PLOT TO GET OTEPKA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 15, 1998
• Sequence Number: 125
• Publication Date: October 7, 1963
• Content Type: NSPR

F0IAb3b OCT 7 1963
FOIA 3b
1963 Sanitized -8i~~rgl~
AND ON HUMAN RESOURCES the globe-there is just no such thing as
In their consideration of President Ken- isolation for the United States.
nedy's persuasive discourse on foreign relax The concept of a fortress America is as
tions, we hope Utahans did not miss the im-' dead as the dodo.
pact of the speech he might have given but The question then is how to face the reali-
didn't. ties of a world in which we are inevitably
Nor should they miss the subtle compli- deeply involved.
ment he paid to Utah and its people. Mr. Kennedy said one answer is to realize
As the White House had advertised, this that we cannot by command remake the
ded to look at world in our own image. We must recognize
il
i
t
i
y
n
en
mar
swing West was pr
and talk about conservation problems and that each nation is bound to act in terms
projects. This has been the theme of almost of its own interest. We must accept the
all his addresses along the way. fact there are many complex and baffling
That he chose to give his major foreign problems which defy pat solution-that, as
policy address-his first since the ratification he said, "to adopt a black-and-white, all-
of the test ban treaty and his most com- or-nothing policy subordinates our inter-
prehensive reply to the rightwing critics of ests to our irritations."
America's policy-in the Salt Lake Taber- We must in fact have a policy of fiexibil-
nacle is a tribute to the audience he expected ity. While being ever vigilant to protect
here. American security against any threat, we
But equally significant were his few words must be ever ready to take steps which lead
about the real heart of conservation in Amer- toward a more peaceful and stable world.
ica-the conservation of human resources. This does not mean appeasement. But it
Utah has been through some trying times also does not mean mere belligerence. It
with its educational crisis of recent months. means strength, but it also means reason-
Adverse publicity, unjustified but nonethe- ableness and responsibility.
less real, has spread across the country. It Fundamentally this is the policy this Na-
was good to hear the President of the United tion has been following ever since World
States tell the Nation that Utah leads Amer- War IT, under three different administra-
ica in the percentage of its youth who finish tions, both Democratic and Republican.
high school and go on to college. It is a policy we must continue to follow,
One would hope that the deeper import of with broad American public understanding
this fact was not lost on President Kennedy. and suppport.
He should understand that Utah, despite its This is a perilous world. We cannot iso
economic problems, has managed this record late ourselves from It. We can only live in
on its own. It has shown that a State with it if we are prepared to face its complex
the will and the ideals that he so graciously and baffling problems, realistically and with
described as stemming from the first Pioneers the kind of rational understanding for which
in these valleys can do the job without Mr. Kennedy so effectively appealed.
Federal help.
But if a sense of complacent satisfaction [From the Provo Herald, September 29, 1963]
was all Utahans got from the President's re- UTAHANS GET LIFT FROM KENNEDY VISIT
marks on youth conservation, his effort would In his concise remarks following President
have been wasted. Certainly with this rec- Kennedy's Utah address at the Mormon Tab-
ognition of quantitative success we must ac- bernacle Thursday night, Senator FRANK
cept the challenge of achieving far greater E. Moss told the Chief Executive: "you have
qualitative success, given us a real lift tonight."
It is not enough merely to send our young- The comment seemed to pretty well fit the
sters to school longer. We must also send situation. The more than 8,000 persons who
them to better schools, under better teachers, jammed the Salt Lake Tabernacle showed
with better parental understanding and com- by the expressions on their faces that they
munity support of the problems educators did indeed get a "lift" from the President's
face. appearance and his address.
Thanks, Mr. President, for your kind words There were other thousands outside the
to make ourselves more worthy of this kind as it was broadcast over the Temple Square
of national recognition, and who struggled in the crowd for a glimpse
of the President.
From the Salt Lake City (Utah) Tribune, Crowds swarmed at the airport and hotel
Sept. 28, 19631 for a good look and the route of Mr. Ken-
LEARNING To LIVE IN A PERILOUS WORLD nedy's motorcade was a sea of faces as men,
President Kennedy lived up to the promise women and children strained for a good look.
that he would deliver a major address of his Many Central Utahans traveled to Salt Lake
western tour in Salt Lake City. While the City for an "in person" view of the. Presi-
address did not follow the advance billing dent.
of a conservation theme, the broad foreign But perhaps the people who received the
policy subject had a wider national and biggest lift of all were the leaders of the
even international significance. Democratic Party in Utah who were walking
It was a good speech, thoughtful and on air and felt that the Demo stock went up
thought provoking. And it was nonpoliti- several notches as a result of the President's
cal. visit. The 1964 election will provide an ac-
Mr. Kennedy's basic theme in his Taber- curate gage on this. In 1960 all of Utah's
nacle address was the need for Americans to electoral votes went to Richard Nixon, Mr.
face the realities of a world in which we Kennedy's Republican opponent.
have responsibilities we cannot dodge, bur- President Kennedy and his party, from all
dens we cannot shirk, and a world in which reports, were highly pleased with the Utah
we must deal with problems so complex and appearance and felt the warm reception and
baffling as to defy quick and easy solutions. huge crowds capped anything else up to this
It is understandable, the President said, point on the President's 11-State tour.
that many Americans should look back with The visitors themselves couldn't help be-
nostalgia to simpler times when we lived in ing impressed with a couple of observations
safety and prosperity at a comfortable dis- during their memorable night at the Mormon
tance from the rest of the world. Tabernacle. One was the respect Utahans
But it is a simple fact, as Mr. Kennedy have for their own President David O. McKay,
said, that today "we cannot turn our back who received as long a standing ovation as
on the world outside." did President Kennedy; and the other was
Like it or not, we are part of the world- the tremendously-moving performance of
and in this age of supersonic planes, mis- the Tabernacle Choir which sang "America
siles that can cross the ocean in minutes, the Beautiful," "The Star Spangled Banner,"
weapons that can erase whole cities, and and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," as
deadly radioactive clouds that can encircle these selections are seldom sung. The per-
of newsmen accompanying the President.
Yes, the President's visit was a great oc-
casion, from many standpoints. It provided
a lift, all right-one which will be long re-
membered.
