THE CONFERENCE WITH RUSK-HOW IT CAME ABOUT The Internal Security Subcommittee wanted to hear the views of the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk. And he wanted, it later was made clear, to present his ideas on the security inquiry. The subcommittee was the first to act-inviting him on June 28, 1963, to meet with the subcommittee.' He came back later, on August 13, 1963, with a request that he be allowed to appear 2-as though this was the initial step in this matter of his appearance, which the record shows it wasn't. Meanwhile, he had issued instructions which forbade State Department witnesses to testify until he had made his appearance and had stated his case.3 Aside from whatever motives or justification he may have had, Secretary Rusk's ban caused a delay of weeks in getting important State Department witnesses to the stand. Since even this matter of delays in the subcommittee inquiry became the subject of disagreement when Frederick G. Dutton was testifying, it is cited hereafter in this report, along with documentation of the issues. There were some delays that were due to difficulties in finding a mutually agreeable time for Secretary Rusk's appearance but his ban on testimony by State Department officials, meanwhile, was allowed to stand. The issue arose when Abba P. Schwartz, the then Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, was called to testify on June 20, 1963. He said he couldn't talk because of a memorandum by Secretary Rusk to William J. Crockett, Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, who relayed the word. Mr. Schwartz said this prevented him from testifying. John F. Reilly, in charge of security, and Mr. Schwartz, in the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, both issued orders implementing the instructions of Secretary Rusk. Under these orders, their State Department employees were forbidden even to talk with subcommittee staff members.5 In reaction to this, Senator Thomas J. Dodd, vice chairman of the subcommittee, wrote to Secretary Rusk (June 28, 1963) to protest the ban on testimony and invited Secretary Rusk to appear. The date suggested was July 12. There were postponements. Senator Dodd's letter: 6 Hon. DEAN RUSK, Washington, D.C. JUNE 28, 1963. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: When Mr. Abba Schwartz appeared before the Internal Security Subcommittee in executive session on June 20, 1963, he produced a copy of your memorandum to Mr. Crockett ordering a review of the administra 1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 18, p. 1486. 2 Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1497. Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1497. 4 State Department Security hearings, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, pt. 7, p. 171. State Department Security hearings, pt. 18, pp. 1498-1499. Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1486. 65-860-67-pt. 1—2 tion of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs. Mr. Schwartz took the position that your memorandum and the transmittal memorandum to him from Mr. Crockett constituted a directive which prevented him from testifying responsively. For your information and convenience, we enclose photocopies of your memorandum to Mr. Crockett and his transmittal memorandum to Mr. Schwartz, together with pertinent portions of Mr. Schwartz' testimony in this regard. The Internal Security Subcommittee has voted unanimously to ask you to meet with the subcommittee to discuss this situation and its implications. We find it hard to believe your memorandum was intended, as Mr. Schwartz interpreted it, to apply to his testimony before the subcommittee. As you know, the President has reserved for himself the exercise of any claim of executive privilege. But whatever the intent, the factual situation is that the subcommittee's investigation has been halted. We hope to have your assistance and cooperation in making it clear that restrictions upon discussion "outside the Department" are not intended to inhibit testimony before the subcommittee. In any event, it is respectfully requested that you meet with the Internal Security subcommittee in room 2300, New Senate Office Building, at 10:30 a.m. on July 12 (or, if you have not yet returned to the United States by July 12, on the earliest possible date thereafter). At this meeting we shall plan to discuss, in addition to the matters referred to above, recent action taken with respect to Mr. Otto Otepka, Chief of the Division of Evaluations, Office of Security, which appears to be inconsistent with the Department's commitment to avoid reprisals against employees who have testified before the subcommittee. Best personal regards. THOMAS J. Dodd, Vice Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee. P.S.-When you come to meet with the subcommittee, it might be well if you brought Mr. Schwartz with you so that he may be standing by if needed. Initially, Secretary Rusk agreed to come before the subcommittee on the date named in Senator Dodd's letter. Shortly before that date, the appearance was postponed, after a discussion of the matter, by telephone, between the Secretary and Senator Dodd. Secretary Rusk's letter (Aug. 13, 1963) requesting an opportunity to appear before the subcommittee-in which he also made note of his ban on any State Department testimony until he had appearedwas addressed to Senator Dodd and is as follows: 7 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEAR SENATOR DODD: Upon my return to Washington on Sunday I learned of the informal inquiry received by the Department from Mr. Sourwine requesting a number of State Department personnel to hold themselves in readiness to appear before your subcommittee in connection with the pending review of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs and the Office of Security. In view of my overall responsibility for the direction of the Department of State, I respectfully request the opportunity to appear personally before the full subcommittee and would hope that all members could be present. I would hope to discuss among other things the ground rules for the subcommittee's hearings on the above-mentioned Office and Bureau. Until I have an opportunity to discuss this matter with your subcommittee, I have asked all subordinate State Department personnel not to appear as requested by Mr. Sourwine. I would also appreciate the opportunity to review Mr. Otepka's testimony before I make my appearance. It is my sincere hope that your subcommittee and the Department can establish a relationship which will make it possible for us to work together harmoniously and effectively. 