[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1553, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
REAUTHORIZATION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1553
TO AMEND THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION
ACT OF 1992 TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS
REVIEW BOARD UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
__________
JUNE 4, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-483 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800,
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington,
DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JIM TURNER, Texas
BOB BARR, Georgia
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Robert Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jeff Schaffner, Professional Staff Member
Ianthe Saylor, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 4, 1997..................................... 1
Text of H.R. 1553............................................ 6
Statement of:
Stokes, Hon. Louis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 7
Tunheim, John, chair, Assassination Records Review Board;
Steven Tilley, Chief, John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection, National Archives; Max Holland, author,
contributing editor, Wilson Quarterly; and Bruce Hitchcock,
teacher, Noblesville High School, Indiana.................. 14
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 4
Hastert, Hon. J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois, prepared statement of............... 3
Hitchcock, Bruce, teacher, Noblesville High School, Indiana,
prepared statement of...................................... 50
Holland, Max, author, contributing editor, Wilson Quarterly,
prepared statement of...................................... 39
Stokes, Hon. Louis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 9
Tilley, Steven, Chief, John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection, National Archives, prepared statement of....... 30
Tunheim, John, chair, Assassination Records Review Board,
prepared statement of...................................... 17
H.R. 1553, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
REAUTHORIZATION ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:15 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Dennis
Hastert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastert, Souder, LaTourette,
Barrett, Cummings, and Turner.
Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director and chief
counsel; Jeff Schaffner, professional staff member; Ianthe
Saylor, clerk; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority
professional staff members; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk.
Mr. Hastert. The Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice will come to order.
This hearing will focus on a very important piece of
legislation: H.R. 1553, the John F. Kennedy Assassination
Records Review Board Reauthorization Act. This bill was
introduced by Chairman Dan Burton on May 8, 1997. Included in
the original cosponsors: Ranking Minority Member Henry Waxman
and Congressman Louis Stokes, our first witness for today, also
who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
In 1992, 30 years after the assassination, nearly 1 million
pages of records compiled by official investigations still have
not been made public. Congress decided to set up a process for
reviewing and releasing to the public the records surrounding
the Kennedy assassination. The result was that on October 26,
1992 President Bush signed into Public Law 102-526, the
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act
of 1992.
The original act provided a 3-year timetable for a Review
Board to compete its work. Unfortunately, extensive delays in
the appointment of Board members delayed the Review Board's
work from the very beginning. In 1994 the Congress extended the
1992 law's termination date for 1 year, until September 30,
1996. The Review Board subsequently exercised its authority
under the statute to continue operating for 1 additional year.
The review process has proved to be more complex and time-
consuming than anticipated. And although we believe that
Congress should not indefinitely continue funding Federal
entities that were intended to be temporary, Chairman Burton
and this subcommittee support the request for a 1-year
extension of the Board's reauthorization. I believe that by
releasing these documents to the public we serve the important
public right to know and advance the cause of total
accountability of the people of this country.
At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
[The prepared statements of Hon. J. Dennis Hastert and Hon.
Dan Burton, and the text of H.R. 1553 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1553
To amend the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Act of 1992 to extend the authorization of the Assassination Records
Review Board until September 30, 1998.
______
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 8, 1997
Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Stokes)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on
the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall
within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
______
A BILL
To amend the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Act of 1992 to extend the authorization of the Assassination Records
Review Board until September 30, 1998.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW
BOARD.
The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act
of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) is amended--
(1) in section 7(o)(1), by striking ``September 30, 1996''
and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting ``September 30, 1998.''; and
(2) in section 13(a), by striking ``such sums'' and all
that follows through ``expended'' and inserting ``to carry out
the provisions of this Act $1,600,000 for fiscal year 1998''.
------
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to
welcome my esteemed colleague, Representative Louis Stokes, to
testify before this subcommittee. We're fortunate to be able to
draw on your experience in this area. Over 30 years ago this
country was shocked by the assassination of President Kennedy
in a way that it had not been shocked since the bombing of
Pearl Harbor or the bombing of Hiroshima.
Yet today we are still prying papers out of the government
about that assassination. The legislation that created the
assassination Review Board broke new ground by establishing the
principle that there should be a presumption of public access
to government information. That legislation was necessary
because administration after administration had failed to
release documents. That should not be.
The assassination Review Board released millions of pages
that could have otherwise remained locked in government file
drawers. We are here today to extend the authorization of this
Board, because the process of making government information
public has been more complex and time consuming than
anticipated. I am not criticizing the work of the Board or the
dedication of its members. I am, however, critical of the fact
that we are still fighting with our government to allow public
access to government documents.
Congress has passed laws and resolutions reiterating the
principles of public access that were laid down when this
country was founded. Administration after administration has
worked to thwart that access. I applaud President Clinton for
his efforts to declassify documents, but we need to do much
more.
I hope that every employee at the Office of Management and
Budget and every agency in the government will pay attention to
what this Board has accomplished. It is a refusal to allow
public access that breeds suspicion of the government. It is
the thwarting of public access that causes the public to
mistrust government officials. If we are to turn the tide of
mistrust and suspicion it will be done by opening the doors of
access. Today is one step in that process. But there is much
more work to be done. Thank you.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you very much. I now hand it over to any
members wishing to make an opening statement. If not, our first
witness this morning is fellow Congressman Louis Stokes, who
served as the chairman of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations from 1976 to 1979 and as a cosponsor of this
support and bill. And Mr. Stokes, we want to say welcome and
thank you for your fine work in this area. And please proceed
with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS STOKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barrett,
Mr. Turner, Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit my
written testimony for the record. And, if I may, I'd like to
just summarize my testimony.
Mr. Hastert. Without objection.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you. It seems, Mr. Chairman, though it's
not as long as it is--but it's been actually 20 years--it was
1977 when I was appointed as chairman of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations. We were authorized at that time
and directed to complete an investigation surrounding the
assassination and the death of President John F. Kennedy.
We completed, as you've already stated, our investigation
in 1979. And on March 28th of that year we filed our final
report. In addition to it, 12 volumes of evidentiary material
printed by the Government Printing Office was made available to
the American public. In addition to this, we conducted 18 days
of public hearings and an additional 2 days of public policy
hearings.
Now, prior to the committee running out of both time and
money, we had released everything that we had the time and the
resources to release. All of our other records were placed in
the National Archives under House of Representatives Rule--
which existed at that time--Rule XXXVI, requiring such
unpublished records routinely to be sealed for 30 to 50 years.
The records of our committee relative to this investigation
consisted of 935 boxes, which we turned over to the National
Archives. Then, over the years, considerable public debate
about these records has ensued, including accusations that
these records, if released, would contain evidence of a
government cover-up or complicity of government agencies in the
assassination of President Kennedy.
