Mr. SOURWINE. Thank you, Mr. Frank.

Senator DODD. I want to say for the record that this is really exasperating to me, and I think the whole committee should be apprised of it. It goes on here all the time with you people from the State Department. I do not think this is being forthright with the Senate committee, for you to spar with counsel when you obviously know the answer to the question. It has tied all of us up here and reduced our confidence in you and the whole Department.

Mr. FRANK. Senator, I am very sorry.

Senator DODD. Your sorrow does not help me. I wish you would just stop it.

There was more about the "gray area" in the State Department ban on testimony before the Senate subcommittee about the Otepka case and Mr. Frank's explanation of the Department's purposes:

6

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you not think the Otepka case is a sort of object lesson to all State Department employees that they had better be mighty careful what they say up here, what information they give to the subcommittee?

Mr. FRANK. No. sir, I would not interpret it that way. What we do in the briefings is inform the employees that we would like them to be as helpful as possible to the committee, and we do want them to be responsive and tell the truth. I stress tell the truth, because I am sure that is exactly what the Department desires.

Mr. SOURWINE. I think I can state that I do not recall any witness ever being asked about this matter who did not tell us that he had been instructed to tell the truth.

Mr. FRANK. One of the other things the article did mention was that witnesses had been instructed or informed that the Department did not desire them to discuss the merits of the Otepka case. That is true. We have told witnesses this. This, of course is pending the outcome of Mr. Otepka's hearing. The reason for that is that there will be a hearing. This is a quasi-judicial proceed. ing, and we think it is the proper forum before which these things should be heard. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, you recognize that the committee had an interest in these matters before there ever was an Otepka case. In the committee's view, at least, the Otepka case grows out of the committee and what was said to the committee. Could you tell us how you have defined, how the Department briefers have defined to prospective witnesses material on the merits of the Otepka case, so that we shall know what the limits are to questions that might be asked?

Mr. FRANK. I shall be happy to, Mr. Sourwine. Needless to say, there may be a gray area, and it may be difficult to define subjects which are within the merits of the Otepka case and without. We have indicated that witnesses could discuss their relationships with Mr. Otepka, their evaluations of Mr. Otepka's work, and any other matters relating to internal security and Mr. Otepka. But we have indicated that it would not be advisable to discuss, for instance, whether Mr. Otepka did mutilate a document or why-which is the subject of a charge. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, should not there be a separation there with respect to questions going to matters of fact and questions going to issues of law, or to matters in contention as to what was involved?

For instance, would it not be perfectly proper to ask someone if Mr. Otepka told him this or gave him that memorandum, but by your view, perhaps improper to ask him what that meant or whether that involved a security violation? Mr. FRANK. I would think that your statement is correct, sir, yes. What we have indicated to them is that they should not discuss whether he did, or whether they know he did, a particular thing which he is charged with doing.

Mr. SOURWINE. Why would that be objectionable?

Mr. FRANK. For instance, Mr. Otepka, when I talked with him, had objection because he had indicated that before the subcommittee certain individuals of the State Department had made statements which he felt were false and which hurt him personally. I indicated to him at that time that this is exactly what the State Department did not want to be done. It did not want to give individuals an opportunity to prejudice Mr. Otepka when Mr. Otepka or a representative of Mr. Otepka was not there, for instance, to cross-examine a witness. He will have this opportunity at the hearing, of course.

State Department Security hearings, pt. 2, pp. 41-42.

Mr. SOURWINE. I do not mean to be argumentative, but you know as well as I do that various State Department officials have made statements before this committee derogatory to Mr. Otepka when he was not here and did not have an opportunity to cross-examine.

MR. FRANK KNOWS, BUT CAN'T TALK

Mr. SOURWINE. Is it true, as this article states,' that Mr. Otepka's superiors contended that Otepka should not have given certain security information to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee?

Mr. FRANK. I'm sorry, Mr. Sourwine. Would you repeat the question?

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. I ask you if you know whether it is true, as this article states, that Mr. Otepka's superiors contend that Otepka should not have given certain security information to the Internal Security Subcommittee?

Mr. FRANK. I have no firsthand knowledge of this, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know what security information was involved that Mr. Otepka is supposed to have given the committee?

Mr. FRANK. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. SOURWINE. What is that information?

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Sourwine, I don't know whether identification of that information has been made public, and I would prefer to have authority to discuss it. I take it we are getting into the merits of the case.

Mr. SOURWINE. No; what is the nature of that information?

Mr. FRANK. This is the classified material that Mr. Otepka is alleged to have given to the committee; is that correct, sir?

Mr. SOURWINE. I don't know that there was any classified material of a security nature given to the committee, and I'm asking you.

You see, you testified that you didn't know anything about the charge that he had given security information to the committee.

Mr. FRANK. No, sir-

Mr. SOURWINE. And then you told us that you knew what security information was involved.

