Subcommittee, I
was determined, not only because of
Drew Pearson, but also many others that
I could name, that we would fight this
thing through to a finish.
The finish comes today.
Mr. Otepka should have a unanimous
vote of the Senate for the task that he
carried on, because he has been a tre-
mendous public servant, with a deep con-
viction for truth and a deep devotion
to his country.
Thus, Mr. President, I am prepared to
let the case rest right there. That is all
I have to say.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the
Subversive Activities Control Board is
an independent Federal agency which is
supposed to decide whether organizations
are subversive, and whether individuals
are members of subversive organizations.
The Board received its assignments in
1950 and 1954, with Congress overriding
President Truman's veto of the 1950 leg-
islation. Somehow, nearly 20 years later,
it seems less obvious to us why five men
should be paid $36,000 a year just to give
us their opinions on which groups and
individuals are "subversive." And an re-
cent years the Board in fact has
atrophied as its irrelevance has become
apparent, and as its functioning has been
constrained by Court decisions. Never-
theless, the legislation remains on the
books, the Board continues to exist, and
there still stands a vestige of responsi-
bility.
We are faced here today with two basic
questions:
First, does it make any sense at all to
confirm a fifth member to an agency
which has not had enough work even to
keep one member busy? The answer to
that question is easy. In a time of budg-
etary restraint, personnel freezes, and
high defense costs, we set a bad example
by allowing a job to be filled just for the
sake of filling it.
Second, do Mr. Otepka's background
and record indicate that he will be able
to perform properly the duties of a
member of the SACB? As I have indi-
Juae 24, 1969
cated, these duties are not very onerous.
The demands on the members' time and
energy are minimal. Nevertheless, to the
extent that the Board may at times be
called upon to decide cases, its duties are
sensistive and subtle ones, indeed. The
Board acts only on the petition of the
Attorney General, so that it cannot run
away on its own. Yet, since it is intended
as a protection against the over-enthusi-
asm of that official, it must undertake
an independent and open-minded review
of his determinations. If it is not pre-
pared to be even more demanding than
the Attorney General in its standards of
proof, its insistence on fair procedure,
and its recognition of the constitutional
liberties of speech and association, then
truly it serves no function whatsoever.
Since this is the essence of its role?
interposing a barrier of both substance
and procedure against the possibility of
excesses by the executive branch?the
members of the Board should be people
who have demonstrated a dedication to
due process, a commitment to civil liber-
ties, and a faith in the ability of our
society to tolerate the broadest de-
partures from orthodoxy.
I regret I cannot conclude that the
nominee before Us meets these qualifica-
tions. The fact is that he was the subject
of disciplinary action by his superiors in
the course of his former employment.
Their action was sustained by the Civil
Service Commission and by his subse-
quent superiors of the opposite political
party?including, I might say, the dis-
tinguished Secretary of State Mr. Rogers.
who was a former Attorney General of
the United States. They are the ones
who are fully familiar with his perform-
ance, and they determined that he was
not suitable for the job he held, a job
not unrelated to the duties of the Board.
We thus have what we lawyers call an
"a fortiori" situation. If this nominee was
found incapable of holding a minor
security post within an executive agency,
how can he be qualified to hold a higher
position with a security organization
whose potential jurisdiction runs every-
where? We would have to have some
showing of new facts evidencing a change
in the man, or in the circumstances of
his demotion, to justify giving him a
higher post. None has been presented. In
this context, there is the highest burden
of proof on the supporters of the nomi-
nation to demonstrate the nominee's
judgment, sensitivity, and discretion. but
the additional facts about the nominee
which have become available have hardly
contributed to that demonstration.
I am hopeful that the Senate will exer-
cise all due care in considering this ap-
pointment. Surely, this is not the case
of a Cabinet or sub-Cabinet official who
is part of the President's team and whose
appointment is thus presumptively with
appointment is thus presumptively
within the broadest possible discretion
of the President. Instead, we are free to
vote our consciences on the present nomi-
nation without any presumptions.
Mr. President, because the SACB does
not need a fifth member, and because
the present nominee has not demonstra-
ted the qualifications which a member of
that agency should have, I believe that
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP711300364R000500280001-2
June-24, 14069 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7033
we should not consent to this appoint- the rest could better be handled by other Calendar for several weeks.
merit. -executive agencies. This nomination was approved by the
Mr. 1VIILLER. Mr. President, I hope The Board ought to be abolished; Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of
that the motion to recommit this nomi- therefore, I shall vote against confirma- 12 to 3. There is a printed report, with
nation is defeated. 'tion. individual and minority views.
It is understandable why some well-in- Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, my po- In discussing this nomination, it would
tentioned people may have been misled sition on this particular appointment is serve no useful purpose for me to repeat
by some of the statements made about philosophic, and not personal. I quite what has already been said in the corn-
this nomination. All of us have read and agree with those who have said that the mittee report; except that I do want to
heard suggestions that, because certain usefulness of this Board is past; that it affirm my own adherence to that report,
individuals supported Mr. Otepka during should be abolished; that we are spend- and my own very strong feeling that Mr.
his long ordeal with the State Depart- ing a lot of money for work that could Otepka is highly qualified, by temper-
meht, therefore, Mr. 'Otepka is branded be performed by the Justice Department ment, education, and experience, to fill
with their particular philosophy. Those or FBI. For that reason, I shall vote the position for which he has been nom-
who seek to persuade their readers or to recommit. If that vote fails to carry, Mated.
listeners with such guilt-bY-association however, I cannot carry my vote against For the benefit of any who may not
logic do a disservice not only to Mr.. the individual and, therefore, I shall have given the matter particular atten-
Otepka but also to the people of our vote to confirm the nomination. tion before now, it might be well to put
country. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, it a summary of the Otenka case into the
A vote against this motion and a vote would be a little refreshing on the Sen- record.