A great deal of this was fueled in 1992 by a movie entitled
``JFK.'' That movie contained many distortions to the facts and
circumstances surrounding the death of our President. As a
result of that movie my office was deluged with thousands of
letters and telegrams by Americans calling for the release of
these sealed files. As a Member of Congress and a former
chairman of that committee, I deemed it important not to have
the good work of our committee impugned by such base
accusations.
Our committee had attempted to conduct its investigation
into the assassination of the President and present the results
of that investigation to the Congress and to the American
people in a thorough and dignified manner in keeping with the
memory of this great President.
Consequently, in 1992 I introduced, and the House and
Senate passed, Public Law 102-526, a bill entitled, ``The
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act
of 1992.'' That law created the Assassination Records Review
Board, which mandated and authorized that Board to identify,
secure, and make available all records related to the
assassination of President Kennedy.
It was our intention, Mr. Chairman, that everything that
could be released from every agency, every court record,
anywhere they existed, that those records be released to the
American people. Under the law, the Board had until October 1,
1996 to fulfill its mandate, plus an additional year at the
Board's discretion. We were very fortunate to have a very
distinguished panel. This panel was appointed by President
Clinton 18 months after the law was enacted here by the
Congress--a considerable delay in the appointment of this
panel.
But we were very fortunate to have persons such as Chairman
Tunheim, Dr. Henry Graff, Dr. Kermit Hall, Dr. William Joyce,
Dr. Anna Nelson, and outstanding Executive Director David
Marwell. Under this panel, they have now released more than
10,000 previously secret government documents. They have
released a report which I would urge all the members of the
committee to read if they have an opportunity, because I think
you will see the extensive amount of work in which they have
been involved.
They now need 1 additional final year in order to complete
their work. Their work in this period of time will be primarily
to secure the release of documents from the CIA and the FBI.
Those are the two main agencies left from which they still have
a considerable number of documents to be released.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I think that it's important that
we complete this work and in an orderly manner with full and
complete disclosure to the American public so that they will
feel that they know everything that their government knows
about the assassination of their President. And I would urge
the support and passage of this legislation sponsored by
Chairman Burton on which I am one of the original cosponsors.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Louis Stokes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. I really appreciate the
work that you have done here. I have just two brief questions
here. Actually three. You believe that the Review Board is up
and running smoothly now?
Mr. Stokes. Absolutely. In spite of the delay of 18 months,
they have done just a yeoman's amount of work. It's just been
almost incomparable to realize how much they have done. And to
their credit, they feel that if given just this one additional
year, that they will complete the work.
Mr. Hastert. And do you believe that this process is
consistent with the goals of your original legislation in 1992?
Mr. Stokes. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastert. And then you are confident, as you said
before, that the Review Board can finish its task by September
30, 1998?
Mr. Stokes. I'm just very confident that in projecting the
fact that they can finish this work in 1 year. And when they
say, themselves, as they will say to you when they appear, this
will be 1 final year.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you very much. And thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a lot of
questions, either. I just want to compliment you, Congressman
Stokes, on the fine job that you have done.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mr. Barrett. Just one question. Do you think that in the
unfortunate and hopefully unlikely scenario that there are
future assassinations that this was a good way to approach this
problem--the panel that you served? Do you think that you have
accomplished what you intended to accomplish?
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Barrett, at the time that we undertook
this panel and Congress passed the act to create this panel, 85
percent of the American people believed that someone other than
Lee Harvey Oswald had participated in the assassination of
President Kennedy. A national poll had told us that. There were
boundless rumors and myths. People were writing numerous books
and things of that sort. And as a consequence of it, I think
that putting this panel together and permitting this type of
investigation was very helpful. I think it allayed many of the
rumors and myths that grew up and abounded around the
assassination of our President.
However, I don't think that they've put to bed everything.
We uncovered many things. For instance, we pointed out many
things that the Warren Commission had not done properly. And we
were able to destroy many of the myths, such as the umbrella
man theory and things of that sort. But we couldn't put
everything to bed. We had begun that investigation 15 years
after the assassination of the President.
I think if had we been given this type of investigation
immediately after it had occurred, it would have been a
different result. But many of the witnesses had died, evidence
had disappeared. As you can see now, there were materials which
we were not able to get even within that 2-year period before
we went out of existence. And so, as a consequence of it, I
think we did an outstanding job. No one has ever been able to
refute any of the work that we did. No one has been able, thus
far, to say that anything was ever covered up from the American
people.
And so, to that degree, I think that it performed a good
service for the American people.
Mr. Barrett. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hastert. The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you for having this hearing today and for also
expediting the markup on 1553, and give praise to the
cosponsors, our chairman, Mr. Burton, Mr. Waxman, and also to
Congressman Stokes. The editorial comment I would make is I'm
always amazed at each succeeding day that I serve in Congress
of the rich history that a number of our colleagues have. And
to now have our fine colleague from Ohio, Congressman Stokes
from Cleveland, here, and talk about his previous work in the
House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Although many members in the House remember his service, I
would venture to say that there are a number of people back
home that don't know all of the things that you've done during
your many years of service to this Congress and this country.
Just as an example, the other day I found out--and I don't know
if you're a lawyer or not, Mr. Chairman--but I found out that
Congressman Stokes--well, you're lucky you're not a lawyer--but
I am. And I'm proud to be a lawyer. And I found out that
Congressman Stokes was responsible for a ruling called Terry v.
Ohio. And you might have heard of a Terry frisk and search. And
I didn't know that until the other day, that Congressman Stokes
had a hand in that. So, again, we find Congressman Stokes
showing up again sharing his expertise with the country.
Louis, the one question that I would have deals with, in
both your written testimony and then also your observations to
Congressman Barrett's question you talked about the JFK movie
and all of the rumors and innuendos and the public polls. And
you still run into people, as I'm sure I still run into people
that aren't convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on
that November day in Dallas. And part of it has to do, I think,
with, after your Commission met, and now the legislation in
1992 and a little delay in getting everybody in place in the
Review Board, do you think it was necessary--after you've
reviewed the documents in this case--that we waited, as a
government, 34 years to make these documents available? Was
there something impinging upon the national security that you
found or discovered that made it necessary for the government
to wait 34 full years before releasing this information and
hopefully dispelling some of those rumors?
Mr. Stokes. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Latourette,
firstly for your nice remarks. But it's a good question,
because not many people realize that this was not--when we
sealed these records for the period 30 to 50 years, this was
not done because of anything relative to this particular
investigation. That was a House Rule in existence at that time
that applied to any committee that when it completed its work
and filed its final report, if they had documents which had not
been released publicly, under that House Rule, they had to be
sealed for 30 to 50 years.
The same applied to the other part of that investigation
which we conducted, which was to investigate the assassination
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which was a companion part of
our investigation. So that applied to that one also. But as a
result of it, in compliance with the House Rule, it just sort
of sat there until things were stirred up by that JFK movie,
and it sort of brought things to a head.