Mr. FRANK. No, sir. If I testified that I do not know the charges, I didn't mean that. I do know about the charges against Mr. Otepka. I thought what you were talking about some time ago was whether Mr. Otepka had alleged he had given the material to the committee because of something that had been said against him.

Mr. SOURWINE. I don't know how you could get that out of the question. You have had me repeat the question and I have stated twice on the record and you said you didn't know. The record will speak. That is counsel's opinion. Let's get the facts.

Do you know that Mr. Otepka's superiors contended he should not have given certain security information to the Internal Security Subcommittee?

Mr. FRANK. I know that that is the feeling of some in the Department of State, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know what security information he was alleged to have given the committee that his superiors felt he should not have given?

Mr. FRANK. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. SOURWINE. And what is the nature of that security information? I am not asking for the content now. Was it a classified document? Was it something from his security file which was unclassified but which the Department figures should not have been given because it was out of that file, or just what was the nature of the information?

Mr. FRANK. There were three documents which did have a classification on them. I don't remember now the exact titles of the documents. I'm sure I could check my files for that information.

MR. REILLY BALKS

8

John F. Reilly, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security, on the stand on Aug. 6, 1963, balked at answering questions about the

State Department Security hearings, rt. 2, p. 44.

Mr. Reilly resigned Nov. 18, 1963, following investigation by the Internal Security Subcommittee of his role in the bugging of Mr. Otepka's telephone and his denials of complicity (State Department Security bearings, pt. 2, pp. 23-24).

Department's investigation of Mr. Otepka and stirred discussion on who was being put in an awkward position:

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Reilly, when you detailed Mr. Otepka to his new duties recently, did you effectively oust him from his job as Chief of the Division of Evaluations?

Mr. REILLY. Mr. Sourwine, we are now entering into an area where I am under instructions from my superior respectfully to decline to answer, inasmuch as the matter of Mr. Otepka's present assignment and the events which led to it, are the subject of investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. SOURWINE. Which superior ordered you in this respect?
Mr. REILLY. Mr. William Crockett, Deputy Under Secretary.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did he do so in writing?

Mr. REILLY. He did not, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Orally?

Mr. REILLY. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. Just what did he order you not to talk about?

Mr. REILLY. The pending investigation in the matter of Otepka.
Mr. SOURWINE. The pending investigation?

Mr. REILLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Which you caused to be undertaken?

Mr. REILLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. And that action estops the committee from learning anything about the circumstances or whether there is any justification for what you did; is that right?

Mr. REILLY. Those are my instructions, Mr. Sourwine.

Mr. SOURWINE. I do not know what the Chair's view is. I wouldn't wish to impose upon the Chair's desires from a legal standpoint. It is counsel's view that this is not a valid reason for refusing to answer a question here under oath. At the very substantial risk of being overruled, counsel will therefore ask that the witness be instructed, notwithstanding prior instructions by the Department, to answer the question.

Mr. REILLY. Mr. Chairman, that, of course, would put me in a rather awkward position of going in the face of instructions from my lawfully appointed superiors in the Department of State.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point, Mr. Otepka, who was a witness before this committee, is in a rather awkward position now, too. The committee is in a rather awkward position. We have another witness from the State Department who came in here with a memorandum which he said prevented him from discussing anything that involved a recommendation of any nature.

Now we have this witness who, on the basis of an oral instruction, not a communication to the committee, just his statement respecting an oral instruction, is going to decline to answer pertinent questions.

If this continues, the committees are going to be unable to perform their functions of seeking information respecting the conduct of affairs in any of the executive departments of the Government.

Senator HRUSKA. The Chair will take this under advisement.

MR. BELISLE USES "DON'T TALK" SHIELD

David I. Belisle, special assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Reilly) was told by William J. Crockett, Deputy Undersecretary for Security, that he should not discuss the Otepka case, Mr. Belisle testified July 29, 1963.9

His replies to a series of questions from subcommittee counsel illustrates the digging that frequently was needed to get even one simple fact through the don't-talk shield (in this case, the time of the search):

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you have anything to do with searching his desk or his safe or his files at night?

Mr. BELISLE. I can answer that question and tell you I didn't; no, sir. But I would like to state at this point, Mr. Chairman, that if you are to get into the State Department Security hearings, pt. 3, pp. 85-86.

investigation of Mr. Otepka, that I have been advised that inasmuch as the case is currently under investigation, I am not to discuss it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Who advised you of this?

Mr. BELISLE. Mr. Crockett.

Mr. SOURWINE. That was in connection with your forthcoming appearance before this committee?

Mr. BELISLE. That is correct.

Senator HRUSKA. What were Mr. Crockett's instructions to you?

Mr. BELISLE. Mr. Crockett's instruction to me was that if I were to be questioned with respect to the investigation of Mr. Otepka, or with matters relating to the investigation, or to his case, that I wasn't to discuss it, inasmuch as the case is currently under investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Senator HRUSKA. And that instruction went to any knowledge or any action on your part with respect to Mr. Otepka?

