CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000100040042-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 10, 2000
• Sequence Number: 42
• Publication Date: June 24, 1969
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved ForRelease 2000/05/24: CIA-RDP75-00001f200I01000400
S 7006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
It is probable that among Otepka's THE CONFIRMATION OF orro OTEPKA
countless thousands of supporters across Mr. President, the bureaucratic pro-
the country there were some members cedures of the Department of State have
of the John Birch Society and the Li- wrought a terrible injustice In the case
berty Lobby, who supported him because of Otto Otepka,
they considered him an anti-Communist. The State Department bureaucracy
But this Is a problem that exists for cannot go back on Itself, because, such a
liberals and pacifists as well as for those reversal would run counter to the nature
who take a strong stand against Com- 'of bureaucracy.
munism. But the Congress of the United States
It is, for example, a matter of record does not have to be guided by bureau-
that the Communist Party and its pub- cratic considerations or by the past mis,.
lications in this country strongly opposo takes of the State Department.
our Vietnam commitment. The President has done the right thing
It is also demonstrable that the Com- in nominating Otto Otepka for the Sub-
munist Party has participated and has versive Activities Control Board, first,
urged its members to participate in and because it was clear that his reinstate-
contribute to the various major anti- ment in the Department of State was a
Vietnam demonstrations that have taken bureaucratic impossibility; second, be-
place. cause it was clear that an injustice had
But it would clearly be ridiculous to been done and that vindication was
argue or imply that because all Com- called for; and third, because Otepka
munists oppose our Vietnam commitment was highly qualified for the post.
or because identified Communists have The newly manufactured charges that
played key roles in the anti-Vietnam. have been brought against Otepka by ? .uty Assistant Secretary for Security;
movement, all those who oppose our Viet- Drew Pearson and others are even more Elmer D. Hill, former head of the Divi-
nam commitment are Communists or baseless than the original charges sion of Technical Services in Mr. Reilly's
pro-Communists. brought against Otepka by the Depart- office; and David I. Belisle, then Mr.
The fact is that those who are anti- ment of State. Even to call them Reilly's Special Assistant.
-Communist, whether their domestic "charges" dignifies them, for they are It should be noted, Mr. President, that
views are liberal or conservative, will blatant examples of the technique of the initially the State Department leveled
frequently attract the support of ele- big lie and of guilt by association. 13 charges against Mr. Otepka. By the_
ments with whom they have no associa- Otto Otepka has for several decades time of the Department hearings, 10 of
tion and for whom they have no esteem. served his Government with distinction the 13 charges had been dropped. By tak- "
Similarly, the fact is that those who in a series of important positions. this action, the Department managed to
views are liberal or conservative,, will It calls for a broad knowledge of the played a significant role in trying to force
frequently find their views enthusiasti. problems posed by subversive activities . Otepka out of his job.
cally supported by the Moscow Commu- and by the requirements of security. What was Otepka's crime, Mr. Presi
WIIO SUPPORTS OTEPKA?
To the extent that Otepka had serious
political support, it was based primarily
on reputable organizations, like the
American Legion which passed resolu-
tions on his behalf at two national con-
ventions; the Young Republican organi-
zation, the League of Republican
Women; and, on the issue of procedure,
by the American Civil Liberties Union
which issued a statement protesting the
State Department's refusal to grant.him
an open hearing.
Otepka has been supported, as well, by
numerous Senators and Congressmen of
both parties.
Finally, his cause has been champi-
oned by editorialists, columnists,. and
commentators of various political views;
Clark Mollenhoff of Cowles Publications;
Willard Edwards of the Chicago Trib-
une; commentator Ron David of station
WTOP; columnist Holmes Alexander;
and numerous editors, Including the
editors of the New York Daily News;
Charleston, S.C., News & Courier; Buf-
falo, N.Y., News; St. Petersburg, Fla.,
Times; Omaha, Nebr., World Herald;
Los Angeles Times; Phoenix, Ariz., Re-
public; and St. Louis Glove Democrat.
It is patently ridiculous to charge, in
the light of this record, that Otto Otepka
has derived his chief support, or any
significant portion of this support, from
Al of these qualifications Otto Otcpka investigative report to a person outside
possesses in exceptional degree. of the Department of State and in vio-
Mr. President, I earnestly hope that lation of the Presidential directive of
the Senate will vote overwhelmingly to March 1948."
as a member of the Subversive Activities .ident, without noting that these items
Control Board. were delivered to a duly authorized con-
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I should gressional committee for the purpose of
like to speak further on the Otepka case, proving that he had not lied in disputing
and furnish documentation on the facts.. the statements made by his superiors.
The Otepka case began in 1061. Up to,. Mr. Otepka's "crime," Mr. President,
? that time Otto Otepka had been con- is that he refused to rubberstamp secur-
sidered an outstanding professional se-. ity clearances requested by the admin-
curity ofl?icer. He had come to the State Istration in power at that time. Clearly
knowledge of laws, regulations . , . In the
field of personnel security. Ere is knowledge-
able of communism and its subversive efforts
in the United States. To this he adds per-
spective, balance-and good judgement,
Mr. President this ,was the record of
Otto Otepka, valued career officer In the
State Department before the time he was
asked to see that certain Individuals be
allowed to obtain Important jobs with-
out proper security clearance. By early
1962 there were 152 security "waivers"
granted to- high-ranking Department
Personnel. Under the previous 8 years of
five of Security to Chief of the Evalua-
tion Division. On Juno 27, 1963, he was
locked out of his office, denied access to
his files and placed in isolation. He also
learned that his telephone had been
tapped. Three of the officials who denied
knowledge of this tape later reversed
themselves before the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that an Associ-
ated Press story appearing In the New
York Times on January 10, 1968, be
objection, it Is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. FANNIN, This story, Mr. Presi-
dent, notes the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee has accused the State De-
partment of dealing mildly with these.
three officials: John Reilly, former Dep-
Mr. President, I suggest that the oppo-
sition to the current nomination of Otto
Otepka to the Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board is, for the most part, a fabrica-
tion of Innuendoes and unproven state-
ments pushed forward by those who are
either willingly or unconsciously un-
aware of the real issues In this case.
The Otto Otepka case, Mr. President is
more than the trials of one man. It is a
question of whether a dedicated career
the Eisenhower administration, only five tion; it stands as a symbol to other deli-
such waivers had been granted.' ' ,:,? :... dated men and women In the service of
Approved For Release ?2000(05'/24,, : CIA-RDP75-00001 R000100040042-7