Mr. LaTourette. OK. The principles behind your 1992
legislation--the Assassinations Record Collection Act--
obviously now we collect records differently than we did
before. A lot of them are electronically stored. Do you think
that we can use that act as a vehicle should another tragedy--
God forbid we should ever have such another tragedy in this
country--but should another tragedy such as this occur, and can
we use the lessons learned in the model of this Review Board to
prevent the significant time lag between the date of event and
the eventual release of documents for public review?
Mr. Stokes. I would hope, Mr. LaTourette, that we have
learned some lessons. First, here in the Congress we no longer
have such a rule in effect. And that will help us, I think,
tremendously. But also, I think by the agencies now working
with a review panel of this sort, and the realizing that many
of the type of documents which they will cite to you in their
testimony--for instance, there is a very interesting document
that they will talk about where the whole page, with the
exception of just the date and the name of a country,
everything was redacted. And under their work, that whole page
has been released and everyone can read that.
What you do by that is that you're able to allay all the
suspicion as to what really has been redacted and people can
really see. And then you can't have the kind of rumors and
myths that grow up around it. And I think and hope that, in the
event of such an occurrence in the future--which all of us hope
will never occur--that our agencies will realize that this has
been a good example of how we can allay some of the fears and
suspicions that the American people have around the manner in
which we conduct this type of thing.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Congressman Stokes,
for your expertise.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mr. LaTourette. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, and at this time recognize the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All I would add is to
also compliment you, Mr. Stokes, for your many years of work on
this effort. I, too, stand somewhat in awe of the number of
years of service and your contributions to this body.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. And I know the Congress and the American people
are grateful for the years of service you have provided not
only on this issue, but on many other issues to which you've
contributed. And I also want to thank those who served on this
panel, because I'm sure that it's a time-consuming endeavor to
carry out this task. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Mr. Stokes.
Mr. Stokes. Thank you.
Mr. Hastert. Will the second panel come forward, please.
Our distinguished second panel includes four witnesses: Mr.
John Tunheim, chair of the Assassination Records Review Board,
Mr. Steven Tilley, Chief of the John F. Kennedy Assassination
Records Collection at the National Archives; we also have Mr.
Max Holland, author and contributing editor of the Wilson
Quarterly, and Mr. Bruce Hitchcock, a historian and teacher at
Noblesville High School in Indiana, our distinguished
chairman's home State. And I also would say that at this time
Mr. Burton wanted to be here to make a few comments. He is not
here yet. We may entertain that at any time. So, if you
gentlemen would please stand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Hastert. Thank you. Let the record show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. And if we'd start with
you, Mr. Tunheim.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN TUNHEIM, CHAIR, ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW
BOARD; STEVEN TILLEY, CHIEF, JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
RECORDS COLLECTION, NATIONAL ARCHIVES; MAX HOLLAND, AUTHOR,
CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, WILSON QUARTERLY; AND BRUCE HITCHCOCK,
TEACHER, NOBLESVILLE HIGH SCHOOL, INDIANA
Mr. Tunheim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to
submit my written testimony for the record and just give a
brief summary to the members of the subcommittee today. I'd
like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify
today in favor of House bill 1553. And I'd also like to note
our thanks to Congressman Stokes for his leadership on this
issue and his guidance in the important effort to release the
records relating to the tragic assassination of President
Kennedy.
The Review Board is confident that the additional time
requested and provided by Congressman Burton's bill will allow
us to complete our work and submit a truly complete final
report to the Congress, to the President, and to the American
public. I'd like to thank Chairman Burton for introducing the
bill and Congressmen Waxman and Stokes for cosponsoring the
bill that is before this subcommittee today. And I also
appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your role in chairing this hearing
today and assisting in this effort.
One of the other members of the Review Board is present
with us today. I'd like to introduce her. Dr. Anna Nelson, who
is the distinguished adjunct historian in residence at the
American University and is seated in the row directly behind
me. Dr. David Marwell, the executive director of the Review
Board, is also here, as are a number of staff members who are
very professional and very dedicated and have done their work
for us very well.
The Review Board, Mr. Chairman, began releasing records in
July 1995 pursuant to the act passed by Congress. And thus far,
the Board has acted specifically to transfer more than 14,000
documents to the JFK Collection at the National Archives. That
collection, as Mr. Tilley will tell the subcommittee shortly,
now contains more than 3.7 million pages worth of material.
I'd like to show one brief and rather dramatic example of
the work that the Review Board is doing. Congressman Stokes
mentioned this issue in his testimony. This involves one
particular record. This is the before version, the record that
was available to the public up until several years ago. You
probably cannot see it from here, but it was a document that
was sent from the FBI's representative in Paris to Director
Hoover on October 12, 1960. That is indicated at the top of the
memorandum. The subject, as indicated, is Lee Harvey Oswald
internal security. And then it says, ``Re: Paris letter, 9/27/
60.'' And the remainder of the entire document is blacked out.
Not surprisingly, a document like this dated 3 years prior
to the assassination of President Kennedy, a document sent to
J. Edgar Hoover, attracted a great deal of interest among
researchers who saw it, because everything was blacked out
underneath. The speculation that individuals had about this was
great. While the Board aggressively pursued the release of this
information, initially ordering its release, the FBI appealed
that decision to the President.
Subsequently, we worked out with them, including an
aggressive effort to contact Swiss authorities, who were the
subject of this particular document. I met personally with the
Swiss Ambassador to the United States to ask for his assistance
in obtaining Swiss approval to release it. And here is the
record that is now released to the American public at the
National Archives. All of the material is released.
And what it indicates was the FBI was interested in whether
Oswald was indeed attending a college in Switzerland during
that period of time. And the document tells about the
investigation that Swiss authorities did to determine whether
Oswald was indeed enrolled. He was someone who the FBI was
following because of his interest in defecting to the Soviet
Union.
That's a good example of the type of work that the Review
Board is doing, pursuing individual releases of information
that has long been redacted from the public. The Board has
worked closely with Federal agencies. The vast majority of the
records are at the CIA and the FBI. We have completed the
review of the core collections in both of those agencies. And
significant numbers of materials have been released.
The Board has also been aggressive in identifying and
acquiring significant assassination related records that have
been in the hands of private citizens and local governments.
Just a couple of examples: the papers of J. Lee Rankin, who was
the chief counsel to the Warren Commission, have now been
released through the efforts of the Review Board. Virtually all
of the records of the prosecution in New Orleans of Clay Shaw
were also released.
And I'm announcing for the first time today that the Review
Board has just acquired the original personal papers of Clay
Shaw. He was the individual prosecuted in New Orleans in 1969--
the only individual prosecuted for the assassination of
President Kennedy. That will add another dimension to the
story.
This is an example of his diary, which the Board has just
obtained, and will be released as soon as we can process the
materials. It's very interesting. It's his diary from the day
that he was arrested on March 1, 1967, and his feelings about
Oswald on that particular day.
Despite the best estimate, Mr. Chairman, that this job
could be done in 3 years, we cannot finish our work by the end
of this fiscal year. We're confident that in the additional
year we will be able to get through the records, which will
largely involve the sequestered collections at the CIA and at
the FBI, records sequestered by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations.
