14-00000 * there were two major releases of Agency records (August "1993 and August 1994) of approximately 227,000 pages; * joint HRG/DO teams reviewed additional assassination related collections at National Archives (Warren Commission), the SSCI (Church Committee and the Ford Presidential Library (Rockefellow Commission) plus numerous referrals from other federal agencies (FBI, State, Army, etc.). Due to delays in the appointment of its members and the time required to hire and clear a staff, the ARRB did not actually begin reviewing documents until May 1995. It became clear in immediately that the ARRB would require the release of far more information than the: Agency had released in the 1992-94 review. In mid-1995 HRG began a re-review of the previously released sanitized documents: * approximately 80% of the 227, 000 pages release in 1993-94 contained deletions * resources were taken from other projects and added to JFK project to meet Board's monthly deadlines. II. The JFK Act and the ARRB Mandated review and declassification projects can be two-edged swords. The JFK Act forced the Agency to review records that should have been opened years ago. The legal requirement to presume release, backed up by an independent review, resulted in the opening of documents that clearly would not have been released under other programs. However, the Act and the Review Board created by the Act imposed un- realistic deadlines, inflexible standards and procedures which created a major drain on all Agency review resources and had an over-all negative effect on the Agency's release program. Unrealistic Deadlines: The release dates set by the Act did not take into account the start-up time and costs (searches, inventorying and indexing) of a project of this magnitude, nor the time it would then take for a page-by- page review and sanitization of classified documents. For example, initial indexing of the collection was done on a ‘crash basis using overtime employees and resulted ina flawed database. The revising, re-indexing and updating of that database took several thousand man-hours and continues today. Mandated Procedures: NARA's and ARRB's interpretation of the law created a time-consuming, labor-intensive review process that meant an inordinate amount of time was spent by
14-00000 both the Agency and Board staff on issues which were marginal to the story and to processing decisions by the Board. For example: a. Under the JFK Act every piece of paper in the collection was considered a “unique” assassination record. The result is a staggering amount of chaff and duplication. For example, one cable was files and processed 58 times in the collection. b. The ARRB required that all sanitized documents be reviewed by the Board and that each postponement (deletion) be acted on individually. Even after the Board changed procedures and accepted staff recommendations instead of reviewing each document, the detailed tracking, recording and coding of every deletion within each document required processing resources well beyond what would be considered reasonable for such a project. A most sanitized documents contained multiple deletions (one contained more than 1600 deletions and many over 100). Infiexible Standards: The level of evidence required by the Board to postpone what was generally considered protectable information was extremely high and usually required documentation of “current harm”. Defenses based on general principles such as official cover or sources and methods were not acceptable. This required the Agency to dedicate significant resources to prepare evidence to support recommended postponements. Again, much time was spent on issues that were marginal to the JFK story. For example, several major evidence packages involving several offices and presentations by senior agency officers and officials were needed to secure Board agreement to protect Agency physical locations and names of employees and other persons not related to the JFK story. Three times during the six years of the project, including most of this past year, the JFK review effectively shut down all other aspects of the Historical Review Program and had to borrow additional resources from other offices and review projects to meet deadlines. The JFK review will continue to require a significant portion of HRP's resources through FY99. III. The Process and Lessons Learned There are a number of basic lessons from the JFK review that are applicable to other historical/systematic review projects: * We need reviewers with broad Agency experience, which can be either managerial or substantive.
14-00000 * We need to establish early on what information is already in the public domain and address the issue of “official release” in the context of each project. * Develop a strategy/policy with the IROs concerning the release of information. Be smart about it; do not accept stonewalling by them on relevant information that can be released. At the same time, avoid confrontations with them on marginal or non-relevant information. * On-site Directorate reviewers are the most effective way to handle the internal coordination requirements of a large project. Without the DO's JFK team on site it would have been impossible to complete the JFK project. * Develop guidelines and processes for coordinating Third Agency documents; include other agencies in discussions; do not drop documents into the black hole of other agencies' FOIA offices without this advance discussion. * Maintain written, up-to-date, project-specific declassification guidelines. This is no small task. A “declassification guide” must be flexible; no guide can anticipate all the issues which will arise in a review. After six years, we were still revising the JFK guidelines in the last month of the project. * In establishing deadlines, allow sufficient time to do a thorough, professional job as required by the project activities (see Unrealistic Deadlines above). * Ensure we have adequate support people for routine processing tasks; declassification involves both tough substantive analysis--and a lot of routine processing. * If possible, inventory/index all materials before the review and processing begins. Experienced indexers are a must. Identification of duplicate documents should be a key part of any inventory or index. IV ARRB Requests for Additional Information and Records (see attached draft) Attachment I. Description of the JFK Collection Attachment II. [being drafted-will be available 17 Dec a.m.] [statistical summary of collection including size and status of documents (RIFs, SANs, DIFs, NBR, etc.)]
14-00000 “hs ‘ie 3. How a Request was Worked Following receipt of a request and HRP tasking the responsible Agency component (s) to conduct a search, the materials found were first reviewed by HRP staff members before access was provided to the ARRB staff. ARRB staff then reviewed the documents and materials and identified those which it believed were relevant to their inquiry and these materials were placed in the normal queue to be reviewed and processed for release. However, the mere identification of materials did not equate to automatic release. Rather, if particularly sensitive information was involved, negotiations took place and, on occasion, a written statement about the materials was provided for release vice the actual document(s). YH. The Agency’s written responses to each request - ‘either a letter or memoranda - included, of course, the fact the materials designated were to be processed for release according to then current guidelines. The ARRB staff then wrote its own version of the request, search, and response. Both of these are a part of the public record on this project. Se. Lessons learned: A number of things surfaced as HRP worked to complete these requests which required considerable explanation, negotiation, and resolution. a. First among these was the fact there existed an outside Board which asked for information and carefully monitored the responses (a very powerful external Board with subpoena authority), without doubt caused documents and information to be found and made available that would not have been provided to an internal declassification project. b. Second, for any large project such as JFK to be successful, there is an absolute requirement that each directorate and independent office identify two responsible persons -- a senior management official who can ensure that deadlines (particularly deadlines established by an external
14-00000 authority) are met; and, a senior focal point officer, who has the substantive knowledge and background to both" locate all relevant material and make decisions on its sensitivity. c. Third, the individuals identified and appointed in sub-paragraph “b" next above must be fully versed in the guidelines which pertain to each specific project. They cannot rely on FOIA or other guidelines as to the depth of their searches or the conditions governing release/ redaction/denial of materials.
14-00000 7 WG Arp eg. doc” nay ‘x IN DRAFT: Section 2?7f, ARRB Requests for Additional Information and Records 1. Unlike most declassification projects, the Agency’s involvement in the JFK Project was governed by the dictates of a Federal statute, the JFK Act, and the powers it vested in the Board it established -- the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). In particular, under Section 7, the Act armed the ARRB with the authority to dig for records and information, specifically: ...(1) The Review Board shall have the authority to act in a manner prescribed under this Act, in- cluding authority to -- * * * (C) (ii) direct a Government office to make available to the Review Board, and if necessary investigate the facts surrounding, additional information, records, or testimony from individuals, which the Review Board has reason to believe is required to fulfill its functions and responsibilities; * * * (F) hold hearings, administer oaths, and subpoena witnesses and documents. This substantial authority provided the’ ARRB and its staff with almost unlimited access to Agency records and personnel. It also was the basis for a number of specific requests from the Board to the Agency for additional information, document searches and explanatory papers. HRP ‘designated this ARRB activity, “Special Requests.” During - its existence the ARRB sent to the Agency fifty-three special requests, CIA 1-16 and CIA-IR 1-37. 2. Categories of Requests: BR
14-00000 L all began as a request by the Board or an ARRB staff member Although each request had unique characteristics, on behalf of the board for information. The requests fell generally into five broad categories as follows: a. Requests for access to basic information which would help the board understand the CIA, its organizational structure and how it operated around the time of the assassination which included: Requests for organizational charts, briefings, mission statements, etc.; review of over _. histories of CIA offices and projects; a review of the so-called “Breckinridge files;” and, a search for an IG index of Oswald reports. b. Requests about methodologies which included: How cable traffic was handled at HQ during the relevant time. period; the existence and use of the inter-agency source registry; and, the assignment and use of alias’s pseudonyms, crypts, etc. c. Requests for subject specific matters which included: The Mexico City Station annual reports; the existence of DRE monthly reports; Oswald's pre assassination files; and, a search for any documents or information detailing the Agency’s involvement in transporting and processing the Zapruder film. d. Requests for project specific information and files, which included: Requests for information and files on AMWORLD, QKENCHANT, an index to the HTLINGUAL materials, and the Mexico City electronic surveillance tapes. e. Requests for individual specific information and files, which included both CIA and CIA associated individuals and non-CIA individuals: Information on individuals with JMWORLD; detailed information on Sylvia Duran; a determination of the identify of a particular “George Bush;” and, the files on William Pawley.