WHEAT SALES TO COMMUNIST-
BLOC NATIONS
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Appendix of the
RECORD a resolution adopted by the five
Northwest State Farmers Union presi-
dents, Edwin Smith, of North Dakota;
Leonard Kenfield, of Montana; Edwin
Christianson, of Minnesota; Ben Rad-
cliffe, of South Dakota; and Gilbert J.
Rohde, of Wisconsin. I am in full accord
with the position taken in this resolution.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
We believe that since Soviet Russia has be-
come a signatory to the International wheat
agreement beginning with the 1963 crop
year, that it is reasonable to explore the pos-
sibilities of a sale of American wheat for
dollars or for gold.
The International Wheat Agreement has
been in force since 1949 and up to this time,
Soviet Russia had been outside the agree-
ment and has normally been an exporting
rather than an importing nation.
We would be favorable to an authorization
making it possible for the United States to
deal with any nation that is a signotory to
the International Wheat Agreement. We
consider it a good sign that more and more
nations are joining in the orderly marketing
of wheat in international trade.
Farmers Union has historically taken the
position that as long as there is hunger
somewhere in the world, we should seek
every way to make our abundant produ tion
availaple to the people.
a'fo ' b"VN'A nerican public has been
demanding a thorough investigation of
the State Department. Newspapers and
private citizens have joined in demand-
ing that this bureaucratic nightmare be
cleared out. In effect, there is wide-
spread sentiment that e State Dgpart-
ment is in b need of
rs Ella a of per-
sonnel in the State Department is being
attempted. Unfortunately, it is the very
opposite of what the critics of the State
Department had in mind, for it is, in
effect, an attempted purge of patriots.
Reports in the press relate that the
State Department has filed charges
against Mr. Otto Otepka, Chief of the
Security Evaluation Division. It seems
clear that these charges are based pri-
marily on the offense committed by Mr.
Otepka in candidly telling the truth to
a Senate committee. In addition, the
State Department is reported to have is-
sued directions that employees of the
State Department are forbidden any
contract with the Senate Internal Secu-
rity Subcommittee or its staff.
This matter raises the most serious
and fundamental questions. In the first
place, it appears to be a clear-cut case
of retaliation against a Government em-
ployee for cooperting with a Senate com-
mittee. Congress should tolerate no
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
 Sanitized - Appr yy8RESS AI FF rRe ga.se : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
1789' ~(~ RECORD - SENATE October 7
arch retaliation, for this is an offense not
just against the individual, but also
against the Congress; and if such action
does not now constitute contempt of the
Senate which is punishable by imprison-
ment, it is the business of the Senate to
close any loopholes, so that retaliation
against any witness before a congres-
sional committee will constitute a
criminal offense with an appropriate
penalty.
This matter also brings into issue the
::;o-called issue of executive privilege.
From what appears in the press, it seems
clear that not even the broadest defini-
tion of this often misused doctrine could
apply in the Otepka case, for no one con-
tends that the so-called privilege can
be claimed by other than the President
himself. In this instance, it appears
that the directive to State Department
employees prohibiting contact with the
Senate committee did not emanate from
the President, but rather from a bureau-
crat within the State Department itself.
Mr. President, there are but two as-
pects of this very serious matter. There
are many other serious implications in
this case, not the least of which is the
security practices, or the lack of them, in
the State Department.
I sincerely hope that the Internal Se-
curity Subcommittee of the Senate and
the Judiciary Committee of the Senate
will press its continuing investigation of
this matter with vigor and resolve. The
entire Senate should support this investi-
gation. State Department's attempted
purge of patriots must not be tolerated,
and this very attempt is further evidence
that a thorough investigation of the en-
tire State Department is in order.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed in the RECORD
at this point in my remarks the follow-
ing:
A newspaper article from the Des
Moines Sunday Register of October 6,
entitled "How Security Clash Led to
Aid's Ouster," over the byline of Mr.
Clark Mollenhoff.
A newspaper article from the Chicago
Tribune of September 29, entitled "Clash
Set Off by State Department's Officer
Firing," over the byline of Mr. Willard
Edwards.
A newspaper article from the St. Louis
Globe Democrat of October 2, entitled
"State Department Official Said His Su-
periors Lied," over the byline of Mr. Ed-
ward O'Brien.
A newspaper article from the Wash-
ington Evening Star of October 4, 1963,
entitled "Otepka Row Widens as Senate
Calls Rusk," over the byline of Mr. Earl
Voss.
An editorial from the Charleston News
and Courier of October 4, entitled "The
Otepka Case."
An editorial from the Chicago Tribune
entitled "State Department Coverup."
And an editorial from the St. Louis
Globe Democrat of October 3, entitled
"1'lot To Get Otepka."
There being no objection, the articles
and editorials were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Des Moin~esRe~~ister, Oct. 6, 19631
How SECURTrr i SASH LEI) TO Am's OUSTER-
OrEPKA QUESTIONED QUICK CLEARANCE
(By Clark Mo:llenhoff)
WASH:INGTON,=-La1t: June, six security
officers walked into the office of State Depart-
ment Security Evaluator Otto Otepka, sensed
his records, and the contents of his safe and
ousted him from his office.
Otepka, 48, Chief of the Security Evalua-
tion Division, was surprised and shaken by
the ordeal of being unceremoniously removed
from his responsibilities as a key figure in the
State Department security program.
In 1958, the veteran lawyer and career civil
servant had received the State Department's
meritorious service award.
FALLEN FROM FAVOR
In May 1962 Otepka was given the oppor-
tunity for advanced executive training at the
National War College.
Why had an official with an outstanding
record, and with tremendous responsibility in
the administration of the State Department
security program, fallen so far from favor
with his superiors?
There were no allegations that Otepka
was a security risk, or that he had anything
in his background to question his fitness to
hold the $16,965-a-year job.
Otepka said lase week that he asked John
F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for Security, for an explanation.
Otepka said Reilly refused to give him a
reason.
On June 27, Otepka was called to Reilly's
office, where Reilly informed him that he
woulcl have it new special assignment-pre-
paring a handbook on security matters.
Otepka was informed that he would be
moved from his office, :room 3333 in the
State Department Building, to a small office,
and that he would be provided with secre-
tarial services only upon request through
Reilly's Office.
ENTERED OFFICE
As Otepka and Reilly walked from Reilly's
office to Otepka's office, six security officers
joined them and entered Otepka's office.
Otepka was asked for the combinations to :his
safes, and access to all other material in
his office.
Reiily and the six officials combed
through the records in the office and ar-
ranged to change the combinations on
Otepka's 14 safes.
