Mr. MCCARTHY. I did not mean that. I meant to say that if this is what Otepka said and if this is what is in the summary, then-I did read his summarythen, apparently, when I have said that I did not find anything that would indicate any slanting and Mr. Otepka had, then apparently I was saying that-I was saying there is a controversy between what I said and what he said, and yet I also indicated to you last year, we closed up our testimony with me stating I found nothing contrary to what Mr. Otepka found.

Mr. SOURWINE. I am aware of it

Mr. MCCARTHY. Then obviously I cannot, obviously, answer your question one way or another without contradicting something.

Mr. SOURWINE. I think that is quite obvious.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I have no recollection of this finding of Mr. Otepka.

Mr. SOURWINE. All right.

mony.

You have obviously reviewed your previous testi

Mr. MCCARTHY. No, sir. Intellectually I have. But you have never given it to me. I have never seen my testimony.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, that is rather surprising. I thought all the testimony of all the witnesses had been furnished to the witnesses after being given to the Department for correction by the witness.

Mr. McCARTHY. I have never seen mine.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, of course, that is available to you for your corrections, if you want to correct it, and I will see to it it is furnished.

Mr. MCCARTHY. All right. I thank you.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall now whether you did testify that there was no statement or indication in the digest of the summary of the Wieland case to the effect that Wieland was slanting reports?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I know, because you tell me so; yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. But otherwise you have no recollection?

Mr. MCCARTHY. No distinct recollection.

Mr. SOURWINE. Isn't it true that both the summary and the

Senator DoDD. That cannot be so. I want to be sure you understand each other. I understand that, up to this, you said you found from your view there was no slanting.

Mr. McCARTHY. That is correct; yes, sir.

Senator DODD. Well, now, Counsel is asking-and the witness says something

else.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, what I just asked, Senator, was whether he had an independent recollection of having testified previously that there was no statement or indication in the digest of the summary of the Wieland case to the effect that Wieland was slanting reports, and he says he doesn't remember, that he understands he did not testify to that, but he doesn't independently remember. Senator DODD. I see.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is that correct?

Mr. McCARTHY. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether it is true that both the summary and digest in the Wieland case make it clear that the evaluator had concluded that Wieland was slanting his reports?

Mr. MCCARTHY. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. I don't know whether this will work, Mr. Chairman, but we might try if the order might be that we request the Secretary or some person designated by him to look at the digest and the summary to see if they do contain a statement which reflects that Mr. Wieland was slanting reports, and let us know his conclusion without giving us the report. We might get it that way.

Senator DoDD. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator DODD. On the record.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. McCarthy, do you remember testifying that the evidence of Mr. Shaffer before the subcommittee was discussed, in the security report of the Wieland case or the digest of the Wieland case?

Mr. McCARTHY. Do I remember testifying that Mr. Shaffer's testimony

was

Mr. SOURWINE. Was discussed, in the security case, the report on the Wieland case, or the digest of the Wieland security file, referring there to the report prepared by Mr. Otepka?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I think it was in the SY (security) files; I think so.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, as a matter of fact, isn't it true that the Shaffer testimony was not prepared until after Otepka's report had been prepared and transmitted?

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I received Shaffer's testimony outside of the committee's records, if Shaffer's testimony is in the SY file, I received it from Mr. Otepka and I don't know whether it predated or postdated Mr. Otepka's initial finding.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a statement by Secretary Rusk that State Department witnesses should meet the needs of congressional committees as fully and promptly as possible, the Internal Security Subcommittee in this series of hearings found it difficult in many instances to get straight answers to questions and to requests for documentary information. In many instances requests for documents were refused.

Form letters sent by the State Department to individuals contained misleading information, including quotations out of context.

The subcommittee feels that if a policy is effective and efficient, the only defense it needs is truth and candor. Tactics used by certain witnesses strongly suggest that the Department had something to hide.

Even if an abundance of other evidence of the weakness of State Department security had not been uncovered in these hearings, the reluctance to provide information freely imputes vulnerability of the Department's security procedures.

STATE DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT EMPLOYEE

TESTIMONY

WITNESSES TOLD OF OTEPKA CASE GAG RULE

A studied and persistent effort was made by the Department to put the Otepka case out of bounds for any of its employees called to testify before the Internal Security Subcommittee. One or more of the Department's legal advisers met with employee after employee, as they were listed to testify, and outlined areas where they should remain silent.

Otto Otepka, himself, though facing charges and dismissal, was told he should not discuss the merits of his case. This ban was lifted as to him-after he protested.