14-00000 i0 nocd 0 2 Adbechwod = Oswaid Files Pre-assassination file” 201 file --approximately 40 documents that existed at the time of the assassination. Released in 1992 with minimal deletions. DO 201 File (Approximately 25,000 pages): Agency's primary file for documents dealing with the assassination or mentioning Oswald; the file is still active. Contains pre- assassination documents; materials collected after the assassination and during the Warren Commission investigation; Mexico City files, Garrison investigation materials plus other documents related to the assassination or Oswald received over the years. A_ microfilm copy of file as it existed in 1978, was sequestered by the House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA). The DO's original (record copy) 201 was transferred to HRG in early 1992; a declassified version was released in August 1993; it was re-released with fewer deletions in 1996 under the authority of the ARRB . Additional documents, filed into the 201 after the its transfer to HRG, were released in September 1998. Office of Security File(__pages): Contained key Oswald documents, FBI investigative reports, newspaper clipping. This file, primarily duplicative, was reviewed by the HSCA, but a copy was not sequestered with the rest of the Agency's “JFK” collection. The file surfaced as a result of an ARRB request in 1997. A declassified version of the file was released in 1998. DCD “A’ File: A microfilm copy of this file was in the sequestered collection. The ARRB requested that the original file by reviewed for release. Marina Oswald's 201 file. A copy of this file was in the sequestered collection. The ARRB requested that the original file be reviewed for release. The ARRB directed that the classified originals of all documents from the Oswald files be transferred to NARA for secure storage. These documents were transferred to NARA in October 1998. The Sequestered Collection At the end of its investigation, the HSCA directed that all materials (files, documents, memos, notes, tapes, etc.) collected or prepared in response to its investigation be sequestered. This included files made available for review, but not reviewed by the HSCA staff. JFK boxes 1-63 (hardcopy): These boxes are the core of the Agency's JFK collection. They are the working files/materials of the HSCA staff and reflects the wide range of ’ issues pursued by the Committee. In addition to Agency documents, they include approximately 30,000 pages of notes, letter and memos created by the HSCA or its staff. The boxes are a combination of files on subjects and persons of interest to HSCA including documents prepared by the Agency as a result of the investigation, eight boxes of security files and Mexico City cable chrono files. The boxes contain a significant amount of duplication (most of the Oswald 201 documents appear multiple
14-00000 times in this part of the collection. A declassified version was released in August 1993, then re-released under ARRB in 1997. JEK Microfilm (72 reels): These reels are copies of Agency files that were made available to HSCA staff. Although the HSCA interest usually focused on a small portion of a file, the Committee sequestered the compete file. The microfilm includes approximately 25 reels of 201 files, 6 reels of Office of Personnel files, 14 reels of Anti/Castro - Cuban exile material, extensive files on Nosenko and operational and production files from Mexico City. The microfilm also contains copies of all the Oswald files except for the security file. ‘ 4 oo 4 & . \ ; fi \ . ‘ x oye? . ’ ~ ww éy ,4 Pay . Ac, ‘
Copyright 1997 Federal Information Systems Corporation Federal News Service JUNE 4, 1997, WEDNESDAY SECTION: IN THE NEWS LENGTH: 12335 words HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE é SUBJECT: ASSASSINATIONS RECORDS REVIEW BOARD REAUTHORIZATION CHAIRED BY REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL) 2154 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING . , WASHINGTON, DC BODY: REP. 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, HR 1553, the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board Reauthorization Act. This bill was introduced by Chairman Dan Burton on May 8, 1997 and included in 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 one million pages of records compiled by official investigations still had been not 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 law Public Law 102-526, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. The original act provided a three-year timetable for the review board to complete 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 one year, until September 30th, 1996. The review board subsequently exercised its authority into the statute to continue operating for one 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 one-year extension of the board's reauthorization. I believe that by releasing these documents to the public we serve an important public right to know and advance the cause of total accountability to the people of this country. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett. REP. THOMAS M. BARRETT (D-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to welcome my esteemed colleague, Representative Louis Stokes, to testify before this subcommittee. We are 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 ina way that it had not been shocked since the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the bombing or Hiroshima. Yet today we are still prying papers out of the | government about that assassination.
PAGE 17 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 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 has 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 xdocuments, 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 the 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. REP. HASTERT: Are there any other members wishing to make an opening statement? If not, our first witness this morning is fellow Congressman Lou Stokes, who served as the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1976 to 1979, and is a cosponsor of this important 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. REP. LOUIS STOKES (D-OH): 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. ; REP. HASTERT: Without objection. REP. STOKES: Thank you. It seems, Mr. Chairman, it was not as long as it is, but actually it's been 20 years; it was in 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 two days of public policy hearings. Prior to the committee running out of both time and money, we had released everything that we had the time and resources to release. All of our other records were placed in the National Archives, under a House of Representatives rule which existed at that time, Rule 36, 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, a 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. ~
PAGE 18 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 A great deal of this was fueled in 1992 by a movie entitled "JFK." That movie contained many distortions of 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 baseless accusations. Our committee had attempted to conduct its investigation into the assassination of the president, and to 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, PL 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 appointed. 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 Joyte, Dr. Anna Nelson, and an 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 one additional final year in order to complete their work. Their work during 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 in an orderly manner with full and complete disclosure to the American people, 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, of which I am one of the _ original co-sponsors. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. REP. HASTERT: Thank you, Chairman -- or, Mr. Stokes. And I really appreciate the work that you've done here. I have just two brief questions. Actually, three. Do you believe that the Ford Review Board is up and running smoothly now? REP. 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. REP. HASTERT: And do you believe that this process is consistent with the goals of your original legislation in 1992? REP. STOKES: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
PAGE 19 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 REP. HASTERT: And then you are confident, as you said before, that the review board can finish its task by September 30th, 1998. REP. STOKES: I am just very confident that -- in projecting the fact that they... .. can do this work with one year. And when they say themselves as they will say to you when they appear, this'll be one final year. REP. HASTERT: Thank you very much, and thank you for your testimony. REP. STOKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HASTERT: The gentleman from Wisconsin. REP. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a lot of questions, either. I just want to compliment you, Congressman Stokes, for the fine job that you have done. REP. STOKES: Thank you. REP. BARRETT: And just one question. Do you think in the unfortunate and hopefully unlikely scenario that there are future assassinations in the future 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? REP. STOKES: 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 I think 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 it put to bed everything. We uncovered many things. For instance, we pointed up many of the 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 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 two-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 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.
REP. HASTERT: Okay, thank you very much. The gentleman from Ohio. REP. STEVEN LATOURETTE (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,1_, want to thank you for having this hearing today and for also expediting the markup on 1553, and give praise to the co- sponsors, our chairman, Mr. Burton, Mr. Waxman, and also to Congressman Stokes. The editorial comment I would make is I'm always amazed each succeeding day that I serve in Congress at 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 on the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Although many members in the House remember his service, I would venture to say 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
PAGE 20 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 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. I found out that Congressman Stokes was responsible for a ruling called Terry versus Ohio, and you might have heard of a “Terry Frisk and Search," and I didn't know that till the other day, that Congressman Stokes had a hand in that, and so, again, we find Congressman Stokes showing up again, sharing his expertise with the country. Lou, the one question I would have, deals with, in both your written testimony, and then also your observations to Congressman Baird's question. You talked about the "JFK" movie, and all of the rumors and innuendoes 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 '92, 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? REP. STOKES: 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 the head. REP. LATOURETTE: Okay. The principles behind your ‘92 legislation, the Assassination Records 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, could 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? REP. STOKES: I would hope, Mr. LaTourette, that we have learned some lessons. Firstly, here in the Congress we'd 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 realizing that many of the type of documents which they will cite to you in their testimony -- for instance, there's 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 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.
PAGE 21 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 And I think and hope that in the event of such an occurrence in the future — which all of us hope would never occur — that our agencies will realize that this has been a good example of how we could allay some of the fears and suspicions that the American people have around the manner in which we conduct this type of thing. . REP. LATOURETTE: Thank you very much, Congressman Stokes, for your expertise -- REP. STOKES: Thank you. REP. LATOURETTE: - and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. REP. HASTERT: Thank you. And at this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas. REP. JIM TURNER (D-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 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 at the number of years of service and your contributions to this body. REP. STOKES: Thank you. REP. TURNER: And I know the Congress and the American people are grateful for the years of service you've provided not only on this issue, but on many other issues to which you've contributed. : And I also want to thank those who've served on this panel, because I'm sure it is a time-consuming endeavor to carry out this task. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HASTERT: Thank you, Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. REP. STOKES: Thank you. * REP. HASTERT: The second panel, come forward, please. Our distinguished second panel includes four witnesses: Mr. John Tunheim, the chair of the Assassination Records Review Board; Mr. Steven Tilley, the chief of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives. We also have Mr. Max Holland, the author and contributing editor of the Wilson Quarterly; and Mr. Bruce Hitchcock, an historian and teacher at Noblesville High School in Indiana, our distinguished chairman's home state. And [also would say that, at this time, Mr. Burton would have 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, and -- (witnesses are sworn in). Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And we start with you, Mr. Tunheim. JOHN TUNHEIM (Chair, Assassination Records Review Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to submit my written testimony for the record and
just give a brief summary to 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 Congressman Waxman and Stokes for co-sponsoring the bill that is before the 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
PAGE 22 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 _ 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 of 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 is 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. And not surprisingly, a document like this dated three 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. Well, 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 was 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 this 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 Ist, 1967 and his feelings about Oswald on that particular day.
PAGE 23 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 Despite the best estimate, Mr. Chairman, that this job could be done in three 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. REP. HASTERT: Thank you. Weill hold all the questions until the end of the testimony. MR. TUNHEIM: Very well. REP. HASTERT: Mr. Tilley? STEVEN TILLEY (Chief, Access and Freedom of Information Staff, National Archives and Records Administration): Mr. Chairman, I am Steven Tilley, and I'm the 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 on behalf — for the National Archives in support of HR 1553. I'm appearing today in my capacity of 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. And 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 involved with working with sensitive records. And in 1993, I became the 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 of 1994, my staff and I began to work with the board, and later with the board staff, to provide information on the records in 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 three 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 HR 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 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've 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
PAGE 24 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 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 August of 1993. This year we have already received over 600 written inquiries, an increase of over 30 percent from this period of time last year. The number of inquiries on our computer Web site is also steadily increasing. Since March 1996, when the assassination records database 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 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 HR 1553 so this - -important work can be completed. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I'll be glad to answer any questions. ; REP. HASTERT: Thank the gentleman. Mr. Holland? . MAX HOLLAND (Author, contributing editor of Wilson Quarterly): 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 the 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, 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 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 thank the review board ~
PAGE 25 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 had 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/or 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 text books nor the demonized version featured on talk radio. It's the real federal government: imperfect, plodding, riven 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 towards 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 co-conspirators 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 at 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 to preventing the United States 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 a -- perhaps its greatest contribution has to do with 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 here
before, 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 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.