After about 20 minutes, Otepka was per-
mitted to leave fo:r a luncheon engagement.
When he returned, Otepka found he was
barred from his own office.
He went to Reilly's office, asked for an
explanation, and requested that he be given
access to information in his office that he
would need for carrying out the new assign-
ment in writing the security handbook.
Otepka said Reilly declined to discuss the
reasons for the action.
Otepka said that Reilly lectured him
briefly on "institutional loyalty" to the
State Department. Otepka. said he replied
that "loyalty to country should be first and
paramount."
Although Otepka was surprised at the
method of removing him from his duties,
the sharp friction had been apparent for
several months.
In fact, Otepka did not attend the National
War College because his own investigation
indicated that the move was an effort to
get rid of him.
The source of the friction was obvious.
Otepka was transferred in 10,53 from the Civil
Service Commission to the State Department
Security Division in the regime of the late
R. W. Scott McLeod.
To many Democrats anci within some for-
eign service circles at the ate Department,
there was it sharp antagonism to any person
regarded as having been a part of the Mc-
Leod organization.
Otepka, a Government eraployee since 1936,
served as deputy to McLeod, and was part of
a small team that had bear responsible for
instituting tighter security regulations and
procedures under the Eisenhower adminis-
tration. Otepka continued as deputy after
McLeod became Ambassador to Ireland, and
it was long after McLeod lift that Otepka
received his meritorious sarvice award.
When the Kennedy administration came
into power in 1961, Otepka was dropped from
his deputy job to that of chief security
evaluator. This was a slig:r:; drop in status,
although his civil service r.ting and salary
remained on the same lece.
The New Frontier had snnie new views on
how the State Departure v, security pro-
cedures should be handled. ''he tighter rules
and regulations instituted under the Eisen-
hower administration werr regarded as un-
reasonably tight;. Some off, cials attacked the
preemployment investigati,ir,s of some per-
sonnel as insulting.
Otepka took issue with hose who sought
to change the security rules. He had a face-
to-face disagreement with the Assistant
Secretary of State Harlan CLroeland,
He also disagreed with Cleveland on sev-
eral individuals who were a: med to a panel
that was to study securit.y program opera-
tions.
Otepka held that the sec city files of sev-
eral persons being named c the panel dis-
closed such questionable :a.c,.ivity that they
should be given a full FBI investigation, and
some should be rejected even before an FBI
report.
Cleveland and some other high State De-
partment officials insisted that these men
should be named to the pr.riel and Otepka
was overridden.
Otepka objected to the Si? it e Department's
frequent use of emergency security clear-
ance for officials being apprar:ted.
ONLY FIVE T]AoZ
The law provided for emergency security
clearance by the Secretary ni State for pur-
poses of speeding through a i appointment,
and when the Secretary of ..tate wished to
take personal responsibility i or the naming
of some person who was regarded as doubtful
by the security division.
In the Eisenhower adneiaistration, the
emergency security clearan, a was used only
five times in unusual cases, but Secretary of
State Dean Rusk has used ;riergency clear-
ance more than 150 times.
Many of these people were hired without
the knowledge of Otepka.
Otepka testified freely on I is views before
the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
Called before the Intern.:l Security Com-
mittee, he also testified frankly on his views
on such widely publicized rases as those of
William Wieland and John Steward Service.
He testified that he had '.pposed the con-
tinued employment of both Wieland and
Service as unsuitable for emeployment. He
had never made it finding tlat either was
disloyal.
SLATED FOR P05"
Otepka's work in back Wes of the State
Department produced much cf the informa-
tion on Wiel and's role in Cur ,a and Wieland's
strong support of Cuban Premier Fidel
Castro.
When the Kennedy adm o istration came
into power, the State Deparsrient personnel
office had slated Wieland fcr assignment to
a highly sensitive post in Germany.
FBI Director J. Edgar He ver, who had
strong feelings about the Wiol.urd case, went
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
 anitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 17823
to Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Attor-
ney General Kennedy intervened to block
the assignment of Wieland to any post con-
sidered as sensitive.
Although Wieland has continued in the
Department, he has been assigned to paper
shuffling jobs. Otepka has been of the opin-
ion that Wieland should be forced to retire.
In his testimony, Otepka has been critical
of the decisions of superiors.
He also has found himself at odds with
some of the higher officials of the State De-
partment as to facts, and this indicated that
errors or perjury were involved in the testi-
mony of Otepka or those who gave contra-
dictory testimony.
The Senate Internal Security Subcommit-
tee asked Otepka if he could support his
testimony with documents. Otepka pro-
duced memorandums and other information
from State Department files to support his
story.
SUBCOMMITTEE ENRAGED
The barring of Otepka from his office in
what appeared to be retaliation for cooper-
ating with the, subcommittee resulted in a
congressional effort to question Rusk.
Many subcommitee members-Democrats
and Republicans-were enraged with the lack
of cooperation from the State Department
and the evidence indicating retaliation.
However, they said they did not believe Rusk
was aware of the details of the problem.
Since early July, Senator THOMAS DODD,
Democrat, of Connecticut, has been seeking
to arrange a hearing with Rusk.
On September 23, Reilly filed notice of
charges against Otepka. He charged that
Otepka had given State Department informa-
tion to unauthorized persons, and named the
person as Jay Sourwine, chief counsel for
the Internal Security Committee.
BILL OF PARTICULARS
DODD went to New York last Wednesday to
serve a bill of particulars on Rusk and to ask
for an explanation. Rusk has indicated he
will make himself available for questioning
this week in a case that has the potential for
political explosiveness that would rank it
with the Alger Hiss prejury case.
The bill of particulars sent to Rusk charged
that there has been a coverup of laxity in
the security operations at the State Depart-
ment, and specifically alleges perjury by some
State Department officials.
Also at issue will be the recently issued
State Department orders that will require
that all State Department officials refuse to
talk to Congressmen or the staff members of
congressional committees unless there has
been notice and approval by the State De-
partment.
This is being lashed in Congress as "an
outrageous" interference with the right of
Congress to investigate as well as an inter-
ference with the right of free speech.
[From the Chtc~aeo Sept. 29, 1963]
CLASH SET OFF BY STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICER
FIRING-OUSTER BLAMED ON AID TO SENATE
INQUIRY
(By Willard Edwards)
WASHINGTON,- e em er 28.-The charges
against a State Department security officer
who was notified that he is to be removed
from office include an allegation that he re-
vealed a "confidential" report which had
been sent to McGeorge Bundy, special assist-
ant to President Kennedy.
