U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

46–768 CC 1998

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

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 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

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 

(III)

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

(1)

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 

2

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:]

3


g:\graphics\46768.001
4


g:\graphics\46768.002
5


g:\graphics\46768.003
6

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. 

7

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. 

8

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:]

9


g:\graphics\46768.004
10


g:\graphics\46768.005
11

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. 

12

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. 

13

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. 

14

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. 

15

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 

16

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:]

17


g:\graphics\46768.006
18


g:\graphics\46768.007
19


g:\graphics\46768.008
20


g:\graphics\46768.009
21


g:\graphics\46768.010
22


g:\graphics\46768.011
23


g:\graphics\46768.012
24


g:\graphics\46768.013
25


g:\graphics\46768.014
26


g:\graphics\46768.015
27


g:\graphics\46768.016
28

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 

29

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:]

30


g:\graphics\46768.017
31


g:\graphics\46768.018
32


g:\graphics\46768.019
33


g:\graphics\46768.020
34


g:\graphics\46768.021
35


g:\graphics\46768.022
36


g:\graphics\46768.023
37

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 reVerDate jul 14 2003 08:54 Mar 16, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46768 46768
38

sources. 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:]

39


g:\graphics\46768.024
40


g:\graphics\46768.025
41


g:\graphics\46768.026
42


g:\graphics\46768.027
43


g:\graphics\46768.028
44


g:\graphics\46768.029
45


g:\graphics\46768.030
46


g:\graphics\46768.031
47

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 opVerDate jul 14 2003 08:54 Mar 16, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46768 46768
48

portunity 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 

49

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:]

50


g:\graphics\46768.032
51


g:\graphics\46768.033
52


g:\graphics\46768.034
53


g:\graphics\46768.035
54


g:\graphics\46768.036
55

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 

56

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 collecVerDate jul 14 2003 08:54 Mar 16, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46768 46768
57

tion 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 

58

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 

59

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. 

60

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. 

61

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. 

62

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. 

63

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.]

Æ