PAGE 26 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 REP. HASTERT: I thank the gentleman. And now, Mr. Hitchcock, I'd like to welcome you especially. A 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 happy that you're here. I know the chairman wanted to introduce you personally, but he couldn't make it this afternoon. You have contributed students, I understand, a clerk for this commission, and have been involved in it at a very high degree. So we welcome you and listen to your testimony. BRUCE HITCHCOCK (Teacher, Noblesville High School, Indiana): Thank you, Mr Chairman. And I, too, would ask that my written statement be entered into the: record and I will briefly summarize. REP. 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, Indiana, which is a community approximately 20 miles north of Indianapolis. Iam currently completing my 28th year in secondary education. My teaching assignment has primarily been in the areas of United States 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 concerning an issue 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 United States 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 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 student 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 22nd, 1963, there have been many who have believed, and still
PAGE 27 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 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 United States 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 Furling 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 United States 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 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 22nd, 1963. The study of this event has the public 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 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, Georgia 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 the 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 one-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
PAGE 28 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 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 most complete story of who we are and why we are who we are. We have an opportunity to work towards the : accomplishment of that goal. It is an opportunity, I believe, we cannot afford tomiss. In his last speech in Fort Worth on November 22nd, 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 a project for the model Congress. 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 whereas's, the Congress of the United States firmly supports the assassination records review board in all endeavors leadirig to the collection, review and release of the documents regarding the assassination of President Kennedy and supports the extension of the life of the ARRB for an additional fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HASTERT: We thank the gentleman and thank the panel. Now, I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett. REP. BARRETT: Mr. Hitchcock, can you give us the name of that student so we can make him or her an honorary co-sponsor? Might as well get the name in the record. MR. HITCHCOCK: Abigail Meyer, M-e-y-e-r. REP. BARRETT: Judge Tunheim, you mentioned that you were releasing some materials from Clay Shaw's diary and perhaps other things. Is there any information in here that you find particularly interesting? MR. TUNHEIM: Mr. Barrett, I've not had a chance to go through it. We've just gotten these materials in the last week through some aggressive efforts on our
t- staff. The page that I cited to you is interesting in that he made the notation in there and it's a portion of it in his own handwriting that it was perhaps unfortunate that he had never met Oswald because then he might have possibly been a tiny footnote in history, an ironic statement given the role that he played in the trial. We've 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. REP. BARRETT: For my benefit, as a person who has not been immersed in this issue at all. You just mentioned 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. Part of this, this is an investigation into where
PAGE 29 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 « records are. The bulk of our work has been with federal agencies that hold assassination records. But we've also, at the direction of Congress in 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, talk to people, encourage them to donate those records to the American public, to the National Archives. That was done in this case. We received a tip that an individual had records that were left over from Mr. Shaw, and staff went and talked to the person, spent time with the person, encouraged them to share those records with the American public, and that's how it was developed. REP. BARRETT: How do you determine which assassination records you can disclose now and which just 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 was 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 two years ago now we don't have to make because the agency is following the advice of the board made on earlier records. REP. 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: 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 five years in 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 specifics 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 avery high percentage, in the 99.999 range is being released right now. REP. BARRETT: Mr. Tilley, in your written statement you indicate that the collections currently consist of 3.75 million pages. What's 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's being reviewed by agencies at this time. But we have located
PAGE 30 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 some records at the National Archives 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 at 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 considerable amount of material, probably will be added to the collection before this process is finished. REP. BARRETT: Millions of pages? MR. TILLEY: Oh, no. I would say probably, if we had another half a million pages, that might be the extent of it. But what's interesting and fascinating about this process is that we continue to turn up records where we did not know there were records before. As agencies are aware of this effort, they have come to the board. And the board is responsible for a lot of this by their aggressive work with federal agencies. But 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. REP. BARRETT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HASTERT: Mr. Tunheim, I have just a very short question. You mentioned the movie that came out, JFK, and 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: 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 thé records. 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. REP. HASTERT: Why have you waited to this point in the process to begin reviewing the CIA and 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 numbers, between the two agencies, it's more than a million pages of records. What we are doing right now are delving into what's called the sequestered collection in 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 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 in the same kind of sequestered collection is about 280,000 pages of records. Those records are the focus of the review board's work over the next year, if we get the extension. REP. 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. TILLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm confident that the board can complete its work. Members of the review board are confident. We will make every effort to ensure that it gets done. In fact, we intend to provide to your staff a timeline which 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 are confident that the work can be done. We were set up to be a temporary board and no one on the board wishes this effort to take a long Pp
PAGE 31 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 time. We need to get the information to the American public. REP. HASTERT: Thank you very much. Mr. Hitchcock, I want to ask you, 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 for students? MR. HITCHCOCK: I think, Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important for not only teachers of history and historians but also for future students and future generations. One of the things so special about our relationship with the review board has not only been an opportunity for students to travel to Washington, and they pay their own way and they do their own research on their on 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 this has had for the 43 thus far, and soon to be 56, students from Noblesville High School who 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. To have that opportunity is something that no teacher, no classroom, no film, no laser disk, nothing in the classroom can simulate such interest and focus as this trip to Washington DC, the review of documents, the working with people that we've had the opportunity to be with at the review board ona firsthand basis. It is just something that cannot be duplicated, or as I said, simulated in any classroom anywhere in the country. 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 beat least assured that as -much as is 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 at a high school, or in their just curiosity and interest as American citizens. 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, that exists. I just cannot imagine what the many conspiracy theorists out there would think if the review board has to finish its stay without completing its work. REP. HASTERT: Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio. ‘REP. 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 -- REP. HASTERT: Not at all.
‘REP. LATOURETTE: Mr. Howe, I don't have a question but I'm glad you told the story of Otto Eisenschiml because somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a book or movie called the Lincoln conspiracy and I was certain that Secretary Stanton had something to do with the demise of our sixteenth president, so I'm glad you brought that up. Mr. Tunheim, I do want to ask you a follow-up question to what we were talking to Congressmen 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 which was new on the books, we found that law enforcement agencies always wanted to take a big black magic marker and redact everything. It was my view that that led to more conjecture, rumor, suspicion than not, and I think 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.
PAGE 32 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 e When you un-redact it, if that's really a word, you find out like so many other people 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. . The question I have is, when you were testifying you indicated that the FBI originally appealed the decision to not-or 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 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 ~ the question is, no, we're not receiving any degree of difficulty with those agencies right now. They are comunitted 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 gota “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 the answer was no. Our follow-up through the ambassador is showing what really this document was all about, led to some wiser approach to the particular issue. And sometimes it takes additional work like that to accomplish the release of important materials. REP. 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 that the intelligence community may have about do we need to, you know, 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 group, an independent group outside of an agency, to have this degree of control over the declassification process. The process
at first was rough and difficult and fraught with suspicion. That has changed. There's 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. REP. LATOURETTE: And in that regard and in that vein, have you at 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. We have -- 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.
PAGE 33 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 REP. LATOURETTE: Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you. for your fine work. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. : 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 were still questioning the assassination in 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, you mean professors at universities. Surprisingly few have written about it, because they just see it as a morass, and how are you going to possibly figure out what happened? So my answer would be ~ and, you know, credible is in the eye of the beholder. But there's 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 a precipitating element of 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. REP. : So you believe one of the élements of this commission is it'll bring out of pulp - pop culture -- pulp culture was a bad choice of words — pop culture and in more mainstream because more documents are there, less questions. It can now be analyzed. And also, you seem to hint that we'll gain as much, 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, you know, being - an investigation of three crimes — the murder of President Kennedy, the assault on Governor Connally and the murder of Officer Tippett (sp), and then the murder of Oswald, so four crimes -- the Warren Commission is a fantastic lens to view the operation of the government circa 1963-64, 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--andtheFBIhad 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. _ REP. : One of the questions here is 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 is institutional that in the first 10 years you'd have so many agents 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 ‘60s era was a defining event, so it's an extraordinary assassination. But what have we learned for investigations in the future? Do
PAGE 34 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 you believe the CIA and 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. re MR. HOLLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think that the fact that these records are 30 years old has helped in obtaining their release. It's not information about the assassination per se that agencies have objected to releasing. It's more who said what to who, who's an intelligence agent and who's 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. REP. : We first learned -- I was elected in '94, and our first experience in this committee was with Waco, where 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 erid, that this will have silenced most critics? MR. HOLLAND: In my view, Mr. Chairman, it will silence some. ‘Tt 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 will 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. REP. : I want to ask one last question, and that's options of dealing with acquiring the Zapruder film. Is that going to be a cost additional to what you're requesting? Do you have options on how to pay for that? What's the
status of that? MR. HOLLAND: Well, the Zapruder film, as the chairman is aware, the review board designated that as an assassination record about a month orso 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 that the Congress wished to make those determinations. The board did feel that 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.