Herewith is a portion of the testimony of Richard A. Frank, of the Office of the Legal Adviser, as he was questioned on August 11, 1964: Mr. SOURWINE. You conducted the briefing of Mr. Otepka, did you not? 1 Mr. FRANK. I did, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. I am asking you just what it was that he was in fact instructed in this area.

Mr. FRANK. I would be happy to. Let me say that one point in this article 2 which I thought was the most inaccurate was the statement that people who were being briefed were told that they might lose their jobs, or were at the risk of losing their jobs if they testified any particular thing. Mr. SOURWINE. We'll get to that point next.

article.

That follows in sequence in the

That follows the one I am asking you about.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Otepka was briefed in my office. He was told to be truthful and be responsive to the committee. One of those areas which we indicated the first time I met Mr. Otepka that he should not discuss was the merits of his case. At that time, he indicated to me that he desired to discuss the merits of his case. I conveyed that desire to my superiors, and was informed that I should -tell Mr. Otepka that he was authorized to discuss the merits of his case. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Otepka indicate that he wanted to do this voluntarily, or only that he wanted to be free to do it if he were questioned about it? Mr. FRANK. I'm sorry, Mr. Sourwine.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, Mr. Otepka has not told us that he has anything new to impart to the committee with regards to the merits of his case, and I'm wondering if, when he told you that he wanted to testify with regard to the merits of his case, he indicated, or you understood, that he had some voluntary statement that he wanted to make; or only that he wanted to be free to answer questions in this area.

Mr. FRANK. I'm really not sure.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Otepka then is, at the present time, free to answer any questions the committee has about the merits of his case?

Mr. FRANK. That is correct, sir.

A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW FROM OTEPKA

Here's how it went with Mr. Otepka on the stand (Aug. 17, 1965): 3 Mr. SOURWINE. Who briefed you?

Mr. OTEPKA. I was briefed by Mr. Richard Frank and Mr. Lawrence Hoover. Mr. SOURWINE. Both at the same time?

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 2, p. 33.

2 Column by Richard Wilson, in Washington Evening Star, Aug. 5, 1964, under the heading "The State Department Gag Rule."

State Department Security hearings, pt. 8, p. 500.

Mr. OTEPKA. Mr. Frank did virtually all of the talking. Mr. Hoover was present during the discussion.

Mr. SOURWINE. And were you told not to testify with respect to any particular matters or in any specified areas?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, there were five points that were covered during this briefing. One, first of all, I was asked to be responsive to all questions and to be truthful in my replies to all questions; two, that in the event I should be asked to furnish documents in connection with my testimony, I should inform this subcommittee that a request for the specific documents should be submitted to the Secretary by the subcommittee; three, that I should observe the provisions of the Truman directive of March 13, 1948, if I were asked about furnishing information from personnel security files; four, that I should observe the third agency rules; and five, that I was not to discuss the merits of the Otepka case. That is my own case. Mr. SOURWINE. That last is a little surprising. Did you protest that instruction?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, I did. I informed Mr. Frank and Mr. Hoover politely that since I was put into an adversary position by the Department of State, it was rather unusual for them to tell me that I could not discuss the merits of that case; in fact, I considered that admonition a denial of my right to defend myself here as I saw fit.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were you then told that there would be a relaxation of this instruction, or did the instruction stand?

Mr. ОTEPKA. That instruction did not stand, because on July 31 Mr. Frank came to my office and told me that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Leonard Mecker, who, I understand, is the Acting Legal Adviser, and that it was decided that I could, if I wished, discuss the merits of my case.

Mr. SOURWINE. When Mr. Frank gave you this instruction about not discussing the merits of your case, did he explain what the purpose of that instruction was? Mr. OTEPKA. He told me that it was in my best interest that I should not go into the merits of my case, in that matters might be presented here where I would not have the opportunity to defend myself.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Otepka, have you ever been questioned about any subject here and not allowed to make whatever statements you wished with respect to it, or whatever defense you wished to make to the action or failure to act that was referred to in the question?

Mr. OTEPKA. I feel that in all of my appearances before this subcommittee, I was given the fullest opportunity to explain, fully explain, my side of any particular issue that came up.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is there anything about this briefing that you have not covered? Mr. OTEPKA. I believe that covers it pretty specifically.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were you told anything in particular about a committee request for documents?