to confirm Mr. Otepka will put the Sen- ate floor if, instead of telling the partial The story of the Otepka case has been
ate clearly on record that it will take facts, the whole facts are related to the summarized many times. One of the best
more than the guilt-by-association tech- Senate for its guidance. jobs was done by Charles Stevenson and
nique to block the appointment by the The distinguished Senator from Wis- William J. Gill, whose article appeared
President of one whose loyalty to our consin just reflected on the Subversive in the August 1965 issue of the Reader's
country and opposition to its enemies Activities Control Board for 20 months Digest.
are beyond question. ? of inactivity. But what is the rest of the Mr. President, I ask that the full text
Mr. NELSON. Mr. 'President, I shall story? Well, the rest of the story is that of this article may be inserted in the
der an inhibition by a de-
hey were un
vote for recommital and against confir- t RECORD at this point as a part of my re-
mation of Mr. Otepka. After searching cision of the appellate court in Wash- marks.
ington and, likewise, the Supreme Court,
the statutes and looking at the work of
and they could not move a muscle. Mean- There being no objection, the article
the Board, I cannot find that it has a
function to
while, the Senator's colleague from Wis- was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
perform that could not better m
be performed by existing agencies and consin was trying to get the Board abol- as follows:
that, therefore, the Board itself should ished by appearing before the Appro- THE ORDEAL OF OTTO OTEPKA
priations Committee to take away the (By Charles Stevenson, with William J. Gill)
be allowed to pass quietly into oblivion.
funds of the Board. Why have State Department employes
Air. President, for 20 months, from been using the tactics of a police state to
I undertook to meet that Supreme
April 1966 until January 1968, the Sub- oust a dedicated security officer whose only
Court decision, and, with staff, we had to
versive Activities Control Board did not sin seems to be loyalty to his country?
labor to put that Internal Security Act
have a single hearing. It is a Board with 1963,
stobrefoor n
in order to comply with the decision of cioillet Friday,
five members at salaries of $36,000 per June few
before
the court, and it was not an easy job. But
year for each member, a general coun- U.S. State Department's security-evaluations
when we got it done, and the Senate put division, was summoned to the office of his
sel at $26,000, an assistant general ooun-
the seal of approval upon it, and like- immediate superior, John F'. Reilly, Deputy
sel at $20,200 and office exPenses of $94,-
000 for a total 1969 budget of $344,000. wise the House, I then went to Ramsey Assistant Secretary of State for Security.
Clark the Attorney General, and said Reilly tossed him a one-page memorandum.
During the 18 months since January ' "Effective immediately," the memo said, "you
"Under the,law, you start sending cases
168, the Board has held six hearings, to that Board, or you will not have heard are detailed to a special project updating
tely 1,050 working the Office of Security Handbook. You will
During the approximately 1,050 last of it," and I was after Ramsey remove forthwith to Room 38A05."
days in the past 3 years and 2 months, Clark to do it. Finally' he sent some cases Within a half-hour of this ouster, Otepka's
the Board has held 14 days of hearings to the Board, and for the first time they office safes and file cabinets, which contained
and 6 days of executive sessions on these could go to work.extensive security information on State De-
hearings. So there were 15 months of inactivity, partment personnel, were seized. The same
If the Board conducts hearings at the laboring under the difficulty of the War- thing was happening to two veterans secu-
same pace in the future as in the past, rent court?if you have got to know the rity officers who worked under Otepka.
the cost per case heard will be about truth. That is where the decision 'came These police-state tactics were used not
against men suspected of subversion. They
$100,000. Or put another way, the Board down. We have been around here for were used againstbvsmeresnio11. h who had been try-
will do about 1 good' day of work for only 5 months. We have had an Attorney tag
to
.
every 50 working days, which I submit General for only 5 months, or a little less. "security fightm en" whose job
it is e professionalt ot
th keep
is a pretty leisurely pace even for an in- That Board, just last week, was in Cali- the government service free of communists
stitution as jaded as the Federal fornia and it has conducted some very and persons who might fall under their
bureaucracy. successful hearings. influence.
The fact is the Board does not have Why do they not tell the Senate the The story of Otto Otepka, a tall, quiet,
darkly handsome man of 50, is still without
any function that cannot be better per- whole story? It is just about time that we an ending, and on its outcome hang two
formed by the Attorney General, the quit sharing with the Senate a few vitally important issues. One is whether we
FBI, and the appropriate committees of crumbs of fact so that they can mislead shall, without hysterics and false accuse-
the Congress. themselves. tions, fight attempts to subvert our govern-
The Board has no power to investigate The motion to recommit the nomina- ment. The other is whether Congress?the
or initiate any action on its own. tion ought to be overwhelmingly voted elected representatives of the people?shall
preserve our right to oversee the behavior
The responsibility of investigating down, in justice to Otto Otepka, because of the officials in the executive branch.
and gathering evidence on subversive of the size of the vote by which his nomi- Many kinds of subversion are practiced
activities of 'individuals and organiza- nation was reported by the Judiciary today by the communists. One of the most
tions is in the Congress, the FBI, and the Committee of the Senate. difficult to detect is "policy sabotage," a de-
Attorney General. Mr. President, we can now vote, vice by which seemingly innocent decisions
It seems rather ironic to continue Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, the cover up disruption and delay of crucialactivities. A classic example occurred in the
spending ' $344,000 per year on this nomination of Otto F. Otepka to be a aftermath of World War II: Harry Dexter
Board when most of its functions have member of the Subversive Activities White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury;
been terminated by Court decisions and Control Board has been on the Senate withheld vitally needed shipments of gold
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7034 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ordered by Congress to bolster Chiang Kai-
shek's currency, thus contributing to the col-
lapse of the currency. The Nationalist ar-
mies were left Unpaid and starving, an easy
prey to Mao Tse-tong' communists.