PAGE 35 Federal News Service, JUNE 4, 1997 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 time frame far out in the future so that the Congress can review this issue and make its own determinations if it so wishes. REP. : Do you have any additional questions? With that, I thank you all for -- REP. LATOURETTE: Mr. Chairman, if I could beg your indulgence and just ask one more question, if I may. Mr. Tunheim, if I might, 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 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. REP. LATOURETTE: Thank you: I thank the chair for your indulgence. REP. : I thank you all for your testimony and appreciate your coming today. For procedural purposes, I'll now close this hearing — the hearing is adjourned - and open a subcommittee markup on HR 1553, markup of the John F. Kennedy Record Review Board Reauthorization Act. The hearing is now open. If there are no opening statements, the subcommittee will now proceed to the consideration of the bill as amended. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be considered for amendment at any point. Do any members wish to be recognized to offer an amendment? Hearing none, the question is on favorable reporting of the bill, HR 1553, the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board Reauthorization Act. All those in favor say "Aye." MEMBERS: Aye. REP. : Opposed, "No." In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. It goes fast. The question now comes, will the subcommittee report the bill to the full
committee? All those in favor, say "Aye." MEMBERS: Aye. REP. : Opposed, “No." In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill _ moves forward to the full committee. There is no other business before the subcommittee. We now stand adjourned. Thank you all for your hard work. ~END~
(AS NO OBJECTION TO . POE APICES AREY POR ann OF GIA & INE i OEMAT ION Judge John R. Tunheim It THIS DOSUMENT Chairman Assassination Records Review Board Prepared Testimony In Support of ELR. 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. Before the National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee June 4, 1997 I. Introduction Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Assassination Records Review Board in support of H.R. 1553, which would extend the authorization of the Review Board for one final year. The Board acknowledges that all of the issues surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy will likely never be fully resolved, however, this additional time ‘will allow us to complete our work, including the review and public release of critical FBI and CIA records, submit a comprehensive and complete final report to the Congress and the President, and make available to the American public as much information as possible on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Burton for introducing H.R. 1553, and Congressmen Waxman and Stokes for cosponsoring this bill. These Members have exhibited an admirable bipartisan spirit and an understanding that we as a government, and as a nation, must bring closure to a sad chapter of our history, and that we must seize this opportunity to do itnow. In addition, we would like to express our appreciation to Chairman Hastert for chairing this hearing today. It provides an opportunity to explain what the Review Board has accomplished to date and discuss how we could finish our work in Fiscal Year 1998, if given the opportunity. Please allow me to introduce the other members of the Review Board with whom I have had the professional honor and personal pleasure to work: Dr. Henry F. Graff, Professor Emeritus of History, Columbia University; Dr. Kermit L. Hall, Dean, College of Humanities, and Professor of History and Law, The Ohio State University; Dr. William L. Joyce, Associate University Librarian for Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University; and Dr. Anna K. Nelson, Distinguished Adjunct Historian in
_ Residence, The American University. We have been honored to engage in this important effort to make the history of the Kennedy assassination available to the American public and I am pleased to be here today to testify before this Subcommittee and answer any of your questions. I would also like to describe briefly the professional staff that we are fortunate to have hired. The Executive Director is Dr. David G. Marwell, a professional historian who gained vast experience dealing with large numbers of important historical documents . with the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice and later as the Director of the Berlin Document Center. He leads a staff of 28 full-time employees, who have varied backgrounds as historians, lawyers, analysts, investigators, and administrators. The members of the staff have approached their unique task with seriousness of purpose, creativity, professionalism, and competence, and have assisted us in shedding new light on the assassination through the release of thousands of Federal Government records, and the acquisition of records in private hands and local governments that were not previously available to the American public. -I believe that -- we assembled exactly the type of:proféssional and diversified staff that Congress. © envisioned would be necessary to accomplish this difficult assignment. Il. Accomplishments to Date As I know you are aware, the Review Board was created by The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act) as an independent Federal agency to oversee the identification and release of records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. I know that certain members of this subcommittee played a role in crafting and passing the JFK Act—a unique piece of legislation designed to remove doubt and speculation about the content of government records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. As a result of these lingering suspicions, Congress determined that an independent board was the most effective and efficient vehicle to make all assassination records available to the public. The Review Board has accomplished much since we began releasing previously secret records in June of 1995. The Board. has acted to transfer more than 14,000 documents to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (JFK Collection) at the National Archives and Records Administration. We would not have been successful in our efforts without the significant assistance of the National Archives. The JFK Collection currently totals approximately 3.7 million pages and is used extensively by researchers from all over the United States. By the end of Fiscal Year 1997, the Review Board will have reviewed and processed nearly all.of the assassination records that have been identified by the more than 30 different government offices believed to be in possession of relevant records, with the
. important exception of the FBI and the CIA. I will elaborate on the status of records held by these two agencies later. The overwhelming majority of previously redacted information will have been made public by the Review Board. ; Il. Release of Government Records Related to the Assassination Before discussing what we will accomplish with one final year, I would like to highlight for the Members of the Subcommittee some of the important records that the Board has made public. They include: * Thousands of CIA documents on Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kerinedy that made up the CIA’s Oswald File and detail the agency’s investigative activities following the assassination; * Thousands of once-secret records from the investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, chaired-by ‘Congressman. Stokes, including thes! iin controversial Staff Report on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City; © ~”: o Mexice 9" * Thousands of records from the FBI's core and related assassination files that document the FBI's interest in Oswald from 1959-63, after he had defected to the Soviet Union, three years before the assassination; and * ___ The extensive FBI files on its investigation of the assassination. The important work in which the Review Board has been engaged can be best and most graphically demonstrated by showing you the “before” and “after” versions of one of the pre-assassiniation FBI documents to which I just referred and that the Board has released to the public. Prior to the Review Board’s review, this FBI document (JFK Collection Record Number: 124-10023-10236, Attachment Number 1) was available to the public as you see it on the left. As you can see, itis heavily redacted. The only information that was not secret was the date of the memorandum, “October 12, 1960,” that it was to the “Director, FBI,” from “Legat, Paris” (the FBI representative in Paris), that the subject was ““Lee Harvey Oswald, Internal Security,” and that it had to do with a “Paris letter 9/27/60.” The rest of the text was blacked out. Obviously, this version of the document left room for a great deal of. speculation among historians and ” researchers regarding what was underneath the black ink on this document with the provocative subject title. The Review Board aggressively pursued the release of the redacted information in this document and several others that relate to the FBI’s interest in Oswald before the assassination. After protracted negotiations with the FBI, an initial FBI appeal to the White House in an effort to keep the document secret, and a direct appeal to the Swiss
government, we were able to release the information. The unredacted memorandum shows that the Swiss Federal Police had been enlisted by the FBI to try to locate Oswald and to determine whether or not he had enrolled at a school in Switzerland. Now the public is able to see the document in full and judge its importance. In its redacted state, the document could have meant anything that a researcher’s imagination and speculation could invent. In its released form, it must be analyzed for what it says. One of the most important, most difficult, and most time-consuming responsibilities of the Review Board is to identify and locate additional records-that are relevant to the assassination. This is a task that to some degree must logically come later in the « - process, after the Review Board has gained a full understanding of the records that have already been identified. Although the Review Board has made a significant number of requests for additional records and information, some of which I would like to outline, - much remains to be done before it ¢ can nbe confident that it has completed. this: 1+ 0.2. 22. responsibility. pray Iss I would like to highlight some of our efforts to identify and locate additional assassination records. Some examples: * Medical Records Inquiry. The Review Board has several ongoing efforts to identify and locate assassination records involving medical issues. As with any homicide, the medical records are among the most important pieces of evidence. As part of its attempt to ensure that the medical records are as complete as possible, the Review Board staff has deposed the principal pathologists involved” in President Kennedy’s autopsy, as well as other individuals who had knowledge of the autopsy and related photographic records. * Identification and Location of Additional FBI Records and Information. The Review Board has continued its efforts to locate additional FBI assassination records by making several requests for records and information. The FBI has assisted in this effort by giving the Review Board members access to Tequested - files. The JFK Task Force at the FBI has, on the whole, been extremely = cooperative and helpful to the Board and has provided the requested information. Review Board has initiated a number of requests to the CIA for additional information and records.-The Review Board expects that these requests will be - promptly and fully satisfied during the upcoming year.
information Time consuming and careful 1 review ‘of Secret Service activities by the Review Board produced a series of requests for additional records and information that, in turn, led to the identification of additional relevant assassination records. For example, in response to the Review Board’s first eight requests for additional information, the Secret Service has submitted more than 1,500 pages of material. Department of Defense (including its many components and the military services) (collectively “DOD”), identified few assassination records on its own initiative. DOD has nevertheless been cooperative with the efforts of the Review Board to locate assassination records. When such records have been located, DOD has been willing to release the records with few redactions. Additional work would be required in:ourlast year to ensure that all:° “22°. ef2crs*rac 0" assassination records in the military archives have been made a part of the JFK? =: ¢= 27: >" Collection. Fortunately, the diligent efforts of the ARRB staff have set the stage for accomplishing this task. V. Release of Private and Local Records In addition to the release of records in the Federal Government’s vast files, and consistent with the Board’s mandate to make the historical record of the assassination as complete as possible, we have been aggressive in identifying and acquiring significant assassination-related records in the possession of private citizens and local governments, including: : * The original personal papers of Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin that give further insight into the operations of the Commission; * Copies of the official records of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's _ investigation of the assassination; * The original papers of New Orleans attorney Edward Wegmann, from his work as a member of the legal team that successfully defended Clay Shaw in 1969 against a charge of conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. * Copies of records from the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans, ' including records on District Attorney Garrison's investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw and records regarding New Orleans organized crime figures;
* Long-lost films taken in Dallas on November 22, 1963, that the public had never seen and that shed new light on the events of that day; and * Private collections of records from individuals including Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebler, author David Lifton, FBI Special Agent Hosty, Attorney Frank Ragano, as well as others. Iam also pleased to announce today that the Review Board has just acquired the original personal papers of Clay Shaw, the late New Orleans businessman who is the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. Shaw was acquitted by a jury in 1969 after being charged as part of District Attorney Garrison’s investigation. The Shaw papers will surely add another dimension to this particular chapter of the assassination story. All of these records will enrich the historical record of the assassination for future generations of Americans. Once these records are- processed and described by. the National Archives, they willbe available-for' résearch.. - on VI. The Need For Additional Time Despite our best efforts and significant accomplishments, some of which I have outlined, the Review Board will not be able to complete its work within the original three-year timetable set by Congress for the following reasons: * First, the authors of the original legislation believed that our task would take three years. That estimate was based on the best available information at the time, but the legislation established an unprecedented process. There was no way of knowing the problems of scale and complexity that the Board would encounter, nor was there any way to factor in the comprehensive approach we have taken in fulfilling our mandate. * Second, the Board was not appointed until 18 months after the legislation was signed into law. Asa result, without the guidance of the Board, Federal agencies initially defined for themselves the universe of records that should be processed under The Act and to speculate about the kind of evidence that would be needed to sustain the redaction of assassination-related information. Once the Board was in place, agencies needed to redo a considerable amount of work. In fact, many agencies have yet to complete their review and the Board is still seeking their compliance. * Third, our enabling legislation imposed several restrictions on the manner in which the Board could operate. Unlike other temporary agencies, the Board
could not hire or detail experienced federal employees, but rather had to hire new employees who had to undergo background investigations and be cleared at the Top Secret level. Locating and renovating space that was suitable for the storage of classified materials was required. As a result, the Board could not begin an effective review of records until the third quarter of our first year. We are pleased and proud that the Review Board and staff have been able to overcome these obstacles, and that we have developed an efficient and effective process for the review of records. All involved in this process want to see that the job is done, and do not want to cease now with a reasonable conclusion in sight. We want to finish the job we began, and with one additional year we can. Vil. The Job Ahead The additional year of operations will permit the Review Board to finish its task by completing several major areas of our-work. Please be.assured that-theseare- 22 2c0. 2:2 eernece = identifiable projects that are'¢ritical to erisuring that theJEK' Collection is artiwdsebihplats fag; ST lOn fe ae possible, that relevant Federal agencies have been held accountable, and thatallthatwe == = have done is documented in our final report. The Board would focus in our final year on the following: * CIA Seguestered Collection. The Review Board has completed its review of the Oswald “201 file,” the file created and maintained by the CIA on Oswald and the assassination. The Review Board is now faced with the task of reviewing the agency’s “Sequestered Collection,” the large collection of files that was assembled by the CIA in response to requests made by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, chaired by Congressman Stokes, in the late 1970's. These records find their relevance to the assassination defined in part by the ~ course of the HSCA investigation. The Sequestered Collection originally consisted of 63 boxes of CLA- and HSCA-originated records as well as 72 reels of ° microfilm. Unfortunately, these records are in a confused order, poorly — described, and are replete with duplicates. Some of these records are clearly of. great significance, some are of only marginal interest, and the relevance of others cannot be identified, * FB] Sequestered Collection. ‘The FBI divides i its assassination records i into two general categories. The first is the “Core and Related Files,” consisting of nearly 600,000 pages of files collected in the course of the massive FBI investigation into the assassination. The Review Board will complete its review of this significant collection by the end of FY 1997. The second, which the FBl referstoasits = “HSCA records,” is a large collection of records that were identified as being of interest to the HSCA and which remain to be reviewed by the Board. Like the »)
CIA’s Sequestered Collection, this voluminous body of records (approximately 280,000 pages) ranges widely in relevance to the assassination. Additional time will allow the Board to finish its work with several ac agencies, including the Secret Service, the National Security Agency, and Congressional Committees, including the Senate Intelligence Committee. .- ~~ * Search for Additional Records. With one more year of operations, the Board’s search for additional records held by Federal agencies, private individuals, and local governments would be concluded with greater confidence. Some of these records have been identified, but not yet acquired by the Board. * Federal Agency Compliance. In November 1996, the Review Board initiated a compliance program to ensure that Federal agencies have fully cooperated with the Board in discharging its responsibility of assuring Congress and the poe a American public that the goals of the JFK-Acthave beeri‘accomplished to the * greatest possible extent. The requests to document compliance with the JFK Act were sent to 27 U.S. government agencies and departments to confirm that the U.S. government has identified, located, and released all records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. The agencies’ statements of compliance will be included in the Review Board’s final report to the Congress. The one-year extension. will ensure that the compliance program is completed and fully - documented in the final report. It is important for the Review Board to complete these major projects. The Board believes that the completion of the task outlined above, the inclusion of these important records in the JFK Collection, and the documentation of Federal agency compliance as part of the final report will mark an appropriate point at which to conclude the Board’s work. We are confident that all that remains for the Board can be accomplished in an additional year. It is. clear to the members of the Review Board that there is much work to be done. The . review of the remaining CIA and FBI records is a cumbersome and complicated task. However, the Board and staff have the benefit of our experience to date that sets the stage for an efficient and effective review of the remaining records. I would like to briefly describe our early experiences reviewing records and how the past two years set a firm foundation for the future and would work to our advantage in our last year.