This was learned today as developments
indicated a head-on clash between the State
Department and the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee headed by Senator JAMES O.
EASTLAND, Democrat, of Mississippi.
COOPERATED WITH COMMITTEE
Otto F. Otepka, 48, Chief of the Division
of Evaluations in the Department's office of
security, is the central figure in this contro-
versy. Charges against him were filed Sep-
, tember 23. He was given until October 3
to answer but his attorney, Roger Robb, to-
day obtained a 10-day extension.
EASTLAND noted that the main burden of
the charges against Otepka was that he co-
operated with the Senate subcommittee in-
vestigating operations of the State Depart-
ment's security office.
"The powers of Congress are at stake."
EASTLAND said, "and I intend to protect Mr.
Otepka, by every means at my command,
against accusations which complain, in ef-
fect, that he told the truth when asked to
do so by a Senate subcommittee."
"BURN BAG" SEARCHED
The subcommittee will meet early next
week to consider procedures to follow in a
conflict reminiscent of those of a decade
ago when Congress was defied by the execu-
tive department in investigations of the loy-
alty of Federal employees.
The State Department admitted Thursday
that a letter of charges had been filed
against Otepka. It refused to disclose the
nature of the charges and its reluctance was
explainable when a reporter obtained a copy
of them today.
Much of the' evidence, upon which the
charges are based, came from surreptitious
examination of Otepka's "burn bag," in
which he placed security material for
destruction.
John F. Reilly, the Department's Assistant
Secretary of Security, one of the officials
questioned by the subcommittee in its in-
vestigation, ordered this classified trash bag
secretly searched. It was marked with a
red X when taken to the State Department's
mail room and turned over to Reilly, who
put the little bag in his brief case .
ALL DISCARDS STUDIED
Torn pieces of paper were pasted together.
All carbons were studied. One-time type-
writer ribbons were examined. On the basis
of what was found John Ordway, chief of the
personnel operations division, accused
Otepka of conduct unbecoming an officer
of the State Department.
Last June 18, the charges stated a con-
fidential report to Bundy at the White House,
written by William H. Brubeck, Special As-
sistant to Secretary of State Dean Rusk and
Executive Secretary of the State Depart-
ment, was found in Otepka's burn bag. It
was not the original but a duplicator copy
and the tops and bottoms of pages of the
aforementioned document had been cut off,
removing the confidential notation.
OTHER CHARGES LODGED
This declassification and mutilation of a
classified document was in violation of law.
Otepka was informed. There was no dis-
closure of the contents of the report to
Bundy but it presumably referred to se-
curity conditions in the State Department,
the subject of the Senate Inquiry.
Otepka was_ also charged:
1. With furnishing a copy of a classified
memorandum concerning eight State Depart-
ment employes to J. G. Sourwine, chief
counsel of the Senate Subcommittee. The
memorandum dealt with the loyalty of the
employees and its disclosure was a breach of
the standard of conduct expected of a State
Department officer.
2. With furnishing a copy of a Classified
memorandum concerning the processing of
the appointments of members of the Advisory
Committee on International Organizations
to a person outside the Department. This
was stated to be a violation of former Presi-
dent Truman's 1948 directive holding all rec-
ords relative to the loyalty of Government
employees to be confidential.
3. Declassification of a confidential docu-
ment addressed to the Security Department
from John Noonan, supervisory security
specialist on the subject of a security meet-
ing in the Department.
FIND QUESTIONS HE WROTE
4. Declassification of a confidential memo-
randum addressed to Otepka from Frederick
W. Traband, supervisor of personnel security,
on the subject: "Security evaluative serv-
ices" of two department branches.
5. Declassification of a memorandum to
J. M. Barta, international relations officer,
concerning procedures for reviewing and dis-
posing of adverse information on employees
of international organizations dealing with
inter-American affairs.
A carbon found in the burn bag, the letter
of charges stated, revealed questions pre-
pared by Otepka to be used by Sourwine,
the subcommittee counsel, in the interroga-
tion of Reilly, the deputy assistant secretary
for. security, when he appeared before the
subcommittee. Sourwine asked these ques-
tions of Reilly, it was stated.
On June 10, a typewriter ribbon in the bag
disclosed a set of 24 questions phrased by
Otepka to be used in questioning another
State Department official. Sourwine asked
15 of these questions.
EVIDENCE CALLED DYNAMITE
The Otepka case has been a subject of
whispered comment in Washington for
months. Otepka is regarded as a highly re-
spected veteran of the Security Department,
responsible for exposing a number of disloy-
alty cases in his 10 years in the State
Department.
The Senate inquiry on conditions in the
Department's security office was instigated
months ago. Otepka testified for 6 days in
secret hearings and one listening Senator
described his evidence as "political dyna-
mite."
Secretary of State Rusk was summoned
to testify but put off an appearance by plead-
ing the pressure of other affairs. He finally
agreed to appear August 30 but, for reasons
not made public, was given an indefinite stay
shortly before he was to have testified.
Otepka meanwhile had been put under
close surveillance. He retained his title as
Chief of the Security Evaluations Office, a
$16,000 post, but was transferred from his
office to a cubbyhole. This office was
"bugged" and his phone was tapped. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation was called
in to interrogate him.
A number of State Department officials
were questioned by the subcommittee. But
others were forbidden by the State Depart-
ment to testify.
The State Department was reportedly
alarmed lest the Senate subcommittee's dis-
closures should be made public before or
during Senate debate on the treaty of Mos-
cow, banning nuclear weapons tests in the
atmosphere and underwater.
The letter of charges against Otepka was
given to him on the day before the Senate
ratified the treaty. He, engaged Robb, a
Washington attorney, and asserted his de-
termination to fight what he regarded as
harassment for performance of his duty.
A congressional statute declares that all
civil service employees have the right to give
information to Congress and may not be
restrained in that right. The Truman di-
rective, issued in the year that the Alger
Hiss perjury-espionage case was exposed,ap-
pears to conflict with that statute.
The claim of "executive privilege," the
right of the President to withhold any in-
formation about Government employees in
the public interest, has been invoked by the
Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy admin-
istrations.