7 Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1497. Two days after receiving the letter from Secretary Rusk, Senator Dodd replied, again inviting him to appear and suggesting August 30 as a tentative date: Hon. DEAN Rusk, 8 The Secretary of State, Department of State, AUGUST 15, 1963. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I received your letter of August 13 and I wish to assure you again of my desire to handle this matter in the most agreeable manner possible. have tried from the beginning, through all the stages of these hearings, to be flexible and cooperative with you and with the Department and shall, of course, continue to do so. The committee is very pleased to have you appear before it to testify, as you requested, and I am tentatively scheduling your appearance in executive session for Friday, August 30 at 10:30 a.m. We shall do everything possible to try to be sure that all members of the subcommittee are in attendance at this hearing. With all best wishes, Sincerely, THOMAS J. Dodd. Mr. Dutton, former Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, was on the stand July 29, 1964, when the matter of the ban was reviewed. He said he knew about the chain of events in the testimony issue. He asserted his belief that there was no attempt to delay things. Mr. Dutton, referring to Secretary Rusk, added: "He said he was running the Department, he was responsible for it, he wanted to appear before the committee. There was no idea that this was going to go on or that anything would be resisted. It was merely a question that the Secretary wanted to be held accountable and come up and talk with the committee and then it was assumed the committee would go on with its business." Subcommittee counsel replied: "The record will speak. I believe the period over which that ban extended was a matter of months." Mr. Dutton then brought up the matter of scheduling difficulties for both the subcommittee and Secretary Rusk and voiced the belief that there wasn't any attempt "to deny the committee access to the Department." Senator Dodd made it clear several times that he felt that Secretary Rusk was neither refusing to cooperate nor being unresponsive, but rather that there was a time problem which necessitated postponements. For example: 10 Mr. SOURWINE. I can't speak for the Secretary and don't attempt to. The fact is the Secretary had been requested to come before the subcommittee for quite a long time before there was anything from him in the nature of a request that he be heard. Mr. DUTTON. I feel a responsibility, even though I am not in the Department now, to raise at least a question on that. I have never known the Secretary not to make himself available immediately when asked. Senator DODD. I think this is so. I do not want this record to stand as if we, or I, certainly, presiding here, have the feeling that the Secretary has refused to cooperate. I do not have any such feeling. Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1486. Ibid., pt. 18, pp. 1484-1485. 1 Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1485. Mr. Sourwine requested that there be 'nserted in the record a brief statement showi g when the committ e frst asked for the Secretary to appear and the subsequent correspondence and the dates involved, so as to "let the record speak for itself." The request was approved." The record of the hearings shows that the subcommittee held no hearings with State Department personnel as witnesses between August 16, 1963 (when Otto Otepka tes ified) and November 9, 1963, except for the conference with Secretary Rusk, on October 21, 1963, to discuss with him questions involving testimony by State Department witnesses. In his appearance October 21, Secretary Rusk was accompanied by Thomas Ehrlich, of the Office of Legal Adviser, who did not testify. Also during this period of 13 weeks, the subcommittee heard testimony by George James Pasquale, but he was no longer a State Department employee and, therefore, not subject to its control. The subcommittee made a part of its record a memorandum of the intended schedule of hearings for August 1963, as listed by Senator Dodd, and a list of actual hearings between June 20 and December 9, 1963:1 12 To: Jay Sourwine. From: Senator Dodd. Subject: August hearing schedule. MEMORANDUM AUGUST 9, 1963. Please schedule hearings and witnesses as follows, which carries us through the remainder of this month: August 12, Otto Otepka. August 13, Otto Otepka. August 14, William Crokett; Jerome Schneider; Terence Shea. August 15, Victor Dikeos; Frederick G. Dutton; Harry Hite. August 16, Abba Schwartz. August 19, Stanley Holden, Eugene Krizek; Seymour Levenson; Ed Lyerly. August 20, Allen Moreland; Jack Norpel; Richard O'Brien. August 21, Abba Schwartz. August 22, Abba Schwartz. August 23, Michel Cieplinski; Charles Shinkwin; Russell Waller. August 26, Ambassador Wilson C. Flake. August 27, Fred York; Thomas S. Valenza; Robert J. McCarthy. August 28, George Pasquale; Mr. and Mrs. Fred York (of New Jersey). August 30, Ghana hearing. 11 Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1485. 12 Ibid., pt. 18, p. 1500. THOMAS J. DODD. |