* Our review of records in the early months was slowed by the complexities of the issues raised in the records. The unprecedented new standards of the JFK Act, which go far beyond those established under the Freedom of Information Act, required a time- consuming early phase. At first, the review process proceeded slowly and the agencies were afforded ample opportunity to present their evidence. Over time, the Review Board began to standardize its interpretation of the relevant section of the JFK Act and the issues raised in the various documents, Now that the Review Board and the agencies are familiar with the rigorous demands of the JFK Act, the process has accelerated. Ina progressively increasing number of cases, records that initially contained proposed postponements can be released through a “consent” process. In this consent process, the ARRB staff notifies an agency that its proposed postponements are not likely to be approved by the Review Board and the agency thereupon voluntarily consents to the release of the information. In our review of the FBI’s‘“Core and Related Files” arid‘the CIA’s “Oswald 201 File,” the records that have been the focus of our attention to date, we subjected every requested redaction to a rigorous test: did the evidence of the harm that would result from the release of the information outweigh the public interest in the information? In considering our review of the CIA and FBI “Sequestered Collections,” the Board recognized that it needed to develop a different approach, one that would take into account the varied degree of relevance of individual records to the assassination. Only in this way could the Board ensure that it would appropriately expend its resources in its last year. As a first step, the Board carefully analyzed each collection in order to determine what priority should be assigned to the category of records. In addition, the Board developed a set of guidelines for the review of these records which recognized that some categories of records did not require the intensive word-by-word review that had been the rule for the core collections that have been the subject of the Board’s attention to date. The development of these guidelines began with the August 6, 1996 Board public hearing and culminated in their adoption at the October 16, 1996 Board meeting. The ARRB staff will distinguish between records whose relevance to the assassination is clear and those not believed to be relevant (or “NBR”). Applying these new standards will permit the ARRB staff to identify and review the most significant remaining records in order of priority. These detailed guidelines will reduce the loss of valuable Review Board and ARRB staff time expended to review, on a word-by-word basis, those documents that have a _ remote relationship, at best, to the Kennedy assassination. Those documents that are -identified as relevant to the assassination will continue to be reviewed word-by-word. These standards of relevance are designed to ensure that the greatest number of true
“ assassination records is properly identified, reviewed, and made public in the JFK Collection at the National Archives. The fruits of our labor from the first three years would be realized in our last year, one in which we would be reviewing some of the most difficult records, and potentially most important records, but with the benefit of our invaluable experience. lam happy . to report that we have received assurances from the FBI and CIA that they will work with us in a final year to make sure that the necessary resources are applied so that our task can be completed. IX. Conclusion In making our recommendation for a one-year extension, we, the members of the Review Board, are fully cognizant of the difficulties inherent in extending a temporary commission. We are aware of the concern that temporary bodies may have a self- preserving and self-perpetuating instinct, and-want to assure you in the clearest and - most unambiguous manner that our recommeridation’is motivated-strictly by our désire °°" 27°" to complete the job. My colleagues and I were appointed as private citizens and have many competing claims on our time and energy. It is our collective conviction that the additional time is necessary and our sincerest commitment that we will complete our task by the end of Fiscal Year 1998, if given the means. I would like to note that, as you may be aware, the Administration is supportive of the one-year extension for the Review Board and has submitted an FY 1998 budget amendment to allow us to complete our work, close out our operation, and submit our final report. Since the Review Board began this effort three years ago, we have witnessed the widespread and passionate interest that the American public has in the assassination of President Kennedy. We have received thousands of letters, telephone calls, faxes and e-mail messages from individuals who care deeply about our history. They come from all walks of life, from all over the country, and are of all ages. Their interest is of varying degrees and they do not all agree on what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. However, they do agree that the public has the right to see the files on the assassination. I believe that what the Review Board is all about can be summed up ina letter we received from a man from California just last week. The author is not a professional historian, not a student working on a paper for a history class, but simply a private citizen interested in learning about this tragic historical event. He wrote the following: “In my humble opinion, it appears that the ARRB is having a healing effect 10
upon the American public, who may be coming to realize that there may be closure in sight (in our lifetimes) with regard to the JFK assassination.” These words capture why the Review Board was created by the Congress and why we hope that the Review Board will have the additional year to complete our task. The Assassination Records Review Board was conceived as a means of eliminating uncertainty and speculation about the contents of government files relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. We, the members of the Board, believe that a premature termination of the Review Board would surely generate intensified doubts within the general public about the commitment of Congress to release all information that relates to the assassination of President Kennedy, as well as renewed speculation about the conduct of our government and its institutions and personnel. If appropriate closure is not reached now, the identical issues will likely have to be addressed again in the future—at even greater cost. The additional ‘year that’ we recommend will allow for o a confident conclusion of this important task. 2!00. of fs" Hesvetant Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the members of the ‘Assassination Records Review Board, I thank you for allowing us this opportunity to discuss our work and our future. We urge you to favorably report H.R. 1553. I would be happy to answer any questions that the members of the Subcommittee may have for me. The Board and staff stand ready to provide the Subcommittee with any additional information that may be required. Thank you. 11
before Board action THE FOREIGN SERVICE OF THE UNrrED STATES OF AMERICA” ; AnePicad Eabasay , Paris &, France oat Dates: October 125 ‘ioeo. To’? . ‘Director, BY AIH | Re ot WR From: Legat .- Paris. (05 ~1067 ) O:. Deeley on: AAD, SS UNCLATSIFTED - "e HERES SHOWH Ee. a _ OTHERHLSE + EXe, erent ’-” Assassination Records se _ Document Sample me, ee mo Record Number: 124-10023-10236.._ : | (3) Unredacted version of document available after Board action oe . THE FOREIGN SERVICE ' ‘ OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA American Bubassy Paris 8, France Date: . October 12, 1.960 , . p SCogSUN mse Tor Director, FBI 43 5) v Se an oe) jo] Sub jeot:...LEE HARVEY OSWALD ‘INTERNAL SECURITY < R aur From: “ Legat, Paris (109-1067) . f: by Re a ‘Re' Paris ‘Letter ve. The Swiss: Feder. ny furnished the following report on Octobor 1, 1960 The ‘4nveatigation at the "Albert Schuptizer a siiof ', Inquiry S College revealed nas not errived @ up t the resent time. He had originally ‘weltten a Tetter from ‘Moscow Indicating his intention to attend there, A letter which was addressed to him at this address by his mother « was returned to her since his whereabouts ara unknown to the college. The Swiss Federal Police advised that it is unlikely that he would have attended the course under a different name, ‘The Swiss Federal Police advised that ¢ seurses—tor_the. Fall of 1960 sommenge ‘on. ¢ 2, 1960 3 present tine, there is no record of a egistered 2 ~- Bureau : os eyo l - Paris wi, EX'109 © oct 19 1960 NWP emas os
14-00000 20 ais Calendar No. 552 THE PRESIDENT JOHN F, KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION ACT OF 1992 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE TO ACCOMPANY S. 3006 TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS RELEVANT TO THE. ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F, yy. Jury 22 degislative day, Juty 20), 1992.—Ordered to be printed ‘smmcemmarmeneneent . : US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE We 58-010 : WASHINGTON : 1999
14-00000 COMMITTEE ON-GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOHN GLENN, Ohio, Chairman - 8AM NUNN, Georgia WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jz, Dela CARL LEVIN, Michigan TED STEVENS, Alaa” DAVID PRYOR aes WARREN B. RUDE a HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JOHN SEYMOUR, California DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ; . Laonanp Wines, Staff Director Franaum G. Poux, Minority Staff Dincon and Chief Counsel Progazn, Chief ' «Mr. Guan, from the Conimittee on Governmental Affairs, _ United States of America: in . SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, This Act may be cited as the “President John F. Ke As | sination Records Collection Act of 1992” nnedy ' SEC. 2, FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND PURPOSES. Calendar No. | wialSowin | ——__ SENATE [tres THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION : . RECORDS COLLECTION ACT OF 1992 . Jory 22 degislative day, Jury 20), 1992,—Ordered to be printed submitted the following - REPORT {To accompany S. 8006] iho Bu mittee on Gov fi the expetigy public discl 5 ; ide for itious ic di to the assassination of President John F. dy, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon wi t in the nature of a substitute and recomihends tha bill, as amended, do pass. | mc _ I. TERT OF BILL Be it enacted by the Senate and House 0 reseniatives (a) Finpinas anp . TIONS.-The Co finds that— te and @