[From the - mocrat. Oct. 2,
1963]
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL SAYS HIS SU-
PERIORS LIED-OTEPKA DENIES GIVING SE-
CRET DATA TO SENATE-FORMER CUBAN
POLICY ADVISER'S RECORD INVOLVED
(By Edward W,-.ren)
WAsHINGBM---' t O F. Otepka, State De-
partment security official who has been
threatened with dismissal, charged Tuesday
that "my superiors" in the Department gave
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE OctWWX_ 7
mittee.
Mr. Otepka, who for 10 years held a key
position in granting security clearances to
State Department officers and employees, said
the current charges against him stem from
the fact that he had sought to refute the
allegedly false statements he felt reflected on
his performance.
DENIES CHARGES
In an exclusive interview, Mr. Otepka
denied he ever had furnished classified docu-
ments or other restricted information to any
unauthorized person.
He said he had answered certain questions
by the Senate Internal Security Subcommit-
tee, but only after the subcommittee had
initiated its own investigation of State De-
partment security procedures.
He said he had declined to "name names"
in the individual personnel cases under study
by the subcommittee, but since he was under
oath, "I could not and did not deny I had
official knowledge of these cases."
The State Department filed 13 charges
against Mr. Otepka on September 23 as a
preliminary to forcing his dismissal from the
Government.
Friends of Mr. Otepka have said the
charges amount to an allegation that he
cooperated with the Senate subcommittee,
which long has been keeping State Depart-
ment personnel security procedures under
review.
In the Interview, Mr. Otepka said he in-
tends to fight the charges through Civil Serv-
ice Commission channels. Several Members
of Congress have come to his support, saying
the real issue is whether Congress can obtain
information from executive departments
without inviting reprisals against Govern-
ment witnesses.
A Senate Internal Security Subcommittee
report on October 16, 1962, gave high praise
to Mr. Otepka as a personnel security officer.
The report stated that his unfavorable
recommendations against William Wieland,
a top-ranking State Department official in
deciding policy toward Fidel Castro during
Castro's rise to power in Cuba, had brought
harm to Mr. Otepka's State Department
career.
It became evident Tuesday that Mr.
Otepka's new troubles arose out of the sub-
committee's continued interest in the Wie-
land and other controversial State Depart-
ment security cases.
Early this year, the subcommittee began
delving into additional State Department
personnel cases. As Deputy Security Director
and Chief Security Evaluator for the De-
partment, Mr. Otepka was summoned to tes-
tify in executive session.
He said Tuesday the three main charges
against him now are that he gave classified
information to Subcommittee Counsel J. G.
Sourwine in violation of a 1948 Presidential
order restricting the flow of information to
congressional committees.
Mr. Otepka told this newspaper he "did
not run to Mr. Sourwine." Upon being asked
to testify, lie said, "I did so, as I always have,
with the Department's permission and guid-
ance and with the knowledge of my su-
periors."
When Mr. Sourwine's questions got into an
area where I had knowledge, Mr. Otepka said,
he could not and did not give substantive
information on the individual cases.
Later, he said, his superiors in the Depart-
ment, whom he did not name, also testified,
telling the subcommittee that the individual
Since his superiors had used the subcom- ment has been lax in prot a ting the national
mittee forum to make their statements, Mr. security.
Otepka said, he felt entitled to rebut their A recent subcommittee report Indicates,
statements and present the true facts. for instance, that Mr. RILEk approved more
He said the best evidence he could present than 150 waivers of security clearances of
was documentation which I myself had new employees by mid-196:;. One-fourth of
classified In the first place. He said these these waivers were backd a ;ed, the subcom-
documents proved that lie brought the dis- mittee was told.
puted cases to his superiors' notice and that Senators on the Internal Security Sub-
they had acknowledged the notices in their committee are also said to be concerned
own handwrting, about cases of possible perjury by State De-
"I have a right to defend myself," he said. partment witnesses who have come before
"I'm, not going to run to my superiors and them.
seek permission to rebut their testimony. RUSK BREAKS DATER
That would be a lot of nonsense. Secretary Rusk decided : everal weeks ago
"I'm charged with violating an order when that only he himself shoed testify for the
all I did was to defend myself." State Department before he committee.
For his second subcommittee appearance, On August :15 member :)f the State De-
Mr. Otepka said, be had dictated to his sec- partment's Bureau of Sec ii ity and Consular
retary a rough draft of the points he wished Affairs and the Office of 1:e:urity, where Mr.
to cover. To this, he attached the docu- Otepka has been working. were forbidden to
ments "which I myself had classified and contact the Senate Interti ii Security Sub-
which I wished to place xr the subcommittee committee without permission.
record." Mr. Rusk has broken several dates to ap-
He said he gave one copy to Mr. Sourwine pear before the subconimi,tae because of the
and put the other copy in his office safe, press of other business. One Intervening
The State Department's charges relate, he event was his trip to Mo:;cow in August to
said, that the typewritter ribbon which was sign the partial nuclear teat-ban treaty.
used by his secretary, was picked out of his Since he received the .Judiciary Commit-
"burn bag" for office debris and reconstructed tee's memorandum, however. Mr. Rusk now is
by his superiors. This led to several of the reported by Department olfcials to have de-
specific counts against him in the charges, he cided other State Departm,v,t employees may
sai& testify before the subco,nnittee. He still
intends to appear himself to ;er, it is reported.
[From the Washington Star, Oct. 4, 19631 OTEPKA Row WIDENS AS SENATE CALLS RUSK [From the Charleston New .3 and Courier, Oct.
(By Earl H. Voss) 4, 1963]
The Senate Judiciary Committee has sent THE OTEPKA CASE
Secretary of State Rusk a strongly worded The persecution of Otte Dtepka, Chief of
demand to produce witnesses, including Mr. the Evaluation Division o" the Office of Se-
Rusk himself, to discuss security procedures curity in the U.S. State Department, cries
in the State Department. out for public attention.