This type of sabotage is doubly dangerous
because it creates suspicion and confusion.
Many who supported the wild charges of the
late Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the early
1950'8, for instance, failed to distinguish be-
tween policy sabotage and errors of judg-
ment, and they besmirched the reputation of
innocent people. Otto Otepka was never such
a zealot, His very background made him
respect the underdog. The son of an immi-
grant Czech blar.ksmith, he had come to
Washington in 1936 as a government mes-
senger. In 1942, after earning a law degree
at night at Columbus University (now the
law school of Catholic University), he be-
came an investigator for the Civil Service
Commission. Following Navy service in
World War II, he returned to the commis-
sion, became an expert an communist sub-
version and supervised a large staff analyz-
ing castes under the Federal Employes Loyalty
Program.
It was, In part, his sense of perspective that
led one veteran security officer to call him
"the best evaluator in government." Secretary
of State John Poster Dulles, on June 15,
1963, brought him into the State Depart-
ment to carry out President Eisenhower's Ex-
ecutive Order 10450, designed to set security
standards for all federal agencies.
By 1957 Otepka was deputy director of the
Office of Security?the Department's highest
civil-service security job?and working head
of State's global personnel-security orga-
nization. In 1958 the State Department
awarded him its Meritorious Service Award.
The citation, signed by Secretary of State
Dulles, declared that Otepka "has shown
himself consistently capable of sound judg-
ment, creative work and the acceptance of
unusual responsibility." His 1960 depart-
mental efficiency report noted that to his
knowledge of communism and its subversive
efforts In the United States "he adds perspec-
tive, balance and good judgment."
Yet, as he was receiving these plaudits from
his superiors, Otepka was incurring the em-
silty of an influential clique in the Depart-
ment who chafed at security procedures.
Seen after the Kennedy administration took
over in 1961, these persons began to act.
Otepka found his recommendations were be-
ing ignored or overruled.
Then there occurred the strange case of
WiMara Wieland, a controversial foreign-
service officer who had been Caribbean desk
officer during the early days of Fidel Castro.
The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee,
investigating Wieland's role in U.S. support
of the Cuban revolution, declared that he
could not "escape a share of the responsi-
bility" for Oastro's takeover. Among other
things, the subcommittee uncovered evidence
that Wieland had withheld crucial intelli-
gence reports warning of Castro's communist
ties.
Conducting an investigation under specific
Department orders, Otepka in 1961 reported
he found no proof Wieland was a communist,
but he amassed evidence that he was respon-
sible for "policy impedance" and had "lied"
both to the Senate subcommittee and to
State's own investigators. Otepka recom-
mended that higher authorities consider
dismissing him as unsuitable.
Poi* an answer, on September 18, 1961,
William Boswell, WM old-line foreign-service
officer and at the time Otepka's immediate
superior, ordered Otepka to clear Wieland
immediately without the required written
findings from the Deputy Under Secretary for
Administration. Otepka refused.
The Department made its first formal move
to get rid of Otepka lees than six weeks later.
On November 1, 1981, Boswell called Otepka
into his office and announced that 25 Security
Office Jobs were being eliminated. Otepka
was being demoted to chief of a 32-man eval-
uation staff.
Many men would have quit in disgust.
Otepka stayed on, even though his old job,
supposedly abolished for economy reasons,
was later restored with semeene else filling
it.
Then John F. Reilly arrived as the new
director of the Office of Security. Now
Otepkat recommendations and memoran-
dums were bounced back with critical nota-
tions. And weird things began to happen. At
10:30 p.m. on March 24 Otepka returned to
his office after an evening of bowling and
startled two of Reilly's aides there. Later, an
electronics technician told him, "Your phone
Is bugged." Another reported that there were
concealed listening devices planted in his
office. One weekend his office safe was drilled
open. And a mystery man with binoculars
sat outside Otepka's home night after night.
By early 1963 the Situation epitomized by
the harassment of Otepka had become so
critical that the State Department's entire
personnel security apparatus was on the
verge of collapse. The Atomic Energy Com-
mission, in granting access to atomic secrets,
refused to accept State Department investi-
gations, and the Civil Service Commisaion re-
ported to the National Security Council
deficiencies and shortcomings in State's se-
curity operations.
At this point, the Senate Internal Secu-
rity Subcommittee resumed its hearings.
During February and March 1963 it asked
Otepka whether the Department was clear-
ing possible security risks deSpite warnings
from the Evaluation Division. Otepka de-
clared it was. Reilly denied this. As the hear-
ings progressed, more and more discrepancies
developed between Otepka's testimony and
Reilly's rejoinders. The contradictions were
So serious that on May 23 subcommittee
counsel J. G. Sourwine called Otepka to his
Capitol Hill office. "One of you is lying under
oath," he said. "If you have,evidence to prove
you're right, you'd better produce it."
That night Otepka paced his basement
study at home. "The Code of Ethics for Gov-
ernment Employees," adopted by Congress
in 1958, requires all civil servants to put
loyalty to country above loyalty to govern-
ment departments. Federal Statutes specifi-
cally guarantee their right "to furnish in-
formation to Congress shall not be interfered
with."
Shortly thereafter Otepka sent the sub-
committee 25 unclassified, two "confidential,"
six "official use only," and three "limited offi-
cial use" documents and memos. Point by
point these papers upheld the truth of Otep-
ka's testimony.