I'd be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, that
you and the Members have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tunheim follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Hastert. Thank you. We'll hold all the questions until
the end of the testimony.
Mr. Tunheim. Very well.
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Tilley.
Mr. Tilley. Mr. Chairman, I am Steven Tilley, and I am
Chief of the Access and Freedom of Information staff at the
National Archives and Records Administration. And I wish to
thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the National
Archives in support of H.R. 1553. I am appearing today in my
capacity as NARA's chief of the President John F. Kennedy
Assassination Records Collection. In that role, I am charged
with implementing NARA's responsibilities under the act. And I
serve as NARA's liaison to the Assassination Records Review
Board. It's my understanding that my written statement will be
made part of the record. Therefore, I'll be brief in my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, this month marks the 20th anniversary of the
closing of the office of the Watergate Special Prosecution
Force. I oversaw the closing of that office and supervised the
transfer of those records to the National Archives. Most of my
career at the National Archives since then has been working
with sensitive records. In 1993 I became chief of the JFK
Collection. And I've served in that capacity ever since.
When the Review Board members were confirmed by the Senate
in April 1994, my staff and I began to work with the Board and
later with the Board's staff to provide information on the
records of the JFK Collection, the development and use of
NARA's data base, our contacts and discussions with other
agencies involved in searches for assassination records, and
the existence of assassination records in the custody of
private repositories or individuals.
The Review Board and NARA have maintained an excellent
working relationship through the 3 years of the Board's
existence. And I'd like to think that this close relationship
has in some way contributed to the success of the Review Board.
NARA enthusiastically supports passage of H.R. 1553 to extend
the Review Board's authorization. The Board needs the time
designated in this bill to complete its important work in
making available as complete of a historical record as possible
concerning the assassination of President Kennedy.
I would like to briefly offer for your consideration some
statistics and facts to demonstrate the success of the Board.
The JFK Assassination Records Collection has grown to more than
1,600 cubic feet of records, or approximately 3.75 million
pages from more than 30 different government offices. These
numbers are a testament to the work of the Board in obtaining
the cooperation of the entire Federal Government as well as
private donors in this important task.
For the information of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I have
attached to my testimony a copy of the register of the
collection, which lists the major groups of Federal records and
private papers along with a supplemental listing of FBI
records. Not only has the collection increased dramatically in
size, the significance of the records in the collection cannot
be underestimated. In addition to the records of numerous
executive branch agencies and offices, the records of relevant
congressional committees, related court cases and records
donated by private entities are also available in the
collection.
This rich documentation is searchable electronically,
giving researchers the ability to seek out documents concerning
a topic, person or event, or even individual documents not only
at NARA's College Park facility but from their own personal
computer through the Internet. Finally, Mr. Chairman, public
demand for these records is the ultimate evidence of the value
of this collection. Reference requests have risen in number
every year since the collection opened with new records in
1993. This year we have already received over 600 written
inquiries, an increase of over 30 percent from this period last
year.
The number of inquiries on our computer Web site has also
steadily increased since March 1996 when the assassination
records data base was made available through the Internet. It
has been accessed over 100,000 times by the public.
Due to the exceptional work of the Assassination Records
Review Board, great progress has been made on making available
as complete a record as possible in the history of the
assassination of John F. Kennedy. Without the focus, integrity
and expertise of the Review Board, the collection would not
have the size, quality or public demand witnessed today.
However, there is still much to do. NARA supports passage
of H.R. 1553 so this important work can be completed.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tilley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Hastert. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a
brief statement summarizing my testimony. Nearly 75 years after
President Lincoln's assassination, a chemist turned author
named Otto Eisenschiml provoked a national furor with his 1937
book, ``Why Was Lincoln Murdered?'' Eisenschiml claimed one of
the most important events in American history was still a
mystery. And Eisenschiml claimed to have uncovered the truth:
President Lincoln was a victim of a conspiracy organized by his
Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, who was allegedly opposed to
the President's program for a charitable post-war
reconstruction of the South.
When pressed, Otto Eisenschiml openly admitted that he had
no evidence to support his case. At the same time, though, it
was precisely the documentary record that enabled critics to
prove that Eisenschiml's book was just another in a long line
of lunatic theories about the first assassination of an
American President.
Here lies, I submit, the long-term importance of the work
being carried out by the AARB. The meaning of the raw data
being unearthed by the Review Board will probably not be
appreciated any time soon by the generations sentient when
President Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. But if these
generations cannot come to terms with history as it happened in
their lifetimes, then at the very least they have an obligation
to hand over, insofar as possible, a complete and thorough
documentary record. Citizens will need that record to rebut the
Otto Eisenschimls of the next century--not that there is any
dearth of them now.
I strongly support, without qualification, extension of the
Review Board for another year and full funding of its
operations. Bringing its work to an abrupt end would not only
diminish the investment of time and resources already made; in
all likelihood, it would throw the whole initiative into chaos.
Not least of all, gutting the effort now would surely create an
ineradicable suspicion about the Federal Government's
intentions in the first place.
I'd like to spend the balance of my time describing the
three areas where I think the Review Board has made its
greatest contributions. The first has to do with the Warren
Commission. The Review Board's labors have resulted in many new
documents that I believe will eventually remove the stigma that
has been attached to the Commission, which is probably the most
unfairly reviled and ridiculed entity ever created by the
Federal Government.
These records paint a sobering portrait of our Federal
Government during a very traumatic time. It's not the idealized
versions depicted in civics textbooks nor the demonized version
featured on talk radio. It's the real Federal Government:
imperfect, plodding, driven by ambition, distrust, rivalries,
compartmentalized by secrecy, working at cross purposes or in
ignorance, simultaneously guided by the most banal bureaucratic
instincts and the most elevated national concerns.
Somehow, through all of that, it does struggle and manage
to do the right thing. Besides the Warren Commission, I think
the work of the Review Board has made a very substantial
contribution toward understanding the operations of the
intelligence community. The assassination necessarily caused
what could only be termed a mobilization of the U.S.
intelligence community's far-flung resources. The government
had to determine that weekend who was responsible and whether
the assassin or assassins had any coconspirators either foreign
or domestic.
Consequently, the records being released now constitute a
gold mine of information about domestic and foreign
intelligence operations at the midpoint of the cold war. These
records not only shed new light on what the government knew 34
years ago, the release is an object lesson in why they were
kept secret for all those years. They do not contradict the
Federal Government's official conclusion as stated in the
Warren Report. Rather, the documents were kept secret because
they disclosed or tended to disclose ongoing intelligence
sources and methods.
With the release of these documents, the intelligence
community's record in the wake of the assassination can finally
be assessed with some fairness and thoroughness. The fact is
that the information provided by the FBI, CIA and other
agencies was instrumental in preventing the U.S. Government
from overreacting when the circumstantial public evidence was
highly suggestive of a link between Lee Harvey Oswald and a
foreign power.