Senator DODD, Democrat, of Connecticut, Determined efforts are being made to drive
vice chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Mr. Otepka from Governrr ent service, ap-
Subcommittee on Internal Security, made a parently because he discus :s .,d State Depart-
special trip to New York Wednesday to deliver ment security risks with the Internal Securi-
personally a 10-page memorandum to Mr. ty Subcommittee of the crenate Judiciary
Rusk. Committee, The subcomm it tee is reported to
The memorandum and covering letter have heard. testimony that a:arlan Cleveland,
signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Assistant Secretary of State 'or International
EASTL AND, Democrat, of Mississippi, was ap- Affairs, is appointing persons with question-
proved by the committee's members. able security backgrounds The grave alle-
Senator EDWARD M. KEN:EEDY, Democrat, of gation was made that Mr. Cleveland inquired
Massachusetts, and brother of the President, as to whether Alger Hiss, , c nvlcted perjurer
did not dissent from the Judiciary Commit- and symbol of disloyalty to tae United States,
tee's decision to send the memorandum to could be brought back li.t r the State De-
Mr. Rusk, according to congressional sources. partment.
MAYOR FLAP BREWING In view of the fact that persons of proven
? `"..- has a duty to dig deeply into the new
noun cement last Friday of charges filed charges.
against its chief security evaluator, Otto F. The immediate task is i'cr Mr. Otepka to
Otepka, which could result in his discharge. be protected against vindictive persons in
Mr. Otepka is accused of passing classified the State Department. We understand there
information on loyalty and security cases in are portions of the United States Code which
the State Department to the Senate Internal clearly assert the right and c':uty of executive
Security Subcommittee in violation of a 1948 branch officials to confer ned exchange in-
Executive order, formation with officials of the legislative
The subcommittee believed it had obtained branch. A precedent mesu: not be estab-
a commitment from the State Department lished whereby Ieftwingers in the State De-
that there would be no reprisals against em- partment can silence or punish loyal Ameri-
ployees testifying before the committee. cans who have informaton of disloyal
The Department, according to the under- activities.
standing of congressional sources, claims its Senator OLIN D. JOHN: TON, of South
action against Mr. Otepka is not in reprisal Carolina, is the ranking nember of the
for his testimony but a consequence of im- Senate Judiciary Cominittes. He has par-
proper actions, among them mutilating and ticipated in many investigations of security
improperly declassifying information on problems. We hope that .;eaator JOHNSTON
State Department employees loyalty. will devote his attention to the case of Otto
Mr. Otepka intends to fight the charges Otepka, and will Investigate the grave charge
through civil service channels and into the that security risks are being eased back into
courts, if necessary.
cases in question had never been called to 111? a uuIewary vommueee nas asxea Mr.
their attention by Mr. Otepka. Rusk for a full report on the Otepka case
[From the Chicago "ribune]
THE STATE DEPARTMF: -ir COVERUP
The Senate Judiciary Conualttee has taken
the unprecedented action of dispatching a
U.S. Senator to deliver by bond to Secretary
"" - a well as other information on security prcce-
"This put their testimony in conflict with dures in the Department.
mine and with my official knowledge. Their The Senate subcommittee has heard testi-
testimony was untrue," Mr. Otepka said. mony leading it to believe the State Depart-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
 Sanitized - Ap t %eRIfs?& gLeftle -R _FQ?7J 00149R00060004012 H25
of -State Rusk a letter from the full cor-
mittee. The letter is described as command-
ing the Secretary to cease obstructing an
investigation of frightening breaches of
security within the Department or accept
the consequences of public exposure.
The letter was carried to New York City,
where Rusk is conferring with the Soviet
and British Foreign Ministers, by Senator
THOMAS J. DODD, vice chairman of the Sen-
ate Internal Security Subcommittee. Mr.
Done was accompanied by the subcommittee
counsel. The Senator also delivered a cov-
ering letter from Senator JAMES O. EASTLAND,
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, In-
forming Secretary Rusk that the committee
intended to meet the challenge posed by a
State Department order forbidding em-
ployees to testify.
The Department has brought -charges
against one officer who did testify before the
subcommittee. The witness, Otto F. Otepka,
Chief of the Division of Evaluations in the
Department's Office of Security, is accused of
disclosing to the subcommittee Department
reports which were classified as confidential.
It is understood that he detailed evidence
of suspected disloyalty which appalled
Senators.
The Judiciary Committee has notified Sec-
retary Rusk that it will defend Otepka's
right to testify under provisions of the
United States Code and in conformity with
concurrent resolutions of the House and
Senate adopted in 1958. Mr. Rusk has re-
sponded that he will appear before the com-
mittee and present his Department's view.
In its letter to the Secretary, the commit-
tee has charged that a high official of the
Department gave false testimony to the sub-
committee under oath. The whole pattern
of interference with the subcommittee's in-
quiry suggests that the State Department
knows that it is culpable and is trying to
suppress a scandal which could rock the
administration.
This is not the first time that an attempt
has been made to push Otepka out of the
Department. Two years ago the administra-
tion announced that 25 trained security
agents were to be hacked.out of the Depart-
ment's Bureau of Security and Consular Af-
fairs for reasons of "economy." Their two
chiefs, Otepka and Elmer Hipsley, were to be
ditched with them. Because of an uproar in
Congress, Otepka was permitted to keep his
title, but his duties were limited.
It might be thought that the administra-
tion would be eager to expose security risks,
to get rid of them, and perhaps to prosecute
them. But it is not. The reason for this
strange attitude is that President Kennedy,
Attorney General Kennedy, and other leaders
of the New Frontier are on record as having
said that there was little or no danger of
internal subversion. In their view, commu-
nism was strictly a menace from outside,
although these days they are not even acting
as if they believed that.
So it is embarrassing to have public serv-
ants challenging the official thesis by turning
up instances of disloyalty within the admin-
istration and imparting the information to a
Senate body which has been zealous in ex-
posing subversive infiltration of the Govern-
ment. What would become of the argument
that there is nothing to investigate if an-
other Alger Hiss scandal were brought to
light?
[Frown the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
Oct. 3, 1963]
PLOT To GET OTEPKA?
Now it begins to appear there is more be-
hind the effort to oust Otto F. Otepka, State
Department security official, than was first
suspected when he was accused of giving
Department secrets to Congress-as though
that could jeopardize the security- of the
Nation. -
lug in on Otepka IS a more powerful figure
in our Government than the Secretary of
State-none other than the President's
brother, Attorney General Bobby Kennedy.
What's it all about?
It's not so much that Mr. Otepka told a
Senate subcommittee some things the State
Department didn't want Congress to know-
especially about William Wieland, a top-
ranking State official who did nothing to
stop Castro's rise to power in Cuba.
It's more because Mr. Otepka is a career
man in Government service of unquestioned
loyalty who thinks Congress is entitled to
know what's going on, who wants real secu-
rity methods carried out in every Federal
agency.