Four weeks later, on June 27 Otepke was
given the meaningless assignment of updat-
ing the Security Office Handbook,
On August 14, 1963, Otepka suffered the
next step in his degradation?he was ac-
cused by his superiors at State of violating
the World War Espionage Act. He was charged
with spying for the U.S. Senate by turning
over "confidential" documents (the papers
which cleared him of perjury). After three
days of questioning, the FBI threw out the
ease against him.
Then, on September 23, 1963, the State
Department fired Otepka for actions "unbe-
coming an officer of the Department of State"
(specifically, supplying legitimate informa-
tion to U.S. Senators). Otepka appealed the
case, under State Department regulations.
Sen. Thomas Dodd, vice chairman of the In-
ternal Security Subcommittee, protested to
Secretary of State Rusk, but Rusk recon-
firmed the proposed dismissal. Dodd then
stormed onto the Senate floor on November
5, castigating the Department for "chasing
the policeman instead of the culprit," and he
exploded a bombshell: "Although a State
Department official has denied under oath
tap on Otepka's telephone the subconunit-
June 24, 1969
tee has proof that the tap was installed"?.s
clear violation of State's own regulations.
That night the Department's top legal ad-
visers called in Reilly and Elmer D. Hill, an
electronics technician, and had them sign
letters asking the subcommittee for the right
to "clarify" and "amplify" their earlier sworn
testimony that they had not tapped Otepka's
telephone. Reilly's story now changed to:
"On March 18 I asked Mr. Elmer D. Hill
to undertake a survey of the feasibility of
intercepting oonvereer ions in Mr. Otepka's
office. I made it clear to Mr. Hill that I did
not wish any conversations to be intercepted
at that time." But days later Hill confessed
to the subcommittee that he had tapped "a
dozen, perhaps more" of Otepka's telephone
conversations under Reilly's orders.
Even after that, despite a written protest
approved by the entire Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee, Secretary Rink declared that prose-
cution of the Otepka case would be "vigor-
ously pursued." Security Office division chiefs
were officially notified that all who "are dis-
loyal" to the Secretary will be "identified and
ousted. We have lost face, and it's up to us
to regain it."
Since then the State Department has al-
lowed little to leak our. Otepka, waiting for
the chance to fight for reinstatement, still
goes to the State Department every Mondae
through Friday. In accordance with Civil
Service rules, he still draws his $19,310 an-
nual salary, but he is not given any useful
tasks. He Is, in effect in exile within the
Department, and mare of his associates are
afraid even to say heilo to him.
Seldom has an issue reached so deep into
the roots of our governmental system. For
if Otepka loses his appeal, now set for October
11, it will set new precedents for conduct of
government. Men like William Wieland, who
withheld information about Castro, will know
that they are safe from accountability. He
is still in the State Department and has
since been promoted. Men like Reilly, who
deceived a Senate subcommittee, will know
that playing the bureaucracy's game pays
off?he presently bolds a highpaying job
with the Federal Communications Commis-
sion. And the thousands of dedicated public
officials?the Otepkas and those in other gov-
ernment agencies?will have learned their
lesson: In government, if you see something
going wrong, forget it. Says Senator Dodd:
"If those forces bent on destroying Otepka
and the no-nonsense security approach he
represents are successful, who knows how
many more Chinas or Cubes we may lose?"
The American people can offer only one
answer: Loud, sustained protest to President
Johnson and their representatives in Con-
gress. Until the men of Otto Otepka's stamp
are safe in their jobs, with full authority to
enforce a wise security program, the nation
can have no reasonable assurance it is safe
from enemies within.
Mr. EASTLAND. Since the two mem-
bers of the committee who submitted
minority views have raised the question
of Mr. Otepka's activities in the State
Department as an implied reason for
disapproving the pending nomination
some discussion of this aspect of the
Otepka case certainly appears pertinent.
The fact is, Mr. President?the sad
fact is?that the actions taken against
Mr. Otepka by the Department of State
were in the nature of reprisals because
he told the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee the truth, and disclosed
wrongdoing and bad security practices
within the Department.
Various issues were involved in the
Otepka, case.
One of the most serious of these is-
sues was the right of a committee of this
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June -24, 1`969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
body to have access to basic documen-
tary evidence for the purpose of estab-
lishing the truth. In this particular case,
the documentary evidence was essen-
tial because officials of the Department
had lied to the committee about the
facts. The hearing record showed a
sharp conflict of testimony, with state-
ments made by Mr. Otepka having been
flatly contradicted by subsequent tes-
timony from officers of the Department
superior to him in rank.
At this point the subcommittee de-
manded, and I think quite properly de-
manded, that Mr. Otepka bring in what-
ever doeumentary evidence might be
available to support his testimony,
which had been contradicted by his sup-
eriors.
Mr. Otepka met this demand by pro-
ducing indisputable evidence that he had
indeed told the truth, and that his su-
periors had lied.
This was the transmission of docu-
ments which has been referred to as a
"leak." But, Mr. President, the word
"leak" carries the connotation of being
somehow surreptitious. There was noth-
ing surreptitious aboul the production of
this sinformation by Mr. Otepka. Mr.
Otepka was called to the offices of the
subcommittee, and there it was de-
manded of him that he produce evi-
dence, if he could, to resolve the con-
tradictiens between his own testimony
and that of his superiors. Mr. Otepka
produced such evidence, and it was put
In the subcommittee's hearing record,
and the facts with respect to the com-
mittee's demand for the evidence and
Mr. Otepka's production of it were
spread on the record.