Mr. BELISLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Anything at all about Otepka is out-of-bounds now?
Mr. BELISLE. Sir?

Mr. SOURWINE. Anything at all about Otepka is out-of-bounds now?

Mr. BELISLE. No, I don't believe so; no, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Just about the current investigation?

Mr. BELISLE. That is right.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, this question which I think you answered in the negative as to whether you had anything to do with searching his desk or his safe or any of his files, you said no, you did not

Mr. BELISLE. You said after hours.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, did you have anything to do with searching his desk or his safe or his files in the daytime?

Mr. BELISLE. Let's see: I was there when Mr. Reilly looked in his safe, his desk, or what else did you say?

Mr. SOURWINE. Files.

Mr. BELISLE. That's right.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you have any knowledge whether any such search was made at night?

Mr. BELISLE. No, I do not.

Senator HRUSKA. Did you say you were there during the daytime when that was done?

Senator HRUSKA. He was not in the office or the immediately adjoining office? Mr. BELISLE. Right, sir.

Senator HRUSKA. Was it done with his knowledge?

Mr. BELISLE. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was this a weekday, a workday?

Mr. BELISLE. This was a Saturday.

Mr. SOURWINE. A nonwork day?

Mr. BELISLE. A nonwork day.

Mr. SOURWINE. How did Mr. Reilly gain access to the safe?

Mr. BELISLE. I don't know, sir.

When I got there the safe was open.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you have any knowledge respecting the conducting of a physical surveillance of Mr. Otepka?

Mr. BELISLE. Yes.

Harry Hite, an evaluator in the Office of Security, was briefed three times on what he couldn't testify about on the subcommittee witness stand, but he was stumped when asked for the name of the person whose case he then was evaluating.

It went like this on March 5, 1964:

Mr. SOURWINE. Could you tell us the name of the individual? 10

Mr. HITE. Mr. Sourwine, I am somewhat puzzled. I don't know if I am supposed to tell you. We were briefed before we came here and we were admonished to rely on the Presidential directive of March 1948 which relates to

Mr. SOURWINE. I am familiar with the directive, sir.

Mr. HITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. But were you given instructions which would inhibit your testimony here in response to the committee's questions?

Mr. HITE. Well, in some regards. If you want

Mr. SOURWINE. In what respect or respects is your testimony inhibited by the instructions you were given?

Mr. HITE. Well, we were, as I indicated, told to rely on the Presidential directive of 1948, indicating that we were not to discuss the contents of files, personnel security files. There were two other admonitions. We were not to produce any documents if requested and we were not to discuss the merits of the Ötepka case. Mr. SOURWINE. And who gave you these instructions?

Mr. HITE. Mr. Chayes-actually, I have been briefed three times.

Mr. Tom

Ehrlich. And Mr. Chayes also briefed me on one occasion and then, later on, Mr. Richard Frank.

Mr. SOURWINE. You were never briefed by Mr. Hoover?

Mr. HITE. I beg your pardon?

Mr. SOURWINE. You were never briefed by Mr. Hoover?

Mr. HITE. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, the question that is pending that has been asked of you does not call for the production of any documents.

Mr. HITE. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. And it does not call for information from security files.
Mr. HITE. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. The question calls only for the name of the person you are evaluating at present.

Mr. HITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. So, can you give us the name of the individual whose security case you are presently evaluating?

Mr. HITE. I would say, Mr. Sourwine, that I should not hesitate to give the name, without revealing the contents of the file.

MISS KNIGHT GETS HER BRIEFING

By the time the legal experts briefed Miss Frances Knight, Director of the Passport Office, on August 14, 1964, the pattern was well set. She was told to tell the truth, to be silent on the Otepka case, and to refer to the Department any requests for documents."

Mr. SOURWINE. Who briefed you?

Miss KNIGHT. Mr. Frank, of the Legal Adviser's office.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were you told by Mr. Frank, as a part of this briefing, not to testify with respect to any particular matters or in any particular specified areas?

Miss KNIGHT. It was a very brief briefing, Mr. Sourwine.

Mr. SOURWINE. What was the nature of it? What were you told?

Miss KNIGHT. I was told to tell the truth, not to discuss the Otto Otepka case, and to advise the committee that arrangements were made to produce documents by requests directed to the Department.

Mr. SOURWINE. Were you told by Mr. Frank that you could not discuss the Otepka case at all, or were you given some limited instructions in that area?

Miss KNIGHT. Well, I believe he-in our discussion during this short briefingpointed out that the Otepka case was under consideration in the Department and there was to be a hearing and, therefore, I was not to discuss it. I explained to Mr. Frank that I knew so very little about it except for what I read in the newspapers that I couldn't discuss it anyway.

Mr. SOURWINE. You are not now and never have been in even the same Office as Mr. Otepka, have you?

19 State Department Security hearings, pt. 18, pp. 1518-1519.

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 18, p. 1520.