interest or of the information that it has furnished or of information which it alone has furnished?

Mr. CHAYES. Well, I think, as we have said before, there are two aspects. One that the third agency is really the only one that can make, or at least is an essential component of the judgment, should this information be made available. And the other, as you say, is the protection or concern for the fact that the third agency is interested, and both of those are parts of the reason for the rule.

Now, you, in asking the question, had a little bit of when did you stop beating your wife in it, because you said that a witness, "in an effort to avoid answering the question responsively," or something of that kind. Obviously, nobody should wrap himself in the third agency rule just to try to get out of answering a question.

THE ROLE OF STATE DEPARTMENT OBSERVERS

The idea of admitting a State Department observer to the executive hearings of the Internal Security Subcommittee seemed to have merit, in the beginning.

The Secretary of State was, of course, a very busy man, with multitudinous problems. It was reasonable that he would want to know what was going on, as well as which officials were testifying on Capitol Hill. The subcommittee understood this and wanted to be cooperative, where possible and consistent with its own responsibilities. So the department's observer was admitted to the closed hearings, as a matter of courtesy.

For a time, the observer system seemed to be a help. A knowledgeable man from the State Department was there, not only to report to his superiors what happened but also to expedite requests for information. John S. Leahy was one of several who performed the assignment without handicap to the subcommittee.

Later, however, when the observer was Richard A. Frank, the system grew to the point where the lawyer representing Mr. Rusk was asserting a degree of control over the hearings, sometimes trying to testify for a witness, sometimes telling a witness he could not answer certain questions.1

There were recurring clashes which served to delay or to handicap the subcommittee in its search for the facts.

At last, during the examination of Allen S. Whiting, Director of the Office for Research and Analysis for the Far East, Bureau of Intelligence and Research (August 13, 1964), Mr. Frank created so much interference with the interrogation that he was invited to leave. This ended, for this series of hearings, at least, the "observer" business.2 Thus, until Mr. Frank was asked to go, the situation was that the State Department

1. Had an observer at the closed hearings, to see and hear what went on and to advise witnesses what questions not to

answer;

2. Got transcripts of testimony promptly for correction by Department witnesses; and

3. Had a persistent system of briefing all prospective witnesses called by the subcommittee, to advise the officials what subjects they should not discuss.

SECRETARY RUSK STATES HIS VIEWS

Secretary Rusk gave the subcommittee a number of suggestions as to the conduct of its hearings, one of them including references to an observer and to subcommittee transcripts. In this, he made the point that he thought it important that the subcommittee have "my own views" on matters relating to the Department. He said:

1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 6, p. 404.

2 See pp. 104-105 of this report for an account of the clash with Mr. Frank and his ouster from the hearings. State Department Security hearings, pt. 5, p. 272.

Third, since I have direct responsibility for the work of the Department of State, good practice would suggest that I be furnished with transcripts of the testimony of any Department witness who appears before the subcommittee, within a reasonable time after his appearance, and that I be able to designate an observer in cases where the proceedings will not be fully transcribed. I believe it is important to the subcommittee to have my own views on matters relating to the Department.

WILL WITNESSES BE INHIBITED?

Senator Hruska promptly raised a question about the observer causing an inhibition on the witness' testimony. He also stressed that the subcommittee could not let the Secretary know what was going on in the Department unless the Secretary gave the subcommittee a free hand, within a legitimate framework, to find out what was going on:*

Senator HRUSKA. There is something on page 19 [of Mr. Rusk's prepared statement] to the effect that the Secretary should be able to designate an observer in cases where the proceedings would not be fully transcribed.

Mr. Secretary, I do not know how familiar you are with investigation procedures, but if that is done, there will be a clamming up of the witness to an extent that it will destroy the usefulness of the interview and of any information we want to get from a witness. Obviously, the observer will be there for one purpose, to report back to the Department and that is what he will be there for, to represent the Department.

We have had it repeatedly in the room here, where I have occupied the chair occupied now by Senator Dodd, and a witness will be asked, "Does Mr. Leahy represent you or does he represent the Department?"

The answer will be given, "He represents the Department."

"Would you want him to be present or would you rather he were excused?"

The answer sometimes is, "I would rather he were excused." And I think that is fair.

Now, if we are going to get into the matter of having an inhibition, either latent or otherwise, in the interviewing of witnesses, then again, we will be somewhat stultified in our investigatory procedures.

Senator DoDD. I think we can work that out.

Senator HRUSKA. I hope so.

Secretary RUSK. I think the transcripts may take care of that problem. But again, Senator, I may be old fashioned, but I do feel and I think any organization feels this and I suspect the committees of Congress feel it-I feel that, on official matters, I should have the right to know what is going on in my Department. Senator HRUSKA. Well, no one wants to

Secretary RUSK. You see, this is my problem.

Senator HRUSKA. No one wants to deny you that right, Mr. Secretary, this committee least of all, but we cannot let you know what is happening in your Department unless you give us a free hand to find out, within our legitimate framework, what is going on.

And we often cannot find out when the witness has, right next to him, an eye, an ear, a mouth, and arm of the Secretary of State. Because then we get into this recrimination business and other things which, as a practical matter, do happen sometimes, not always known to you, and you cannot be and are not to blame.

Senator Scott raised different points: That had Mr. Otepka been the observer when Mr. Reilly testified, the testimony by Mr. Reilly likely would have been different; and that had Mr. Reilly been the observer when Mr. Otepka testified there also might have been a difference there. He got to this in this way: 5

Senator SCOTT. I want to say something on that, because as the Secretary says, there is no charge against Otepka which relates to his testimony here.

4 State Department Security hearings, pt. 5, pp. 284-285. State Department Security hearings, pt. 5, pp. 285-286.