If witnesses before congressional com-
mittees cannot give truthful testimony
about wrong-doing or bad security
within the executive branch, without
facing severe reprisals from their su-
periors, how are the committees of Con-
gress going to get the facts upon which
to base sound legislative action?
We uphold our own prerogatives, as
Members of this body, when we support
the right of Otto Otepka to do what he
did.
Now, Mr. President, there are some
common misconceptions about the
Otepka case which should be corrected.
In the first place, Mr. Otepka did not
come to the committee as a voluntary
Informant. He was called before the com-
mittee after State Department officials
had identified him as the one individual
most likely to have particular informa-
tion which the committee wanted.
After he came before the committee,
Mr. Otepka was not a ready critic of
either the State Department or of his su-
periors, or any of them. On the contrary,
he did everything a witness honorably
could do to avoid saying anything criti-
cal of either the Department or of other
departmental officers.
- Another misconception about the
Otepka case is that the State Depart-
ment's original order with respect to
Otepka was upheld on appeal. This is not
the case. The original order called for
Otepka's dismissal. This was found not
Justified. The original order then was
modified so as to provide for a reprimand
and a reduction in grade with a cut in
Pay. Mr. Otepka continued to appeal,
for he felt he had done nothing deserving
of any punishment. On that I agree with
him.
It is noteworthy that the modification
of the State Department's original order
dismissing Otepka made it much more
difficult for him to carry on his appeal,
since a reprimand is considered to be an
administrative action from which there
is no right of appeal, and the right of
appeal from a reassignment is much
more narrow than the right of appeal
from an order of dismissal.
When the State Department an-
nounced its dismissal proceedings
against Otto Otepka, the Department
stated that 13 separate charges against
Otepka had been made; and these 13
charges were made public.
Some of these charges, couched in the
language used by the Department,
sounded quite serious.
For instance, there was a charge that
Mr. Otepka was responsible for mutilat-
ing classified documents in violation of a
criminal statute.
There was a charge that he had been
responsible for improper declassification
of documents.
For more than 3 years, the Depart-
ment of State circulated these charges
against Mr. Otepka. But when it finally
got around to trying the case, the Depart-
ment dropped 10 of the 13 charges.
Mr. Otepka asked for an opportunity
to bring in evidence with respect to the
charges the Department had dropped. He
argued that he should be permitted to
show that these charges were false. He
argued further that the Department's
action in bringing false charges against
him, and then dropping those charges
just before the hearings, was in itself
evidence of harassment.
Mr. Otepka was denied the right to
bring in any evidence with respect to the
charges which the Department had
chosen to drop. The Department, how-
ever, in making public announcement
that the hearing on Mr. Otepka's appeal
was finally about to begin, recapitulated
all 13 of the charges originally made, in
spite of the fact that notice already had
been given to Mr. Otepka that 10 of the
13 charges were being dropped.
The only three charges retained, after
10 charges were dropped, involved allega-
tions that Mr. Otepka gave confidential
documents to an unauthorized person.
There was never any doubt at all about
the facts of what happened. As I have
pointed out, these facts were spread on
the committee's record. The only ques-
tions at issue involved how to interpret
the facts.
Mr. Otepka produced certain docu-
ments in response to the demand by the
committee for evidence to establish
whether Otepka, or his superiors in the
State Department, had given false testi-
mony.
Was the production of these docu-
ments, under the circumstances, a viola-
tion of an Executive order?
Was the chief counsel of the Internal
Security Subcommittee of the United
States Senate a so-called "unauthorized
person," in spite of the fact that the
documents were received by him in his
official capacity, and for the purpose of
S 7035
having them placed in the committee's
record?
Giving a document to the top staff
man of a Senate committee, for inclusion
in the committee's record, is just one
way of giving the document to the com-
mittee. Is a Senate committee to be re-
garded as unauthorized to receive confi-
dential documents?
Of course, committees of the Congress
are authorized to receive confidential
documents; and if committee staff mem-
bers cannot receive communications for
the committee, it will be difficult indeed
for the committees to function.
There appears to be some danger that
efforts may be made to induce Senators
to vote on this nomination in accordance
with their views on what powers should
be exercised by the Subversive Activities
Control Board, and whether Congress
should take action to shore up portions
of the Subversive Activities Control Act
rendered inoperative or ineffective as a
result of Supreme Court decisions.
Of course, neither of these issues is
Involved in the question now before us.
Unless there is good reason to believe
this nominee is unfit for the job to which
he has been nominated, the Senate
should advise and consent to his ap-
pointment.
Nothing in the Otepka case provides
any such reason.
Otto Otepka is a: man who would not
bend and did not break.
I do not mean to say that Otto Otepka
lacks flexibility, where flexibility is an
asset. He proved himself a good admin-
istrator, able to see both sides of a prob-
lem, quick to recognize and appreciate
the viewpoints of others and willing to
settle an administrative disagreement
by meeting the other party half way in
compromise.
Over a period of years, Mr. Otepka
had substantial responsibilities for deal-
ing with Members of the Congress, and
proved himself both patient and
obliging.
Otto Otepka was all these things?
flexible, accommodating, patient, oblig-
ing?up to a point. Beyond that point he
could not be budged. That point was
where duty, honor, or morality became
involved. Otto Otepka would not com-
promise on a matter of principle. It has
always been part of his creed to do his
duty as he sees it, and he has never per-
mitted himself to be swayed from that
position: not by threats, not by cozen-
Ings, not by force, and not by considera-
tions of personal advantage.
Here lies the basis for many of the
troubles which have been laid on Otto
Otepka. Those who have tried unsuc-
cessfully to coerce him, to bend him to
their will against his sense of duty, his
sense of honor, his loyalty to the inter-
ests of his country, or his moral prin-
ciples, have wound up in a position
where they either had to hate Otepka or
hate themselves; and they have chosen
to hate Otepka.