In iais security post, his signature was re-
quired on all appointments to the State
Department, except for the very top posts
filled by the White House.
And Mr. Otepka had been exercising this
authority to maintain the security reforms
instituted under the Eisenhower administra-
tion.
In other words, Mr. Otepka has been a
hard-line, anti-Communist State Department
official-just like Miss Frances Knight, Di-
rector of the Passport Office, who has been
in constant hot water with her superiors
for the same reason.
He has tried to keep strange and curious
people out of jobs in the Department for
whose security he was responsible.
That is how he has run afoul not only of
his own superiors but also of that even higher
power who operates in the Justice Depart-
ment. It's not national secrets but appar-
ently but personnel matters that have got
him into trouble. -
With Bobby Kennedy trying to move Ken-
nedy people to run things the adminis-
tration way, Mr. Otepka drew the line at
some characters he considered dubious.
The flimsy charges about what he told
the Senate subcommittee are reported in-
cidental to getting rid of the State De-
partment security official who guarded the
door.
It is not Mr. Otepka and his activities
which need investigation. It is the plot of
those who have been spying on him and
snooping around his "burn bag" and doing
other petty things in their efforts to oust
him.
The Senate Internal Security Subcom-
mittee, which gave him high praise as a per-
PORK BARREL OR ECON
FOUNDATIONS?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, per-
iodically throughout the history of our
country, the charge has been made that
the Federal Government runs a public
works pork barrel, squandering millions
of dollars on foolish projects.
Most recently Life magazine has done
a major, widely circulated "expose" of
the Federal public works "pork barrel."
Generally these attacks are pursued
with more zeal than knowledge, with
more innuendo than facts, and some-
times with more political motivation
than-concern. -
Life magazine punctured its recent
pork barrel argument when it attempted
to contrast good and bad public works.
The article closed with a description of
the $60 million Toledo Bend Dam built
by the States of Texas and Louisiana
as a huge and economically viable addi-
this fine dam themselves, the States
saved the people of the United States
from another costly raid on their Treas-
ury.
It is, of course, unreasonable to con-
tend that a project financed by the First
State Bank is an economically viable
addition to the productive facilities of
a community but that the same project,
financed by the Frst National Bank, is
a raid on the Treasury.
Yet this strange thesis was the basis of
the article.
Texas and Louisiana are to be con-
gratulated for moving ahead with the
Toledo Bend Dam. Progressive State
administrations are increasingly coming
to understand that public works projects
trigger economic development and that
they can return many times their cost
in primary and secondary benefits.
We need more State projects-more
State participation in development
efforts-to speed our economic growth
sate and meet the needs of a growing
population, including more business op-
portunities and employment.
We are moving to make State partici-
pation possible in the water and related
resources field. The Interior and Insular
.Affairs Committee has just held hear-
ings on a bill, S. 1111 by Senator CLIN-
TON ANDERSON, to provide aid to the
States for water resources planning and
to speed cooperative Federal-State plan-
ning of major river basins. As the plan-
ning job is completed, units of coordi-
nated river basin plans can be under-
taken by either or both partners to the
planning, without interfering with the
final optimum development of the water
resource. -
But Federal public works projects can-
not be halted because someone argues-
as Life magazine did-that what is non-
Federal is wonderful but if it is Federal it
is a wasteful pork barrel raid.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
ent to have printed in the RECORD a brief
extract from the Life article, which is the
basis of my comment.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
EXCERPT FROM LIFE MAGAZINE
While the pork barrel rolls along distrib-
uting money by the billion, the States of
Texas and Louisiana are trying out a unique
experiment in homegrown economy. Both
States have taken their shares of Federal
pork in the past and may well do so in the
future. But at Toledo Bend on the Sabine
River that separates the States they are
building a 060 million dam with their own
money.
An aura of healthy self-interest and anti-
big-Government sentiment surrounds the
project. "We retain local control and we are
not contributing to larger and larger gov-
ernment." Simmons said recently. "I don't
believe in this sitting back and waiting. Too
often we have waited so long the Federal
Government came in and filled a void that
should have been handled by the States. It
was our own fault."
In the end, creating a huge and econom-
ically viable addition to the productive fa-
cilities of their States, the people of Louisi-
ana and "Texas felt their breasts swelling
with the pride of independence.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7 - r
17826 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE October 7
"Toledo Bend," said Louisiana Gov. Jimmie
Davis at the ground breaking ceremony, "is
a testimonial to the efficiency and work-
ability of the principle of States' rights."
It also saved the people of the United
States from another costly raid on their
Treasury. ? t
Mr. MCG ''Nt. Mr. President,
sometimes I be ve that these periodic
attacks on Fed al public works are
beneficial. They r ind those of us who
realize the positive;, values of Federal
public works investments that it is not
enough to understand, their worth, and
their key role in econo is growth, our-
selves. They remind hat the good
these great programs do rest be told to
the public, and told repo lly', if the
truth is to prevail over the nsational-
ism of detractors.
This has a special urgency those
of us from the Upper Missoui River
basin, and indeed for all the tern
States. Our economic future is t to
proposed large scale water, timber, ree-
grams which are essential to agricultural
municipal. and industrial growth.
In my own State, at the present stage
of water resource development, tens of
thousands of acres of our best agricul-
tural lands have been inundated or com-
mitted to reservoirs without compen-
sating reclamation of other lands. Un-
informed attacks on the Federal public
works programs, can defeat or delay con-
struction at a critical midpoint for the
whole upper Missouri Basin, leaving us
with reduced rather than expanded eco-
nomic opportunities and with a static
economy, rather than the expansion
which the next stages of development
would bring.
Great dams to impound water have
been constructed or are nearing com-
pletion. The next step is to make the
water available for beneficial uses. The
word "beneficial" is used thoughtfully
for, as I shall show out of our past ex-
perience, water provided to agriculture in
South Dakota expands crops now in
short supply and livestock production,
where increases in production are
needed, and not the production of crops
already in surplus.
First, however, I think we should re-
examine American policy and experience
in relation to Federal public works, and
see if they have not had a great deal to
do with the spectacular rise of our coun-
try from a primitive wilderness to the
world's most productive nation in less
than two centuries.
WASHINGTON SIGNED FIRST PUBLIC WORKS BILL;
SURVEYED ROUTE TO THE WEST
If George Washington were alive today
and active in public life, I have no doubt
that some American journals would refer
to him as the "father of the pork barrel"
rather than the "Father of his Country."