Mr. OTEPKA. Yes. I mentioned that was one of the points, that if I were to be asked for any documents, I was to tell the subcommittee that a request for these documents should be made to the Secretary.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was anything said to you about documents which were your own?

Mr. ОTEPKA. No.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was anything said to you about documents which were in your possession but were the property of another individual, not the property of the State Department?

Mr. ОTEPKA. No.

Mr. SOURWINE. I ask those questions, Mr. Chairman, because it appears on the record that certain other witnesses were instructed in that regard.

What at first appeared to be a simple matter of not testifying about the Otepka case soon became involved. Mr. Frank acknowledged (Aug. 11, 1964) that it was not always clear what were the boundaries of the banned area. He drew a reprimand for ducking questions.*

Mr. SOURWINE. The article that we have just placed in the record," Mr. Frank, states that other prospective witnesses, presumably witnesses before this subcomState Department Security hearings, pt. 2, pp. 34–35.

Column by Richard Wilson, in Washington Star, Aug. 5, 1964.

mittee, have been instructed to give no testimony in Congress on the Otepka case. You have told us, I think, that this was not true. Can you tell us whether it was explained to these other employees who were prospective witnesses that they could testify about the Otepka case?

Mr. FRANK. No, sir, I don't believe I indicated that that was not true. Other employees were told that although they could discuss Mr. Otepka's qualifications, and indeed, anything about Mr. Otepka in general, they could not discuss the merits of his case.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was a definition of "merits" given to them at the time? Were they told exactly what that meant?

Mr. FRANK. I explained to all of them that this was a difficult thing because it was not always clear what was a merit and what was not a merit, as I believe you know, Mr. Sourwine. I indicated that the purpose of the instruction was so that Mr. Otepka and the Department would have an administrative hearing, rather than a hearing before the committee, that Mr. Otepka had not had an opportunity to challenge testimony given by other witnesses before the committee, and that we thought that the more appropriate forum for the hearing was the Department's hearing. I explained that they should keep this in mind when trying to determine whether something was within the merits of the Otepka case.

Mr. SOURWINE. Two points in connection with your statement just completed. One, you do know that Mr. Otepka has been given an opportunity to answer statements made by some of the witnesses about him?

Mr. FRANK. I know he had appeared before this committee, sir. I don't know the substance of that testimony.

Mr. SOURWINE. You certainly know that the trouble he is in stems from his attempt to answer testimony which was given about him which directly contradicted testimony he had given earlier, don't you?

Mr. FRANK. No, sir, I am afraid I don't know Mr. Otepka's reasons for doing what he is alleged to have done.

Mr. SOURWINE. Don't you know that it has been stated for our record, that in our record it appears, that counsel for this committee called Mr. Otepka's attention to testimony by Mr. Reilly which directly contradicted testimony Otepka had given earlier, let Mr. Otepka read that testimony, told him the committee wanted him, if he could, to produce documentation to establish the truth of what he had said if it was true, and that in response to this, Mr. Otepka brought us up three documents which form a part of the basis of the present charges against him?

Mr. FRANK. I understand that; I believe Mr. Otepka or you had said this on one occasion. I don't know about Mr. Otepka's reasoning.

Senator DODD. Well, you know what the charges say, do you not, Mr. Frank? Mr. FRANK. I do, sir.

Senator DODD. Do you not know that that is one of the charges?

Mr. FRANK. I believe that we are discussing Mr. Otepka's answer or justification to one of the charges.

Senator DODD. Well, the point is, I understand you are saying you do not really know. If you have read the charges, you know that one of the charges has to do with this. If you have read his answer, you know the reply to it. I do not see how you can say you do not know.

Mr. FRANK. I have read the charges, sir.

Senator DODD. Then you have to know.

Mr. FRANK. That is one of the charges, sir.

Senator DODD. Then what in the world is the sense of telling us you do not know of your own knowledge when you have read it?

Mr. FRANK. I am sorry, sir.

Senator DODD. I think we ought to get more direct answers to these questions. It is annoying to me to preside. It has happened time and time again with you witnesses from the State Department. It comes out as a technical, lawyer's answer. We do not want that answer. We are trying to get at some facts here. We do not have hours and hours to fritter away with a lawyer's ducking the questions. If you do not want to answer the question, say so, but do not answer them that way.

Mr. FRANK. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you mean to imply, Mr. Frank, that, although you know what Mr. Otepka stated with regard to this and you know what counsel of the committee stated with regard to this, you are unwilling to accept this as fact without further evidence?

Mr. FRANK. Yes, sir; I just don't know the facts.