Mr. Otepka deserves from this body, at
the very least, a vote of confidence. I
hope aRd believe, Mr. President, that the
Senate will confirm this nomination by
such a substantial majority that no-
where in the world will it be possible to
? -
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7036 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
misunderstand or misinterpret the Sen-
ate's position.
Mn PROXMIRE. Mr. President, during
the Past congressional session, several
Presidential appointments and nomina-
tions have been objected to by various
Members of Congress. I believe that this
change in the carte blanche nomination
' approach for a Presidential appointment
Is a healthy sign. Although I intend to
vote for the nomination of Otto Otepka
to the Subversive Activities Control
Board, I want to explain my reasons for
doing so.
I am now as adamantly opposed to the
Subversive Activities Control Board as
I ever was, if not more so. This Board
is a completely do-nothing Board which
promises to continue that way unless
the Supreme Court diametrically reverses
its position with regard to the constitu-
tionality of the Board's authority. It is
literally in a governmental limbo.
To decide a man's qualifications for
this position is completely irrelevant. In
this case, a blank resume would suffice
for the job. That is why I do not be-
lieve it is fair or reasonable to judge the
personality or qualifications of Otto
Otepka. It is not a case of the man, but
the job. My point is that the job should
not exist, no matter who should be ap-
pointed.
In the 18 years of its existence, the
Board has attempted to register as sub-
versive approximately '70 individuals and
organizations, But not one has actually
been registered. This was because every
attempt to register suspected subversives
was thwarted by the courts. Attempts
to register individuals merely for their
associations with an undesirable orga-
nization were decided by the courts as
unconstitutional.
Having no power and no authority the
Board languished. With no work to do
one might have expected Congress to
save the American taxpayer the cost of
keeping the Board in existence. But that
would have been expecting too much.
Through all the years, Congress went
right on appropriating more than $300,-
000 a year while Board members and
other employees went right on enjoying
what must have been?and still is?the
softest do-nothing job in Washington.
In 18 years the Board has wasted more
than $5 million, which could, and should,
have been spent on education, crime
control, housing, or medical research,
to cite just a few worthwhile purposes.
Or the $5 million could have been re-
tained in the Treasury to help to balance
the budget or to help to provide for the
possibility of reducing taxes. Admittedly,
$5 million is not a tremendous sum, but
I think we are entitled to expect some-
thing for our money. The SACB has
been less than useless: it has brought us
back to the age of the witchlumt, with-
out contributing one iota to the Nation's
security.
I call upon Congress net to grant the
request for appropriations of $365,000 for
the Board for the coming fiscal year. It
Is high time that Congress sees the folly
of perpetuating this outrageous exercise
in futility, and relegate the SACB to the
history books. That is where it belongs.
Mr. 'rYDINGS. Mr. President, we are
tial nomination requiring the advice and
consent of the Senate. I raised a number
of questions with respect to the nominee
when the nomination was before the Ju-
diciary Committee, and finally concluded
that I could not concur in that commit-
tee's favorable recommendation of the
nomination to this body. At this time I
want to clarify the reasons for my op-
position to the nomination of Mr. Otto
.Otepka to be a member of the Subver-
sive Activities Control Board.
As we are all aware, when that Board
was first created it was envisioned as a
highly important watchdog over Ameri-
can security. In the intervening years, it
has been considerably delimited in func-
tion by court decisions, to the point at
which there has been considerable dis-
cussion in this body as to the Board's
continued viability. We have chosen,
however, to continue its lifespan.
No one will deny the strategic impor-
tance of national security, although some
may debate the most effective means of
insuring it. But if we are going to have
top level organizations designed to in-
sure national security, we must have top
level personnel administering them. The
most potent and potentially effective se-
curity mechanism will not operate to
achieve its objectives unless the people
who are at its helm are capable of di-
recting it. Mr. Otepka's record does not
show him to be thusly qualified.
Rather, it reveals that, once having
held a security post at the State Depart-
ment, he conducted himself in such a
manner that his superiors concluded it
was necessary to remove him from that
post. Their action was sustained by the
last Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and,
very significantly, after investigation
was not reversed by the present Secre-
tary William Rogers. I do not understand
how the nominee, thought by the present
administration to be unfit for the lesser
office in the State Department, could at
the same time be thought qualified for
this greater office. It is a peculiar situa-
tion, at the least, where a post which
raises to the status of requiring the ad-
vice and consent of the Senate is thought
to require less qualification the same field
of competence than one which is within
the sole control of a Cabinet-level officer
of the executive branch.
I strongly believe that the President
should be given as much freedom as pos-
sible in making appointments which are
not covered by the Civil Service. I equally
believe, however, that there is a con-
stitutional obligation in the function of
advice and consent which requires more
than a rubberstamp effort in the Senate.
At the least, it is a requirement that in
giving our approval we be assured that
the candidate is fundamentally qualified
to hold the office to which he is to be
appointed.
After considerable deliberation, based
on careful study of the neeninee's record,
I believe that this body would be remiss
in its constitutional obligations if it con-
sented to this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion to re-
commit the nomination. The yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll
June 24; 1969
Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART) , the
Senator from Utah k Mr. Moss), and the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE )
are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. 13uruncx), the Sena-
tor from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) , the Sen-
ator from Iowa (Mr_ HUGHES) , and the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. BURDICK) would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Michi-
gan (Mr. HART) is paired with the Sen-
ator from Alaska i Mr. STEVENS) . If pres-
ent and voting, the Senator from Michi-
gan would vote "yea," and the Senator
from Alaska would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. HUGHES) is paired with the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) . If present
and voting, the Senator from Iowa would
vote "yea," and the Senator from
Georgia would vote -nay."