The last area in which the Review Board has made perhaps
its greatest contribution has to do with the whole issue of
secrecy and disclosure. The balance between secrecy and
disclosure has always been in favor of secrecy, especially
since World War II, controlled by laws highly deferential to
the equities of the interested government agencies. The five
citizens who serve on the Review Board decided that if their
mandate was to have any meaning, it was imperative to pierce
this veil.
They had to get at categories that had been classified
heretofore, including information derived from intelligence
sources and methods. While some historians have been critical
of the resources devoted to this particular effort, I like to
believe that a breakthrough had to be achieved somewhere. And,
in fact, the records pertaining to President Kennedy's
assassination make an excellent demonstration project of what
can now be released. The lines drawn by the Review Board should
prove helpful as the government undertakes to declassify the
vast body of records generated during the cold war.
Finally, I'd like to say that the entire history of the
Federal Government's efforts in the wake of the assassination,
including the experience of the Review Board, serves as a
cautionary tale. Perhaps it will enable the government to
strike a better balance between secrecy and disclosure in the
future. For there exists no better example of the heavy wages
of doubt, suspicion, and public cynicism exacted by secrecy
than the Kennedy assassination experience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman. And now, Mr. Hitchcock,
I'd like to welcome you especially. The gentleman from Ohio
asked me a little while ago if I was an attorney. Indeed, I was
not an attorney. I happened to be a history teacher for 16
years before I ever got into politics. So it's certainly a
noble trade. And I'm happy that you are here. I know that the
chairman wanted to introduce you personally, but he couldn't
make it this afternoon. You contributed students, I understand,
to clerk for this Commission and have been involved in it to a
very high degree. So we welcome you and will listen to your
testimony.
Mr. Hitchcock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, would
ask that my written statement be entered into the record. And I
will briefly summarize.
Mr. Hastert. Without objection, all written statements will
be entered into the record.
Mr. Hitchcock. Thank you. My name is Bruce Hitchcock, and I
am a teacher at Noblesville High School, located in
Noblesville, IN, which is a community approximately 20 miles
north of Indianapolis. I am currently completing my 28th year
in secondary education. My teaching assignment has primarily
been in the areas of U.S. history, American government, and
international relations. And I want to express my appreciation
to the committee for affording me the honor and privilege of
being here today and permitting me to make some brief remarks
about which I have very strong convictions, not only as a
citizen but as an educator.
In the spring of 1994 I assigned my honors U.S. history
class a project studying the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. This project culminated in the students placing the
Warren Commission Report on trial. Half of the class
represented the prosecution and half of the class defended the
Warren Commission Report. The class became quite interested in
and many would say obsessed with this subject.
The project resulted in a trial which became quite intense
and divisive, so much so that the class had to have a party at
the end of the semester to rekindle friendships. They became so
fascinated with the subject of the assassination that they
requested an opportunity to travel to Washington, DC during the
summer following their graduation to do additional research.
From that modest class assignment developed an internship
opportunity with the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. To
date, four student groups from Noblesville High School have
interned with the Review Board, with the fifth scheduled for
the week of June 16th of this year. When this group completes
its work, a total of 56 of our students will have participated
in this unique and truly educational opportunity. I might add
that except for the first group, succeeding groups have
studied, researched, and prepared for their internship on their
own time, outside normal class meetings.
The most recent group to participate did so over spring
break. The fact that students wanted to spend their vacation
working with government records reflects the interest that the
JFK assassination has for students. In my 28 years of teaching
I have never had a topic create as much interest as the
assassination of President Kennedy. It is a mystery, and it
provides an excellent research opportunity as well as a chance
for students to be actively involved in learning.
Since November 22, 1963, there have been many who have
believed and still believe the government did conceal,
continues to conceal, and will continue to conceal the truth.
If the Review Board is permitted time to complete its work, it
will assist in defusing the last two charges. We cannot prevent
the speculation that someone did conceal the truth. But the
argument that a cover-up continues and will continue can at
least be defused or discouraged.
What has been lost cannot be replaced. However, what still
exists can be made public. We should have access, and our
students should have access to the information and documents
still in existence. This is an opportunity for the U.S.
Government to provide a credible response to public interest.
The Review Board established by the Congress is actually a
group of citizens telling the government what to do and what to
release.
An opportunity exists in this era of skepticism to restore
some credibility and trust in the government. In his recent
book, ``The Approaching Fury,'' author Stephen B. Oates quotes
John Ferling as saying, ``Events by themselves are unimportant.
It is the perception of events that is crucial.''
Perhaps in 1997 the most important aspect concerning the
assassination of President Kennedy is the perception shared by
many of a conspiracy involving individuals and agencies of the
U.S. Government. Do we not owe our young people the opportunity
to form the most accurate perception possible? Do we not owe
them the chance to see as much of the truth intact as can be
assembled? It seems to me that we owe this generation and all
succeeding generations the opportunity to question, to study
and to form opinions on the basis of information they can view
independently without solely relying on the opinions of others.
Oftentimes while I'm in the classroom, I observe students
who have opinions but little to substantiate them. Congress has
a chance before it in some small way or maybe in some large way
to at least provide them with some more information so that
they may have their turn in determining what the JFK
assassination means. We have been affected by this event. For
34 years we have been affected. The 56 students from
Noblesville High School have, as have countless others, been
affected by the events of November 22, 1963.
The study of this event has the public's interest. It is an
event to which the public and students can relate. It touches
people. As an aside, last week an article was published in the
Indianapolis Star--I have a copy with me today--regarding our
school's ongoing JFK assassination project. Within a day of its
publication I had received phone calls from a gentleman
offering 500 pages of documents for our use and from a former
teacher calling me with information regarding some scholarship
opportunities.
I also received a call from ABC News Nightline, and
yesterday, before leaving Noblesville High School, received a
call from Atlanta, GA offering information. The subject of the
call from Nightline was seeking information as to what
Noblesville High School students were doing with regard to the
study of the assassination. Together I think these calls
reflect continued local and national interest in continuing to
probe into what happened in Dallas.
Congress has the opportunity to lay the facts before the
American public and permit a more reasoned, rational and fact-
based account and discussion of the assassination. I would hope
that the committee would take into consideration the fact that
the Review Board had a 1-year delay before truly becoming
operational, that it is making a one time request for an
extension, that the Review Board has been on task and on
budget, that the Review Board has conducted its business in a
professional and non-partisan manner, and in 1992, when the act
was passed by this Congress and signed by President Bush, the
enormity of the task was not and could not be fully
appreciated.
An opportunity exists to complete a task which I believe is
overwhelmingly supported by the American public. And it is
important that this mission and mandate authorized by Congress
be completed.
I would like to end with just a couple of quotes, one from
former Senator Bob Dole, who said in a different context,
``This is not about only who we are, it is about have we made a
difference.'' This is a chance to make a difference. And as
former President Reagan often said, ``If not us, who, and if
not now, when?''