2 (1) all Government records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be preserved for historical and governmental purposes; (2) all government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of im- mediate disclosure, and records should be eventually dis- closed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrotn the assassination; (8) legislation is n to create an enforceable, inde- gee and accountable process for the public disclosure of (4) legislation i is necessary because co ional records re- lated to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy would not rr alae be subject to public disclosure until at least the year (5) legislation i is necessary because the Freedom of Informa- tion Act, as implemented by the executive branch, has prevent- ed the timely public disclosure of records relating to the assas- sination of President John F. Kennedy; (6) legislation is necessary because Executive Order No. 12356, entitled “National Sec Security Information” has eliminated. the declassification and downgrading schedules relating to clas- sified information across government and has prevented the timely public disclosure of records relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; and (7) most of the records related to the assassination of Presi- dent John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protec- . tion of such records. The purposes of this Act are— ® to provide for the creation of the President John F. Ken- nedy Assassination Records Collection at the National Ar- chives and Records Administration; and (2) te require the expeditious public transmission to the Ar- chivist and public disclosure of such records. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act "Archivist" means the Archivist of the United States. _ “Assassination record” means a record that is related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, that was created or made available for use by, obtained by, or otherwise came - * into the possession of — (A) the Commission to Inv te the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy ‘the arren Commission”); (B) The Commission on Central Intelligence Agency Ac- tivities Within the United States (the ‘ ‘eller Com- © ‘the ‘Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with. Respect to Intelligence Activities (the “Church Committee”); (D) the Select Committee on Intelligence (the “Pike Com- mittee”) of the House of ' Representatives; se ete meme, 3 | © the Select Committee on Assassinations (the “Hon Assassinations Committee") of the House of Represen [ © the Library of Congress: ki (G) the National Archives’ and Records Administrati (H) any Presidential library;. op any Executive agency ; lependen @ any other offi we of the Federal Government; and (L) any State or local law enforcement office that prov ed support or assistance or performed work in connect: with a Federal inquiry into the assassination of Presid: John F, Kennedy, but. does not include the au y records donated by the | family to the National ives pursuant to a eed of 5 access to those records, or copies and reprodu made from such records. “Collection” means the President John F. Kennedy nation Records Collection established under section 4 “Executive ny means an Executive agency as defin subsection BEAD < title | s, United States , and inclu: any Executive departm department, Governm: tblihineat Government Control co oration, or othe} ent in the executive branch e Governmen ive Office of the President, or any indepe ent per eos poeta “Government off office” means any office of the Federal G ernment that has possession or control of assassinat records, including—- (A) the House Committee on Administration with rey to the Select Committee on Assassinations of the the House of Representatives; — ‘-  (B) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the with to records of the Senate Select Commi Study Government Operations with b Respect t¢ to Intellige) Co John . Renteds and the Commission on Central ae gence Agency Activities in. the United States; and (E) an er executive branch office or agency, and|< independe lent agency “¥dentification aid” means the written description prepa: for Coat ncn ne tequived in section & “National Archives” means the National Archives |: Records Administration and all components thereof, includ . Presidential archival depositories established under 2112 of title 44, United States Code. “Official in tion” means the reviews of the assassi tion of Presiden ohn F. Kennedy conducted by any Presid tial commission, any auithorized congressional comai momittes, any Government agency either independently, at the requ PR t
14-00000 4 of any Presidential commission or congressional committee, or at the request of any Government official. Originating body” means the Executive agency, government commission, congressional committee, or other governmental entity that created a record or particular information within a reco’ “Public interest” means the compelling interest in the prompt public disclosure of assassination records for historical and governmental purposes and for the purpose of fully in- forming the American people about the history surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “Record” includes a book, paper, map, pho h, sound or . chine readabl BL oorneater! i video recording, e material, computerized, di- gitized, or electronic information, regardless of the medium on which it is stored, or other documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics. ; “Review Board” means the Assassination Records Review Board established by section 7. “Third agency” means a Government agency that originated an assassination record that is in the possession of another agency. . SEC. 4, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COL- © ARCHIVES AND RECO LECTION AT THE NATIONAL RDS AD- MINISTRATION. - (a) In GenEnaL.—(1) Not later than 60 days after the date of en- actment of this Act, the National Archives and Records Adminis- tration shall commence establishment of a collection of records to be known as the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. In so doing, the Archivist shall engure the physical in- tegrity and original provenance of all records. The Collection shall consist of record copies of all Government records relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which shall be trans- mitted to the National Archives in accordance with section 2107 of title 44, United States Code. The Archivist shall prepare and pub- lish a subject guidebook and index to the Collection. (2) The Collection shall include— (A) all assassination records — (i) that have been transmitted to the National Archives or disclosed to the public in an unredacted form prior to the date of enactment of this Act; (ii) that are required to be transmitted to the National Archives; or aw (iii) the disclosure of which is ed under this Act; (B) a central directory comprised af identification aids cre- ated for each record transmitted to the Archivist the under section 5; ands ; . (C) all Review Board records as required by this Act. DiscLosurz or Recorps.—All -assassination records transmit- ted to the National Archives for disclosure to the public shall be included in the Collection and shall be available to the public for inspection and copying at the National Archives within 30 days after their transmission to the National Archives. _(c) Fees ror Copyinc.—The Archivist shall— . (1) charge fees for copying assassination records; and 5 tab (2) t waivers of such fees pursuant to the standards ee lished by section 552(a\(4) of title 5, United States Code. d) Apprnonan Requirements.(1) The Collection shall be pre | aed wrotected, pee ey and made available to the public at th Nati Archives using appropriations authorized, specified, restricted for use under the terms of this Act. (2) The National Archives, in consultation with the Informatio: Security Oversight Office, shall ensure the security of: the poned assassination records in the Collection. (e) Ovensicut.-The Committee on Government Operations 0 the House of Re tatives and the Committee on Governmenta Affairs of the te shall have continuing oversight jurisdi with respect to the Collection. | SEC. 6, REVIEW, IDENTIFICATION, TRANSMISSION TO THE NATIONAL a AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ANSASSINATIO! RECORDS BY GO _ (a) In Generat.—(1) As soon as practicable after the date anize its records relating to the assassination of President John nnedy and prepare them for transmission to the Archivist for in on clusion in the Co! . ; (2) No assassination records shall be destroyed, altered, or lated in any way. (8) No auengenation record made available or disclosed to th: | public prior to the date of enactment of this Act may be withheld postponed for public disclosure, or reclassified. government (excluding names or identifies consistent wil "(4) No essassi tion record created by a person or entity outsid: che ee jaro rm n actment of this Act, each Government office shall identify and 4 an post ction of e muti [ quirements of section 6) shall be withheld, redacted, postponed fo: | public disclosure, or reclassified. (b). Cusropy .of Asaassrnation Recorps Pzenpinc Review During the review by Government offices and pending review BO tne Revit pear cocude for purposes ce retain of. its assassination records for purposes of preservation, securi ty, and efficien , unless (i) the Boview Board requires the physical transfer lo ependent and impar records for purposes of conducting an in (2) transfer is necessary for an administrative hearing 01 - other Review Board function; or. (3) it is a third agericy record described in subsection (cX2\ (c)-Review.—(1) Not later than 300 days after the date of en activ ment of this Act, each Government office shall review, identify anc 7 organize each assassination record in its custody or possession fo | disclosure to the public, review by the Review Board, and transmis | sion to the Archivist. (2) In carrying out h (1), a Government office shiall— hich © ite records are assagsination records (| ' (A) determine - (8) determine which of its assassination records have officially disclosed or publicly available in a complete and (CXi) determine which of its assassination records, or particu lar information contained in such a record, was created by |e | third agency or by another Government office; and ir.
14-00000 -6 Gi) transmit to.a third agency or other government office those ‘records, or particular information contained in those records, or complete and accurate copies thereof: . (DG) determine whether its assassination records or particu- lar information in assassination records are covered’ by the standards for postponement of public disclosure under this Act; (ii) specify on the identification aid required by subsection (d) the applicable postponement ision contained in section 6; (©) organize and make available to the Review Board all as- sassination records identified under subparagraph (D) the public disclosure of which in whole or in part may be post- poned under this Act; (F) organize and make available to the Review Board any record concerning which the office has any uncertainty as to whether the record is an assassination record governed by this ct; : (G) give priority to the identification, review, and transmis- sion, under the standards for postponement set forth in this Act, of assassination records that on the date of enactment of this Act are the subject of Htigation under section 562 of title 5, United States Code; and (—E) make available to the Review Board any additional infor- mation and records that the Review Board reason to be- lieve it requires for conducting a review under this Act. (8) The Director of each archival depository established under section 2112 of title 44, United States Code, shall have as a priority the expedited review for public disclosure of assassination records in the possession and custody of the depository, and shall make euch records available to the Review Board aired by this Act: as req’ (d) Inomrirication Ams.—(1(A) Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Archivist, in consultation with the appropriate Government offices, shall prepare and make avail- able to ali Government offices a standard form of identification or finding aid for use with each assassination record subject to review under this Act. . . (8) The Archivist shall ensure that the identification aid pro- gram is established in such a manner as to result in the creation of a uniform m of electronic records by Government offices that are compatible with each other. . ; (2) Upon completion of an identification aid, a Government office (A) attach a printed copy to the record it describes; (8) transmit to the Review Board a printed copy; and . (C) attach a printed copy to each assassination record it de- ecribes when it is transmitted to the Archivist. oo (3) Assassination records which are in the possession of the Na- . tional Archives on the date of enactment of this Act, and which have been publicly available in their entirety without redaction, . Shall be-made available in the Collection without any additional review by the Review Board or another authorized office under this ‘ Act, and shall not be required to have such an identification aid unless required by the Archivist. (e) Transmission To THE National Arcutves.—Each Govert | ment office poe ; , oe qd) ismit to the Archivist, and make available to public not later than 300 days after the date of enactment ¢ en this Act, all assassination records that can be publicly di closed, including those that are publicly available on the dat of enactment of this Act, without any redaction, adjustment, o : withholding under the standards of this Act; and — (2) transmit to the Archivist upon approval for postponemen by the Review Board or upon completion of other action at thorized by this Act, all assassination records the public disc sure of which has been postponed, in whole or in part, unde the standards of this Act, to become part of the protected Col ection. ( Cusropy or PostPonzp AssassINATION Recorps.