Mr. SCOTT. I announce that the Sen-
ator from Hawaii (Mr. Form) is neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from Alaska (Mr.
STEVENS) is detained on official business
and is paired with the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. HART) . If present and
voting, the Senator from Alaska would
vote "nay." and the Senator from Michi-
gan would vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 35,
nays 56, as follows:
Anderson
Brooke
Cannon
Case
Church
Cooper
Cranston
Eagleton
PulbrIght
Goodell
Harris
Hartke
Aiken
Allen
Allott
Baker
Bayh
Bellmon
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cook
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Dodd
Dole
Dominick
Eastland
Burdick
Fong
Gravel
So the
jected.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, on the
question of whether the Senate will ad-
vise and consent to the nomination of
Otto F. Otepka to be a member of the
Subversive Activities Control Board, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nmenation of Otto F.
[No. 41 Ex. I
YEAS-3D
Hatfield
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Kennedy
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McGee
McGovern
Metcalf
Mondale
NAYS ?56
Ellen der
Ervin
Fannin
Gold wet CT
Gore
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Holland
Hollings
Hruska
Jordn , N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Long
Math as
McClellan
McInty-e
Miller
Mundt
Montoya
Muskie
Nelson
Pastore
Pell
Ribicoff
Symington
Tvdings
Williams, NJ.
Yarborough
Young, Ohio
Murphy
Packwood
Pearson
Percy
PI outy
Proxmire
Randolph
Russell
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott
Smith
Soong
Stennis
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
NOT VOTING-9
Hart Sparkman
Hughes Stevens
Moss Talmadge
motion to recommit was re-
called4liptitreiMir Pre IsPem215181-/07/N.: ErAlgi5g7i Igeolakbidg1526Will
be a member of the Subversive
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
June 24, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Activities Control Board? On this ques-
tion the yeas and nays have been or-
dered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss), and the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE)
are absent on official. business.
I also announce that the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. Burtracx) , the Sena-
tor from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) , the Sena-
tor from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) , the
Senator ?from Iowa (Mr. HUGHES) , the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MC-
GOVERN), and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. SPARKMAN) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from North Da-
kota (Mr. BURDICK) would vote "yea."
On this vote, the Senator from Michi-
gan (Mr. HART) is paired with the Sena-
tor from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) . If pres-
ent and voting, the Senator from Michi-
gan would vote "nay" and the Senator
from Alaska would vote "yea."
On this vote, the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. TALMADGE) is paired with the Sena-
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2
S 7038 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ary trends in the United States; to the Com
rnittee on Finance.
A. resolution adopted by joint meeting 01
the Western Slope District County Com-
missioners and San Luis Valley District
County Conimissioners Association, held at
Montrose, Colo., praying for a complete
examination relating to the funding and
administration of welfare; to -he Committee
on Labor and Pub/lc Welfare.
REREFERRAL OF 3. 2306
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, on June 5.
a bill, S. 2306, was introduced by the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. MU-SRA)
and referred to the Committee on Fi-
nance. The bill has to do with establish-
ing quarantine stations for animals that
come from countries with certain dis-
ease& Because it deals with ports of en-
try, the bill was properly referred to the
Committee on Finance. However, I un-
derstand that the Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry is Intel. ested in look-
ing into the bill its Well as the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. On behalf of the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Coans),
who is a member of the Finance and
Agriculture Committees. I ask unani-
mous consent to rerefer S. 2306 to the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of comniittees
were submitted:
By Mr. TWANGS, from the Committee on
the Judiciary, with aniendmonts:
S. 980. A bill to provide courts of the
United States with jurisdiction over con-
tract claims against nonappropria,ted fund
activities of the United States, and for other
purposes (Rept. No. 91-268).
By Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota, from the
Committee on Agriculture anti Forestry, with
amendments:
S. 1790. A bill to amend the Act of August
7, 1956 (70 Stat. 1115), as aniended, provid-
ing for a Great Plains conservation program
(Rept. No. 91-269f.
By Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with amend-
ments:
S. 1076. A bill to establish in the Depart-
ments of the, Interior and Agriculture Youth
Conservation Corps, and for other purpoces
(Rept. No. 91-270) ,
By Mr. MOSS, from the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs, without amend-
ment:
S.1613. A bill to designate the dam com-
monly referred- to as the Glen Canyon Dam
as the Dwight D. Eisenhower Dam (Rept. No.
91-273).
By Mr. LONG, from the Committee on
Commerce, with an amendment:
4152. An act to authorize appropria-
tions for procurement of vessel:: and aircraft
and construction of shore and offshore estab-
lishments for the Coast Guard (Rept. No. 91--
271).
By Mr. LONG, from the Committee on
Commerce, with amendments:
HR. 4152. An act to authorise appropria-
tions for certain maritime programs of the
Department of Commerce (Rept. No. 91-272).
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A
COMMITTEE
As in executive session,
The following favorable report of a
nomination was submitted:
By Mr. EASTLAND, from the Committee
on the Judiciary:
Robert B. larupansky, of Ohio, to be U.S.
attorney for the northern district of Ohio.
I3ILLS INTRODUCED
Bills were introduced, read the first
time and, by unanimous consent, the sec-
ond time, and referred as follows:
By Mr. DIRKSEN:
S.2468. A bill to amend certain provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 relat-
ing to beer, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
(The remarks of Mr. Dositeraraviren-laa in-
troduced the bill appear later in the Racatha
under the appropr te heading.)