After 34 years, it is time to let the public know the facts
that remain. To do less would be a tragedy and a travesty. As
an educator I believe that our most important task is to
provide our young people the complete story of who we are and
why we are who we are. We have the opportunity to work toward
the accomplishment of that goal. It is an opportunity I believe
we cannot afford to miss.
In his last speech in Fort Worth on November 22, 1963
President Kennedy said, ``We would like to live as we once
lived, but history will not permit it.'' History can only be
served by permitting the public to see the evidence.
Mr. Chairman, as a further aside, if I might just have a
few seconds.
Reflective of our students' interest in this event, I have
my honors government classes perform the project of a model
Congress. And one of the students this year--they could write a
bill on whatever subject they wished--and one student who
worked with the Review Board last year introduced House
Concurrent Resolution 1 in support of the Review Board, and
concludes, after all the whereases, ``The Congress of the
United States firmly supports the Assassination Records Review
Board in all endeavors leading to the collection, review and
release of the documents regarding the assassination of
President Kennedy, and supports the extension of the life of
the AARB for an additional fiscal year.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hitchcock follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman. I thank the panel. Now
I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Mr. Hitchcock, can you give us the name of
that student so we can make him or her an honorary cosponsor?
Might as well get the name into the record.
Mr. Hitchcock. Abigail Meyer.
Mr. Barrett. OK. Judge Tunheim, you mentioned that you were
releasing some materials from Clay Shaw's diary and perhaps
other things. Is there any information here that you find
particularly interesting?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. Barrett, I have not had a chance to
go through it. We just got these materials in the last week
through some aggressive efforts of our staff. The page that I
cited to you was interesting in that he made the notation in
there, and a portion of it in his own handwriting, that it was
perhaps unfortunate that he had never met Oswald because he
might possibly have been a tiny footnote in history: an ironic
statement given the role that he played in the trial.
We have not had a chance to analyze it thoroughly yet. It
does contain his reactions to events as they were going on
around him during the course of the prosecution and certainly
supports his view that he was not involved whatsoever in the
assassination, which ultimately was the view of the jury that
acquitted him.
Mr. Barrett. For my benefit, as a person that has not been
immersed in this issue at all, you just mentioned that it took
some aggressive work from your staff to get this released. Can
you tell me what that entailed, where it was, why it was so
difficult to get this information?
Mr. Tunheim. Certainly. This is an investigation into where
records are. And the bulk of our work has been with Federal
agencies that hold assassination records. But we've also, at
the direction of Congress and the bill that was passed,
entertained a search for records wherever they might be.
Records that are in private hands are not records that we can
subpoena and take from people. So we have to find where they
are.
Staff members go out and talk to people, encourage them to
donate those records to the American public, to the National
Archives. And that was done in this case. We received a tip
that an individual had records that were left over from Mr.
Shaw, and a staff member went, talked with the person, spent
some time with the person and encouraged them to share those
records with the American public. And that's how it was
developed.
Mr. Barrett. How do you determine which assassination
records you can disclose now and which ones have to wait?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, there's a standard that's set up by the
act. There's, first of all, a presumption that all records
should be public. That presumption has governed what the Board
has done throughout the process. But then there's a standard
where the Board has to weigh the public interest in a
particular record or information with the potential harm that
might be caused by release of the material. The standards that
we look at are: are there national security interests such as
disclosure of an intelligence agent whose name hasn't been
disclosed and whether that person perhaps may be in some danger
if that name is released publicly, does it disclose a method of
protecting the President that is not generally known today, so
therefore, it might be a threat to the President, are there
personal privacy considerations that are involved?
I will tell you that when all is said and done, a very,
very tiny percentage of information gets redacted under the
standards that we are applying. And the process of going
through the records has led the Board to arrive at a number of
policy decisions which the agencies by and large are now
following in their own review of records. And, therefore,
decisions that we had to make 2 years ago we don't have to make
because the agency is following the advice that the Board made
on earlier records.
Mr. Barrett. As long as there are some records that are not
being released, do you think that we will inevitably face
criticism from some people in the American public that there is
still some sort of cover-up? I make reference to Mr. Holland's
comments about a book being written 75 years after President
Lincoln's assassination. Will the time ever come, do you think,
when all records will be released?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, I think it will, Mr. Barrett. The Board
is releasing every record. The question is whether certain
information on these records gets redacted or not. For every
redaction, we are attaching a specific release date. Some of
the dates are 5 years into the future. The law that was passed
which established the Review Board provided that all records
that are redacted, all information redacted, will be released
in 2017, unless whoever is President at that time makes a
specific determination that the record cannot be released
because of some continuing national security concern.
So we expect that virtually all of the information by 2017
will be released. But a very high percentage--in the 99.999
range--is being released right now.
Mr. Barrett. Mr. Tilley, in your written statement you
indicate that the collections currently consist of 3.75 million
pages. What is your estimate of how many more records need to
be reviewed?
Mr. Tilley. Well, it's hard to say because there is still a
good deal of material that is being reviewed by agencies at
this time. We have located, at the National Archives, records
that are still under review, such as the Secretary of Army's
records dealing with Operation Mongoose, the campaign to
destabilize the Cuban Government in the period after the Bay of
Pigs.
Other records have been located, other agencies'. I
received a call from the Customs Bureau today, and they will be
turning over their assassination records to me, hopefully this
afternoon. After this hearing is over I'll be picking up the
records they've located. So it's tough to say how much is still
out there. But I think there's still going to be another--a
considerable amount of material probably will be added to the
collection before this process is finished.
Mr. Barrett. Millions of pages or----
Mr. Tilley. Oh, no. I would say probably--if we add another
half a million pages, that might be the extent of it. But
what's interesting and fascinating about this process is we
continue to turn up records where we did not know there were
records before. And as agencies are aware of this effort,
they've come to the Board. And the Board is responsible for a
lot of this aggressive work with the Federal agencies, but--no,
I don't see us ever doubling the collection again. But I think
we will add a significant amount of material in the weeks and
years ahead.
Mr. Barrett. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastert. Mr. Tunheim, just a very short question. You
mentioned the movie that came out--``JFK,'' Mr. Oliver Stone's
work--in there. Did Mr. Stone ever have any questions of your
work at all or did he do research?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. Stone has been very supportive of
the work of the Review Board. He testified before the Congress
when this bill was passed initially, encouraging broad release
of the records, and he sent a representative to one of our
public hearings who testified and spoke very favorably about
the work of the Board. So he's been strongly supportive, and
we've appreciated that support.
Mr. Hastert. Why have you waited until this point in the
process to begin the reviewing of the CIA and the FBI records?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, we've been reviewing CIA records and FBI
records from the very beginning, Mr. Chairman. The volume of
records in those agencies is really significant. We have
completed the entire review of the core collections of those
agencies. And those are numerous: between the two agencies,
it's more than a million pages of records. What we are doing
right now is delving into what is called the sequestered
collections within both of these agencies. Within the CIA these
are records that the House Select Committee on Assassinations
asked to be sequestered, taken away from their files and kept
in a secure place for future review.