—An assassi nation record the public disclosure of which as been postpone: shail, pending transmission to the Archivist, be held for reasons security and preservation by the originating body until such tim: as the information security program has been established at th Archives as required in section 4(eX(2). | (g) Perropic ‘or Posrronep Assassination Recorps.—(] All postponed or redacted records shall be reviewed periodically b: the origiiating agency and the Archivist consistent with the rec ommendations of the iew Board under section 9(cX3)B). Q (2XA) A periodic review shall address the public disclosure of ad F ditional assassination records in the Collection under the standard: | (B) All postponed assassination records determined to requir j continued mement shall require an unclassified written de scription of the reason for such continued postponement. Such de scription shall be provided to the Archivist and published in the ’ Federal Register upon determination. (©) The. periodic review of ned assassination records shall serve t downgrade and d security classified informatio (@) Each assassination record be publicly disclosed in fll and availeble in the Collection ne. later than the date that is years after the date of enactment of this Act, unless the President | certifies, as required by this Act, that— @ continued po ement is made necessary by an identifi- able harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, or conduct of foreign relations, and | (ii) the identi the public interest in disclosure. (h) Fees ror Corviva.Executive branch agencies shall— (1) charge fees for copying assassination records; and’ . | @) grant waivers of such fees pursuant to the standards es | tablished | by aection 552(a\(4) of title 6, United States Code. SEC. 6 GROUNDS FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF Disclosure of assassination records or particular assassination records to the public may be postponed subject to limitations of this Act if there is clear and convincing evidenci le harm is of such gravity that it outweighs : information in [
14-00000 (1) the threat to the military defense, intelligence operations, (8) If the Senate votes not to confirm a nomination to the Rev or conduct of foreign relations of the United States posed Board, the President shall make an additional nomination not |: | the public disclosure plies assassination is of such gravi thet then dave th ereafter. make tions to the i outweighs e pu terest, a. . Presiden’ shall nominal would reveal P " and euch’ public osure Board ; after considering pe persons recommended by th by the imei A) . Histori Association, the Organization fs) erican : «aise nance agent whose identity currently re- , the 20 Society of American Archivists, and the American Bar oh ute an intelligence source or mathod which i ig currently ho If ano tion described in subparagraph (A) does a United States Government and which has not heen off, + ommend a Jest two nominees Fe ane aes date of de cially disclosed, the disclosure of .which would interfere paragraph (5) by the date that is 46 cave ider fi « ate an with the conduct of intelligence activities; or, ment this Act, t rganiza a S described 4 a © any ote matter currently relating to the military varagraph (A). ended ‘by the other o tions ense, in ence operations or conduct of foreign rela- President rganiza escribed .i tions of the United States, the the disclosure of which would © Sint (A) to submit’ request an organization d Searestrably 3 impair the national security of the United @) Persons ons nominated to the Review Board: of @) the public disclosure of the assassination record would ently CN ceeplopea Ee any branch of th the Government, aad nga reveal the name or identity of a living person who provided whom shall have had any previous involvement with any confidential information to the United States and would pose a cial ial investigation or inquiry conducted by a Federal, State substantial risk of harm to that pe person; ; rnment, relating to the assassination of " Presic (8) the public disclosure of the assassination record could rea- son F. Kennedy; ; sonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of be distinguished persons of high national profeas personal privacy, and that invasion of privacy is so substantial al Feputation in their respective ive fields o are capable ofie that it outweighs the public interest; ; the independent and objective judgment necessary to | (4) the public disclosure of the assassination record would ent of their role in and facilitating the rev compromise the existence of an understanding of confidential- transmission to the public, and public disclosure of records [ ity currently requiring protection between a Government . lated to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy agency and 2 cooperating individual or a foreign government, ‘ who possess 8 an 1 appreciation of the, value of such materia harmful r ublic, echo! an ronment; an the pie inte would be 20 that it outweighs shall include at least 1 1 professional historian and 1 at — (5) the public disclosure of the assassination record would. reveal a security or protective procedure currently utilized, or mor a SC EARANCES. —{) seutweity Review Board nominees |é. rennonably expected to fe uutttized, By fhe Secret * rvice or Govern. manner subject to the standard procedures for granting such ¢l . ment officiala, and public disclosure would be so harmful that , ; *O) All nominees shall for the n cl & it outweighs the public interest. ance prior to being consb aided tos confirmation by the near i SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT AND POWERS OF THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS on Governmental of the Senate. (a) Bsrastismanrr.—There is established es an indepenident tal Affair of the Sonate shall hold confirmation wearin ge with _— ; old co on wi : agency a board to be known as the Assassinations Records Review days in which the Senste is in session after the nomination]: § Board. Review Board members. (b) APPoINTMENT.—-(1) The President, by and with the advice and : (2) The Committee on Governmental Affairs shall“vote on consent of the Senate, shall appoint, without regard to political af- . nominations within 14 days in which the Senate is in session [a filiation, 5 citizens to serve as members of the Review Board to the confirmation hearings, and shall report its results to the [ ensure and facilitate the review, transmission to the Archivist, and _ Senate no Senate a - public disclosure of Government records related to- the: -apsassina- (3) The Senate vote on each nominee to confirm or re tion of President John F. Kennedy. within 14 days in which the Senate is session after receiving . (2) The President shall make nominations to the Review Board from the Committee on Governmental Affairs - not later than 90 calendar days after the date of enactment of this fe) VACANCZ—A vacancy on the Review Board shall be fill - Act. the same manner as for original appointment wi | days of the occurrence of the-vacancy.
14-00000 : . » ot . . . : : . t 10 (f) Cuamperson.—The Members of the Review Board shall elect one of its members as rson at ita initial meeting. (g) Remova. or Review Boarp Memper.—(1) No member of the Review Board shall be removed from office; other than-— (A) by impeachment and conviction; or (B) by th the action of the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, physical disability, mental incapac- ity, or any other condition that substantially t impairs the per- formance of the member’s duties. (2A) If a member of the Review Board is removed from office, and that removal is by the President, not later than 10 days after the removal the President shall submit to the Committees on Gov- ernment rations of the House of Representatives and the Com- mittee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report: specifying the facts found and the grounds for the removal. - (B) The President DEXA -in the Federal Register ra report submitted under ena except that the President may, if necessary to protect ts of a person named in the report or to prevent undue Fife eg with any pen prosecution, pone or refrain from publishing any or all of the report until the completion of such pending cases or pursuant to privacy protection require uirements in law. (3A) A member of the Review Board removed from office may obtain judicial review of the removal in a civil action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (8) The member may be reinstated or granted other appropriate relief by order of the court. - (h) CompensaTION oF Memperrs.—(1) A member of the Review Board shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic bay Prescribed for level IV of the Execu- tive Schedule under section 5815 of title 5, United States Code, for. each day (including travel time) during which the member is en- gaged in the performance of the duties ties of the Review Board. (2) A mem r of the Review Board shall be allowed reasonable travél expenses, including per ‘diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, U United States Code, while away from the member's home or reg- ular place of business in the performance of services for the Review @) Durmes or tHe Review Boarn.—(1) The Review Board shall consider and render decisions on a determination by a Government office to seek to postpone the disclosure of assassination records. 2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Review Board shall consid- er and render decisions— (A) whether a record constitutes an assassination record; and (B) whether an assassination record or particular informa- tion in a record qualifies for postponement of disclosure under Act. @ Powers.—(1) The-Review Board shall have the guthority to act in a manner p: under this Act including authority to— (A) direct Government offices to create identification aids and organize assassination records; (B) Government offices to transmit to the Archivist as- sassination records as required under this Act, including segre- ll gable portions of assassination records, and substitutes summaries of assassination. records that can be publicly closed to the fullest extent; (C)@) obtain access to assassination. records that have bx . identified at and 0 by a Government office; Roe dire overnment office to jake e available 7 Review: an necessary investiga’ e ing, additional information, records, or testimony from i me uals, which the Review Board has reason to believe is requi to fulfill its functions and responsibilities under this A 5 & (iii) subpoena private persons to compel testimony, 1 om and other information relevant to its responsibilities un: f this the destruction of any records relating to the assassinati President John F. Kennedy; (E) receive information from the public regarding the ide: fication and public disclosure of assassination records; and OF) hold hearings, administer oaths,.and subpoena witnes and documents. Act; (D) require any Government office to account in writing rc (2) A subpoena issued under paragraph (1)CXiii) may be enfor by any appropriate Federal court acting pursuant to a lawful | quest of the Review (x) Wriwess Inamunrry.—The Review Board shall be consideres be an mcy of the United States for purposes of section 6 title 18, United States Code. () OvirsicuT.—(1) The Committee on Government Operatio the House of Representatives and the Committees on Governmer | Affaire of the Senate shall have continuing oversight jurisdict with respect to the official conduct of the Review. Board and disposition of postponed records after termination of the Rev , and shall have access to any records held or created by Review Board. (2) The Review Board shall have the duty to cooperate with exercise of such oversight jurisdicti . Ga) Suprorr Seevices..-The Administrator of the General & ices Administration shal! administra’ provide tive services for Review Board on a reimbursable basis. (n). INTERPRETIVE Reouations.—The Review Board may issue (9) "TERMINATION AND Winwine Ur. —{1) The Review Board ; the terms of its members shall terminate not later than 2 ve after the date of enactment of this /Act, except that the vy Board may, By majority vote, extend its term for an additiona year period it has not completed its work within’ that 2Zy peri . 2) Upon its termination, the Review Board shall submit repr to the ident and the Congress including a sce ant and a iviet for inclusion t in the ‘ lection, and no Toned of the Review Board shall be destroyed.