The first Congress of the United States
in August 1789 passed a law which made
she establishment and maintenance of
lighthouses, buoys, beacons, and public
iers to assist navigation a Federal re-
sponsibility. President George Wash-
ington signed it on August 27, 1789. It
became 1 Stat. 53-the 53d law of the
new United States of America.
Discussion started at about the same
time of a canal linking the Potomac
River with the Ohio, to open up the new
western territory for development.
Shortly after he left the Presidency, Mr.
Washington identified himself profes-
sionally with those who believed in Fed-
eral projects to speed the development
of the Nation by surveying the route for
a canal from Cumberland, Md., to the
Ohio River near Wheeling, W. Va. A
road instead of a canal was authorized
on this route in 1806. It was constructed
during one of the earliest congressional
debates over Federal responsibility for
internal improvements.
If Life magazine had been around at
that time, it undoubtedly would have
opposed these "pork barrel" projects-
the road to the western territory as well
as Federal assumption of responsibility
for aids to navigation. There was op-
position, but the road was completed in
the 1830's to Vandalia, Ill., at a final
total Cost of $ 7 million.
In this early 19th century period, Con-
gress passed and President John Quincy
Adams approved the first "omnibus"
ON., the Chesapeake & Delaware, the
Lot ville and Portland, and the Dismal
Swa canals
In 26 and 1.827 the Corps of Engi-
neers e allowed to make surveys for
railroa 'slander the General Surveys Act
of 1.924, a ough the act mentioned only
roads an canals. The Baltimore &
Ohio Railr got such assistance from
1827 to 183 '. Other roads continued
to receive su assistance until 1.838,
when it was d::'. ntin ued for a decade.
In the 10 yearn i5 ceding the Civil War,
the survey work s renewed and the
Army Engineers e called upon for
surveys of rail ro s to the Pacific
Ocean which ultimate;- became the basis
for the construction our transconti-
Construction of the rai .ads was not
con-
direct Federal public wor Ned
struction by Federal agency But so
much of the original survey' rk and
financing of the construction Fed-
eral that they clearly have to con-
sidered products of the Federal ork
barrel," if that term is to be attaed
to works projects supported by
U.S. Government.
shows that 130,401,606 acres of Federal
public lands were granted to the rail-
roads to help them finance construction.
In addition, under the Pacific Railway
.Act of 1862, the Federal Government is-
sued bonds to provide cash loans for
railroad construction at the rate of
$16,000 per mile for level track, $32,000
per mile for track in. hilly areas, and
$48,000 per mile for track in mountain-
ous terrain. The railroads repaid the
principal and a part of the interest on
these loans. A. Board of Investigation
and Research in 1945 fixed the Govern-
ment's final cost of this financial aid
to the railroads at $74 billion.
There was opposition, of course, at
the time these aids to the railroads were
being voted, but no one can today deny
that the speedy development of trans-
continental railroad t ransportation ex-
pedited development of the Nation and
that the areas opened by the railroads
have repaid the Feder it investment a
thousand times over.
The Federal Government has in-
vested more than $2.6 Lillion in the de-
velopment of water tra n sportation in the
Nation dating back to the Act of 1789.
Since there is always the Implied or
direct charge made in connection with
attacks on public wc?rks that such
projects are ladled. oil on a basis of
political favoritism, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD
table, prepared by the 'library of Con-
gress, showing expendit ires for naviga-
tion facilities by States since the incep-
tion of the program.
There being no obje,tion, the table
was ordered to be print e3 In the RECORD,
as follows:
TABLE III. Ranking by States of construc-
tion appropriations t: u ough fiscal year
1960 for, new work on % isting navigation
projects under civil w,rrks program of
Corps of Engineers
[Millions l
1. Illinois ----------------- -____-__ $214.1
2. Missouri ------------- --------- 202.2
3. Michigan---_------ --- --------- 193.2
4. New Y'ork_._____----- -------- 181.8
5. Ohio------------------- -------- 141.5
6. Texas.--------------- -------- 120.7
7. California ------------- --------- 120.5
8. Kentucky------- --------- 115.9
9. Louisiana -------- ..__. _---_ 115.6
10. Pennsylvania--_____-- --------- 104.5
11. West Virginia____..___ 99.6
12. Iowa----------------- -------- 92.8
13. New Jersey -------------------- 91.9
14. Florida----------- ------ 87.2
15. Alabama ------------- ._-------- 83.4
16. Massachusetts_______ ________ 79.6
17. Minnesota ..------_-_-.--__----- 55.5
18. Nebraska -------------- --------- 52.9
19. Virginia ------------------------ 49.8
20. Indiana -------------- --------- 48.2
21. Wash] ngton------.-__---,----- 41.1
22. Arkansas ------------- -_ 35.3
23. Oregon.----------------------- 34.9
24. Delaware ------------- -------- 30.0
25. Kansas --------------- _____ 29.5
26. North Carolina___.____ 24.4
27. Hawai:i ------------------------- 24. 1
28. Maryland-------------- - ------ 20.5
29. South Carolina-------- _ ..______ 19. 7
30. Alaska.----.-------___ . .--__-- 14.5
31. Wisconsin ------------ - ---------- 14.1
32. Connecticut.______..__ 13.8
33. Maine.--------------- -------- 12.2
34. Georgia-----.---------- -------- 12.0
35. Mississippi .._________-_ _- -____-_ 8.9
36. Rhode Island --------- -------- 7.7
37. Tennessee ---------------------- 6.8
District of Columbia-- _ _____-_ 2.4
New Hampshire______ ----- 1
3
.
41 Vermont-------------- 0.9
42. ho_.. 0.2
43. AM -------- 0.01
2,611.8
No appi priations have been made for
navigation fr~ojects in the ;t ates of Colorado,
Montana, :N'&Vada, New Mexico, North Da-
kota, South Dakota, Utah. ;end Wyoming.
NOTE 1.-?--This tabula.tiei i is limited to ap-
propriations for new we k under existing
projects specifically authorised by Congress.
It excludes appropriatioi;s for. superseded
and abandoned projects.
NOTE 2.--In the table on. 'Multiple-purpose
projects including power," total appropria-
tions include about $343 Dkiaion allocable to
the navigation function. Thus, of total ap-
propriations of $9,337.2 milbon for new work
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000600040125-7