The House Select Committee did not have the time to review
these records carefully. Some of them are highly relevant to
the assassination, others are not. Within the CIA there are
about 62 boxes of material and 72 reels of microfilm. In the
FBI the same kind of sequestered collection is about 280,000
pages of records. And those records are the focus of the Review
Board's work over the next year if we get the extension.
Mr. Hastert. Let me ask the same question I asked the
previous panel. Do you think that you can finish your work by
the end of the fiscal year 1998?
Mr. Tunheim. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the Board
can complete its work. The members of the Review Board are
confident. We will make every effort to ensure that that gets
done. In fact, we intend to provide to your staff a time line
that sets out our anticipation of how we will review these
records over the next year. We have set up a review process
that we're working on right now that's moving quickly. And
we're confident that the work can be done. We were set up to be
a temporary Board. No one on the Board wishes this effort to
take a long time. We need to get this information to the
American public.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you very much. Mr. Hitchcock, I wanted
to ask you. As bringing students into the real realm of
research and learning in that respect, how important is it that
records like this be made available to the public so that folks
like yourself can have the availability of them for students?
Mr. Hitchcock. I think, Mr. Chairman, it's extremely
important for not only teachers of history and historians, but
also for students and future generations that the--one of the
things so special about our relationship with the Review Board:
it has not only been an opportunity for students to travel to
Washington--they pay their own way, and they do their own
research on their own time--but it has helped change opinions
in many cases by students about not only the assassination but
about government, politics, agencies and people who work for
the government.
I cannot overstate the importance it has had for the 43
thus far and soon to be 56 students from Noblesville High
School that have had this research opportunity, that have been
able actually to see, handle original documents, to work with
documents, to see firsthand the evidence that exists. And to
have that opportunity is something that no teacher, no
classroom, no film, no laser disk, nothing in the classroom can
simulate or stimulate such interest and focus as a trip to
Washington, DC, the review of documents, the working with
people that we've had an opportunity to be with at the Review
Board on a firsthand basis.
It is just something that cannot be duplicated or, as I
said, simulated in any classroom anywhere in the country. And
it's just been a fantastic opportunity and will provide
students in the future with a place to go to find those
records, to look at the records, to look at the documents, and
be at least assured that as much as available and is in
existence, can now be made available to them as ordinary
citizens of this country, whether they be students at a
university, students in high school, or in their just curiosity
and interest as an American citizen.
So I don't think it can be overstated. The impact that this
will have in helping bridge that gap of skepticism--if this is
the correct way to say it. I just cannot imagine what the many
conspiracy theorists would think if the Review Board has to
finish its stay without completing its work.
Mr. Hastert. Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman,
I would begin by indicating that my earlier query about your
legal training was not meant to be an affront, and I should
have recognized that your learned demeanor was that of a
historian.
Mr. Hastert. Not at all.
Mr. LaTourette. And, Mr. Holland, I don't have a question,
but I'm glad you told the story about Otto Eisenschiml. Because
somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a book or a movie
called the Lincoln Conspiracy, and I was certain that Secretary
Stanton had something to do with the demise of our 16th
President. So I'm glad you brought that up. Mr. Tunheim, I do
want to ask you a followup question to what we were talking to
Congressman Stokes about. And I was fascinated by the document
that you held up. When I was in the prosecution business and we
had a public records law in Ohio that was new on the books, we
found that law enforcement agencies always wanted to take a big
black magic marker and redact everything.
And it was my view that that led to more conjecture, rumor,
suspicion than not. And I think that this document that you
brought forward, knowing that it came from the Swiss Federal
police, that would give, I think, some cause to believe that
Mr. Oswald had some Swiss bank account and was squirreling away
money from foreign nationals as part of a conspiracy. If you
unredact it--if that's really a word--you find out like so many
other people that he apparently registered for the Albert
Schweitzer College for the fall semester of 1960 and didn't
show up. Nothing sinister or unusual in that at all.
And the question that I have is, when you were testifying
you indicated that the FBI originally appealed the decision to
withdraw the redaction of this particular document. You also
indicated that the vast majority of documents that you have
left to review during this renewal period are located at the
CIA and the FBI in the sequestered section, I assume. Are you
experiencing any unusual difficulties with either of those
agencies in terms of cooperation as you attempt to get to a
public release of what should be appropriately publicly
released?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. LaTourette, the answer to the
question is no, we're not receiving any degree of difficulty
with those agencies right now. They are committed to this
process. They are supportive of the effort to keep the process
going for one additional year. The CIA has not appealed
decisions that the Review Board has made. We've got a good
working relationship with the people within that agency who are
doing their work. The FBI appealed a significant number of our
decisions, but now all of those appeals have been withdrawn.
And we've got a working relationship with the FBI that I
think has been constructive and professional and is working
quite well. The FBI initially opposed release of the document
that I held up and appealed the decision because they had
contacted in a general way the Swiss Federal police and asked
whether this record could be released and their answer was no.
Our followup through the Ambassador is showing what, really,
this document was all about, and led to a wiser approach to the
particular issue. And sometimes it takes additional work like
that to accomplish the release of important material.
Mr. LaTourette. And the last question I would have is,
Congressman Stokes expressed the view that perhaps the fine
work of this Review Board, should another Review Board setting
be required in the future to review another situation similar
to this, that you may be breaking down some of the barriers in
terms of suspicions the intelligence community may have about,
do we need to stick to the script and have a page that has all
black magic marker on it. Do you find that the lessons learned
in this Review Board will be instructive to us as we move
forward and think of ways of dealing with the release of
documents in the future?
Mr. Tunheim. I think that's a very good question. And we
have found through this effort, being the first independent
group outside of an agency to have this degree of control over
the declassification process, that the process at first was
rough and difficult and fraught with suspicion. That has
changed. There has been a sea change as these agencies have
realized that release of this information is not going to harm
our national security, that perhaps it's time simply to trust
the American people with access to important information about
their government.
And I think everyone has learned important lessons from
this process. It's a process that while time consuming has
worked very well for this set of records.
Mr. LaTourette. And in that regard and in that vein, have
you--the Review Board--put together sort of an instruction or
an operating manual to be left behind for future such
endeavors?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, we certainly will. Virtually all of our
work has been computerized so that we have an extensive record
of exactly how we've approached all these issues. We do intend
in our final report to make recommendations on how this effort
can be extended in the future to other areas if the Congress so
wishes.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank
you for your fine work. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder [presiding]. Thank you. I had a couple of
questions. I read your testimony as I was listening to the
other two. I'm sorry I was late. I wanted to ask Mr. Holland,
were there credible historians who, at this point, are still
questioning the assassination and the Warren Commission and the
information that came out before this Commission existed,
before these documents came out?