By Mr. D KSEN (by request) :
S.2169. A ? 1 for the relief of Guiseppe
and Franc Menolascina; to the Commit-
tee on the udiciary.
By r. SCOTT (for himself, Mr. BIBLE,
t. BROOKE, Mr. FONG, Mr. GURNEY,
. HART, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. HATFIELD,
Mr. HOLL/NGS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. Kari-
, NEDY, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. PROUTY,
Mr. SPONG,, and Mr., STEVENS) :
70. A bill to amend, the Food Stamp
1964 to authorize elderly persons to
nge food stamps under certain circum-
es for meals prepared and served by
te nonprofit organizations, and for other
es; to the Committee on Agriculture
estry.
e remarks of Mr. Scorr when he in-
ie the bill appear earlier in the RECORD
the: ppropriate heading.)
y Mr. YOUNG of Ohio:
.2%. bill to abolish the Subversive
Control Board and to transfer the
ties, and functions thereof to the
of Justice, and for other pur-
poses; to the ommittee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. R COFF ?
S. 2472. A bill to tablish an Intergovern-
mental Commission ? Long Island Sound;
to the Committee on Go nment Operations.
(The remarks of Mr. R. ?FF when he in-
troduced the bill appear lat in the RECORD
under the appropriate headin
By Mr. TYD/NGS:
S. 2473. A bill to improve judicia machin-
ery by granting the district courts o he U.S.
jurisdiction to resolve controversy w h re-
spect to jurisdiction to regulate a Win
utility and to provide for venue in ich
cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
(The remarks of Mr. TYDINGS when he ik-
troduced the bill appear later in the Racofait
under the appropriate heading.)
By Mr. NELSON:
S. 2474. A bill for the relief of Esperanza
del Iocorro Sandino; and
S. 2475. A bill for the relief of Dr. Marcial
Zamaro, Jr.; to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary.
S.2
Act ?
exch
stan
priv
pur
and ?
trod
und
5.24
Activiti
powers, ?
Departmen
By Mr. YARBOROUGH:
S.3476. A bill to expedite delivery of
special delivery mall, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.
(The remarks of Mr. YARBOROUGH when he
introduced the bill appear later in the
RECORD under the appropriate heading.)
By Mr. GOLDWATER.:
S. 2477. A bill for the relief of Theodore P
Crowley; and
S.2478. A bill for the relief of Consu
Hagler; to the Committee on the Judici
By Mr. MUSKIE:
S. 2479. A bill to improve the fin ncial
management of Federal assistance p ems;
to facilitate the consolidation of h pro-
grams; to provide temporary ority to
expedite the processing of pr t applica-
tions drawing upon more one Federal
assistance program; to ngthen further
congressional review Federal grants-in-
aid; and, to extend amend the law relat-
ing to intergovernmental cooperation; to the
Committee an Government Operations.
(The remarks of Mr. Music= when he In-
a
3r.
Jude 1960
troduccd the bill appear later in the REC,.12D
under the appropriate heading.)
S. 2468?INTRODUCTION OF A BILL
TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1951 RI, LATING TO BEER
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I intro-
duce a bill for appropriate reference.
Along with it I submit a sectional
analysis of the proposed legislation and
ask that it be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately
referred; and, without objection, the
analysis will be printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 2468) , to amend certain
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 relating to beer, and for other
purpeses, introduced by Mr. DIRKSEN,
was received, read twice by its title, and
referred to the Committee on Finance,
The material presented by Mr. DIRK-
SEN follows:
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
"To AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954 RELATING
TO r P NTD FOR 01; 5 -R PURPOSES"
Sec, 1. In the definition of the term
"removed for consumption or sale" under
the Code, would delete from the dennition
of the term -"removals" the present excep-
tion for any beer returned to the brewery
on the same day the beer is removed from
the brewery.
Explanation: This change complements
the change to 26 USC 5056(a) which is made
In Sec. 3. below, whath will authorize the
brewer to make a compensating offset or
deduction from the Federal beer tax for
beer returned at any time to the brewer's
plant from which originally removed. Reten-
tion of section 5056 la) exception would
serve no purpose.
Sec. 2 Under present law, brewers are re-
quired to pay the tax on any beer shipped
from the factory to commercial laboratories
or 0th a wise for other than analysis of the
beer itself. Thus, beer removed from the
brewery for research ill, or development or
testing of. packaging materials and systems,
and the like, is subject to the tax notwith-
standing that it is never placed in market
channels.
This section adds a new provision in 26
USC 5053 authorizing tax-free removals for
such research, development, and testing.
isubject to such conditions and regulations
fa.s the Secretary or hls delegate may pre-
Scribe. Consumer testing or other market
ahalysis is specifically excluded from the
.2.8z13 exemption.
SEC. 3. This section adds to; 26 USC 5056
*
new provision authorizing brewers to set
pfr or deduct taxes previceisly paid or deter-
' lned on beer that is returned at any time
the brewer's plant from which originally
emoved. As previously noted, this section
and Sec. 1 above complement each other.
Explanation:Under present law and regu-
lations, tax credit or relief on returned beer
requires compliance with notice and claim
procedures which, in the view of both the
industry and the ATTD, are unnecessary,
burdensome, and time-consuming from the
standpoint of the brewer, and which make
no contribution to the protection and col-
lection of the Federal revenue. The proce-
dural details of the hew set-off authority
will be prescribed by regulations which.
among other things, will provide for the
making and maintenance of adequate rec-
ords by the brewer.
Sec. 4 This section adds a new provision to
26 USC 5056(b) extending to brewers the
same privilege presently a,ccorded to opera-
tors of distilled spirits plants for tax relief
Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP71600364R000500280001-2