Mr. Holland. Basically, most historians have stayed away
from it, because they regard it as a tar baby. So there are
actually surprisingly few--by historians, if you mean
professors at universities. Surprisingly few who have written
about it because they just see it as a morass, and how are they
going to possibly figure out what happened. And so my answer
would be credible is in the eye of the beholder. But there are
actually remarkably few. And that's one of my arguments, is
that you have to--it is time to insert it back into history.
It did happen during the cold war, and that exerted a
tremendous influence over what the government did right after
the assassination. It was the precipitating element in the
formation of the Warren Commission, that the cold war was
ongoing and they worried about--to be frank--they worried about
congressional committees holding hearings and disclosure of
sources and methods such as the fact that Oswald had gone to
Mexico City and been observed by photographic surveillance, and
how was that going to be handled by a congressional committee.
So, I do believe it has to be inserted into historical
context. That's probably been the element that's been missing
all this time.
Mr. Souder. So you believe one of the benefits of this
Commission, it will bring out of pop culture and in more
mainstream because more documents are there, less questions can
now be analyzed. And, also, you seem to hint that we'll gain as
much--it's not necessarily that there's a lot of new
information on the assassination--but that we're going to learn
a lot about how our government worked and a lot of the
interrelationships. And that may be, in fact, more use to the
historians than any questions they had remaining about the
assassination.
Mr. Holland. I think--my own particular view is that
besides being an investigation of three crimes, the murder of
President Kennedy, assault on Governor Connally and the murder
of Officer Tippit, and then the murder of Oswald--so four
crimes--the Warren Commission is a fantastic lens to view the
operation of the government circa 1963-1964. Because they had
an overriding mandate but yet they were going up against
agencies such as the FBI and CIA with entrenched interests. And
especially Hoover's FBI was sort of a wonder to behold; you
dealt with it very gingerly.
So it's a great--and the FBI had not been second-guessed
since Hoover became director. This was the first time. And you
can't underestimate what that meant in terms of the
difficulties it posed for the Commission. Now, I maintain they
still came to the right conclusion. But the fact is that they
had a lot of trouble with the FBI.
Mr. Souder. One of the questions here is why it took so
many years to get to this point? In looking at what future
commissions might do, how much of that do you think can be
overcome? In other words, how much of this was the Hoover FBI,
say, and how much of this was institutional that in the first
10 years you have so many active in the field, ongoing
operations, in the first 20 years there's still some--can we
accelerate the process? What have we learned from this as to--
obviously this is one that particularly anybody in the 1960's
era--was a defining event. So, it's an extraordinary
assassination. But what have we learned for investigations in
the future? Do you believe the CIA and the FBI will release
information sooner and, if so, presumably they'll still be
redacted, which still could lead to Oliver Stone movies and
Lincoln conspiracy books and all sorts of things?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the fact that
these records are 30 years old has helped in attaining their
release. It's not information about the assassination, per se,
that agencies have objected releasing. It's more who said what
to who, who is an intelligence agent, and who is an informant
for the FBI. Those kinds of issues. And there will still be
institutional reluctance to release any of that information.
I hope that through this process we can demonstrate to the
public and to these agencies that this information can be
released to the public, that the public can be trusted with
information like this. There will still be a need for secrecy
to a certain extent, but certainly not with the broad brush
black pen approach of the past.
Mr. Souder. We first learned that--I was elected in 1994,
and our first experience in this committee was with Waco, which
we had similar questions and still had some information that
wasn't able to be released. We're certainly having that ongoing
debate with the administration right now, because it gets far
beyond the initial investigation. In the course of Travelgate
we discovered the data bank. And, of course, with the data
bank, you discover the code. And then you find out that the
code leads to this. Pretty soon you're off into other
investigations. That's going to be an ongoing problem. Do you
believe in the end that this will have silenced most critics?
Mr. Tunheim. In my view, Mr. Chairman, it will silence
some. It will perhaps provoke others. We're many years after an
event that was investigated in a different era. There were many
mistakes made at the time that cannot be corrected at this
stage in time. But I think when the Review Board is done with
its work, one thing we should be able to prove to the American
people is that the Federal Government is no longer keeping
secrets from them relative to the Kennedy assassination. I
think that will be a very significant development. Whether all
the questions will be resolved or not, that's a question for
historians in the future who will review these materials and
make their determinations.
This is like a gigantic puzzle with a lot of pieces
missing. We are putting some of those pieces in--small pieces
and large pieces. But there's a lot of pieces of the puzzle
that will never be found.
Mr. Souder. I want to ask one last question. And that is:
the options of dealing with acquiring the Zapruder film, is
that going to be a cost in addition to what you're requesting?
Do you have options of how to pay for that? What's the status
of that?
Mr. Tunheim. Well, the Zapruder film, as the chairman is
aware--the Review Board designated that as an assassination
record about a month or so ago. We felt that that decision was
determined by the Congress in the passage of the JFK Records
Collection Act when it said that all records in the possession
of the National Archives are assassination records and should
be included in this collection.
Recognizing the potential cost of a film like this, we did
set forth a 16-month period before the taking would take place
so that the Congress could address this issue and make
appropriate determinations if the Congress wished to make those
determinations. The Board did feel that decision had been made
for it by the Congress in the earlier act and that it is the
most significant piece of evidence of one of the most
significant crimes in our Nation's history, so, therefore, the
original has an intrinsic value and it should belong forever to
the American public.
We are hopeful that the Zapruder family will agree
eventually to donate that film to the American public. We have
no assurances of that at this point. But we did set the
timeframe far out into the future so that the Congress can
review this issue and make its own determinations if it so
wishes.
Mr. Souder. Do you have any additional questions? With that
I thank you all----
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, if I could beg your
indulgence just to ask one more question, if I may?
Mr. Souder. Sure. I yield to my friend from Ohio.
Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Tunheim, my previous question about
difficulty with the CIA and FBI--sometimes I don't make things
broad enough. And, I guess, my query would be--it's been
brought to my attention that perhaps there's been some
difficulty in obtaining records from the other body. Is there
any agency within the Federal Government that you're having
difficulty in terms of cooperation that would impede your
ability to complete your work in a timely fashion as envisioned
by this legislation?
Mr. Tunheim. Mr. LaTourette, I have not seen any evidence
currently that anyone is deliberately stonewalling us so that
when we go away they will put the records back into the files.
We had some significant problems early in the process just in--
really because agencies didn't understand what this was all
about and didn't understand what the law really provided for.
So it took some time. It's taken some time, for example, with
the Secret Service, to get them to the point of realizing their
obligations under the act.
They do now, and they've been very cooperative and easy to
work with. But this has been a learning process for all of the
agencies. And I feel at the current time there are no
impediments among any of the agency partners that we're dealing
with to completing the review of the records on a timely basis.
Mr. LaTourette. Thank you. I thank the chair for your
indulgence.
Mr. Souder. I thank you all for your testimony and I
appreciate your coming today. For procedural purposes I will
now close this hearing. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-