14-00000 12 SEC. 8. ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD PERSONNEL. (a) Executive Dmecror.—(1) Not later than 45 days after the ini- tial meeting of the Review Board, the Review Board shall appoint one citizen, without regard to political affiliation, to the position of Executive Director. (2) The person appointed as Executive Director shall be a private citizen of integrity and impartiality who is a distinguished profes- sional and who is not a present employee of any branch of the Gov- ernment and has had no previous involvement with any official in- vestigation or inquiry relating to the assassination. of ‘President John F. Kennedy. . (8XA) A candidate for Executive Director shall be granted the necessary security clearances in an accelerated manner subject to the standard procedures for granting such clearances. (B) A candidate shall qualify for the necessary security clearance prior to being approved by the Review Board. (4) The Executive Director shall— (A) serve as principal liaison to Government offices; _ (B) be responsible for the administration and coordination of the Review Board's review of records; : (C) be responsible for the administration of all official activi- ties conducted by the Review Board; and (D) have no authority to decide or determine whether any record should be disclosed to the public or postponed for disclo- sure. (5) The Executive Director shall not be removed for reasons other than by a majority vote of the Review Board for cause on the grounds of inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, phys- ical disability, mental incapacity, or any other condition that sub- stantially impairs the performance of the responsibilities of the Ex- ecutive Director or the staff of the Review Board. _ : (b) Starr.—(1) The Review Board may, in accordance with the civil service laws but without regard to civil service law and regu- lation for competitive service as defined in subchapter 1, chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, appoint and terminate additional. personnel as are necessary to le the Review Board and its Ex- ecutive Director to perform ita duties. . ; (2) A person appointed to the staff of the Review Board shall be a private citizen of integrity and impartiality who is not a present employee of any branch of the Government and who has had no previous involvement with any official investigation or inquiry  re- lating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. (8X A) A candidate for staff shall be granted the necessary securi- . ty clearances in an accelerated manner subject to the stan pro- cedures for granting such clearances. - ; (B) A candidate for the staff shall I quality for the necessary secu- rity clearance prior to being approved by the Review Board. . (c) ComPENsATION.—The Review Board shall fix the compensation of the Executive Director and other mnel in accordance -with title 5, United States Code, except that the rate of pay for the Exec- utive Director and other personnel may not exceed the rate pay- able for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 6316 of ’ that title. ‘subject to the Federal: Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). ’ 48 (d) Apvisory Comarrrzes.—(1). The Review Board shall have e authority to create advisory committees to assist in fulfilling the | ibilities of the Review Board under this Act. | (2) Any advisory committee created by the Review Board shall be SEC. 9. REVIEW OF RECORDS BY THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW | (a) Cusropy or Reconos ReviewrEp py Boarp.—Pending the out- come of the Review Board’s review activity, a Government office shall retain custody of its assassination records for purposes of preservation, security, and efficiency, unless— (1) the Review Board requires the physical transfer of records for reasons of conducting an independent and impar- (@ such transfer is n y fi dministrative h i is necessary for an a rative hearing or other official Review Board function. (b) Stantur Requmements.—The, Review Board shall— (1) not later than 90 days after the date of its appointment, publish a schedule for review of all assassination records in the r; and (2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, begin its review of assassination records under this | ct. i (c) DETERMINATIONS of THE Review Boarp.—({l) The Review Board shall direct that all assassination records be transmitted to the Archivist and disclosed to the public in the Collection in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that— (A) a Government record: is not an assassination record; or G (8) a Government record or particular information within assassination record qualifies for postponement of public disclo- ofr under this Act. . approving postponement of public disclosure of an assassi- nation record, the Review Board seek to-— (A) provide for the disclosure of segregable parts, substitutes, or summaries of such a record; and 8) ine, in consultation with the originating body and consistent with the standard for postponement under this Act, hich of the following alternative forms of disclosure shall he F made by the originating body: @ Any reasonably segregable particular information in an assassination record. | . Das itute record for that information which is ned. . _ . (ii) A ummary of an assassination record. (3) With respect to each assassination record or particular infor- mation .in assassination records the public disclosure of which is postponed pursuant to section 6, or for which only substitutions or summaries have been disclosed to the public, the Review Board & shall create and transmit to the Archivist a report containing— (A) a description of actions by the Review Board, the origi- | nating body, the President, or any.Government office or = ing a j cation of any such action to pone disclosure of @ any record or part of any record) and of any official p: -
14-00000 14 : . ings conducted by the Review Board with regard to specific as- sassination records; an (B) a statement, based on a review of the proceedings and in conformity with the decisions reflected therein, designating a recommended specified time at which or a specified occurrence following which the material may be appropriately disclosed to the public under this Act. - ; ‘ . (4X A) Following its review and a determination that an assassi- nation record shail be publicly disclosed in the Collection or post- med for disclosure and held in the protected Collection, the view Board shall notify the head of the originating body of its determination and publish a copy of the detertnination in the Fed- eral Register within 14 days after the determination is made. (®) Contemporaneous notice shall be made to the President for Board determinations regarding executive branch assassi- nation records, and to the oversight committees designated in this Act in the case of legislative branch records. Such notice shall con- tain a written unclassified justification for public disclosure or postponement of disclosure, including an explanation of the appli- cation of any standards contained in section 6. . (d) Presmentian Autuorrry Over Review Boarp Derermina- TION.— ; (1) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OR POSTPONEMENT OF DISCLOSURE.— After the Review Board has made a formal determination con- cerning the public disclosure or postponement of disclosure of an executive branch assassination record or information within such a record, or of any information contained in an assassina- tion record, obtained or developed solely within the executive branch, the President shall have the sole and nondelegable au- thority to require the disclosure or postponement of such record or information under the standards set. forth in section 6, and the President shall provide the Review Board with an unclassified written certification specifying the President's de- cision within. 30 days after the Review Board’s determination and notice to the executive branch agency as required under this Act, stating the justification for the President’s decision, including the. applicable grounds for postponement ‘under sec- tion 6, accompanied by a copy of the identification aid required under section 4. oo. (2) Periopic review.—Any executive branch assassination record postponed by the President shall be subject ‘to the re- quirements of aperiodic review, downgrading and declassifica- tion of classified information, and public disclosure in the Col- lection set forth in section 4. . Cot . 8) RD OF PRESIDENTIAL POSTPONEMENT.—The Review Board shall, upon its receipt, publish in the Federal Register a copy of any unclassified written certification, statement, and other materials transmitted by or on behalf of the President with regard to postponement of assassination rds, . (e) Nortcz to Pusuic.—Every 30 calendar days, beginning on the date that is 60 calendar days after the date on which the Review ’ Board first approves the postponement of disclosure of an assassi- nation record, the Review Board shall publish in the Federal Regis- ‘ter a.notice that summarizes the postponements approved by the ' originating agency, length or other physical 15 Review Board or initiated by the President, the House of Repri | sentatives, or the Senate, including a.description of the subjec description, and eac ground for postponement that is relied upon. oo - | () Reports sy THE Review Boarp.—(1) The Review Board sha report its activities to the leadership of the Congress, the Commi: tee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, t Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Presiden: | the Archivist, and the head of any Government office whos records have been the subject of Review Board activity. (2) The firet report shall be issued on the date that is 1 year afte the date of enactment of this Act, and subsequent reports every|1 | months thereafter until termination of the Review Board (8) A report under paragraph (1) shall include the following inifor mation:. . (D) Any special problems, including requests and the level cooperation of government offices, with regard to the ability the Review Board to operate-as required by this Act. (©) A record of review activities, including a record of : ponement decisions the Review Board or other related ac tions authorized by Act, and a record of the volume io records reviewed and postponed. (®) 8 ions and requests to Congress for additio lative authority needs. additional legis § appendix containing copies of reports of postpon records to the Archivist required under section 9(cX3) Tnade since the date of the preceding report under this subsection. | | (4) At least 90 calendar days before completing its work, the | Review rd shall provide written notice to the President anc Congress of its intention to terminate its operations at a specified o6 SEC. 10. DISCLOSURE OF OTHER MATERIALS AND ADDITIONAL STUDY. (a) MATERCALA Unper Sean or Court.— i l) The Review Board. request the Attorney General to | petition any court in the United States or abrosd to releate any information relevant to the assassination of President John F. ‘Kennedy that is held under seal of the court. (2(A) The Review Board may request the Attorney Genera to petition any court in the United States to release any infor- mation relevant to the assassination of President John F. Ken- nedy that is held under ‘the injunction of secrecy of a grand iP A request for disclosure of assassination materi rials und Act shall be deemed to constitute a show: i ized need under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of of
14-00000 16 (b) Sense or Conaress.-—It is the sense of the Congress that— (1) the Attorney General should assist the Review Board in good faith to unseal. any records that the Review Board deter- mines to be relevant and held under seal by a court or under the injunction of of a grand jury; (2) the Secretary of State should contact the Government of the Republic of Russia and seek the disclosure of all records of the government of the former Soviet Union, including the records of the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (KGB) and the Glaynoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravieniye (GRU), rele- vant to the assassination of President Kennedy, and contact any other foreign government that may hold information rele- vant to the assassination of President Kennedy and seek disclo- sure of such information; and ; (3) all Executive agencies should cooperate in full with the Review Board to seek the disclosure of all information relevant to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy consistent with the public interest. SEC. 11. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. (a) Precepence Over Ornen Law—When this Act requires transmission of a record to the Archivist or public disclosure, it shall take precedence over any other law (except section 6108 of the Internal Revenue Code), judicial decision construing such law, or common law doctrine that would otherwise prohibit such trans- mission or disclosure, with the exception of deeds governing access to or transfer or release of gifts and donations of records te the United States Government. (b) Feeepom or Inrogmation Acr.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to eliminate or limit any right to file requests with any Executive agency or seek judicial review of the decisions pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States Code. ‘ (c) Juvicia, Review.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preclude judicial review, under chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code, of final actions taken or required to be taken under this Act. (d@) ExurmeeG AutHorrry.—Nothing in this Act revokes or limits the existing authority of the President, any executive agency, the Senate, or the House of Representatives, or any other entity of the Government to publicly disclose records in its possession. (e) Rutes or tHe Senate anno House or Rerresentratives.—To the extent that any provision of this Act establishes a procedure to be followed in the provision is adopted—- . - (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed to be ’ part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House, and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that is inconsistent with such rules; and (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to the proce- dure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. - SEC. 12, TERMINATION OF EFFECT OF ACT. - person. or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this A: validation. * tion Archives and Research Center. nate or the House of Representatives, such ~ 17 (a) Provisions PerTramnine To THE Review Boaro.—The pron sions of this Act that pertain to the appointment and operation the Review Board. shall cease to be effective when the Revie Board.and the terms of its members have terminated pursuant section 7(o). ; , . (b) Provisions.—The remaining provisions of this shall continue in effect until such time as the Archivist certifi the President and the Congress that all assassination records ha‘ been made available to the public in accordance with this Act. SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) IN Genzran.—There are authorized to be appropriated suc sums as are necessary.to carry out this Act, to remain availab until expended. (b) Inrerma Funpivc.—Until such timte as funds are approp: ated pursuant to subjection (a), the President may use such sun as are available for discretionary use to carry out.this Act. SEC. 14. SEVERABILITY. , . If-any provision of this Act or the application thereof to ar and the application of that provision to other persons not similar. | situated or to-other circumstances shall not be affected by the li: Ul. COMMITTEE ACTION S.J. Res. 282 was introduced by Senators Boren (for himself, M § Mitchell, Mr. Specter, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bradley, Mr. DeConcin Mr. Glenn, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. Wofford, and Mr. Cohen) March 26, 1992, and referred to the Committee on Government: ‘airs. . Hearings were held on May 12, 1992. Testimony was receive from Senator David Boren, Senator Arlen Specter, and Represent: tive Louis Stokes; Robert M. Gates, Director of the Central Intel) gence Agency, and William Sessions, Director of the Feder: Bureau of Investigation; Ernest May, Professor, Kennedy School « Government; Athan Theoharis, Professor, Department of Histor. Marquette University, and James Lesar, President, the Assassin: oF On June 25, 1992, the Committee on Governmental Affairs a) | proved by a voice vote adoption of the amendment in the nature « | a substitute offered by Senator Gienn. Ii. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY S.J. Res. 282,'as amended, creates a process to publicly: disclose all records related to the assassination gf Fresident John . Ke op ly. The underlying principles guiding the legislation are indepen: ence, public ence, efficiency and cost effectiveness, speed| « records disclosure, and enforceability. In order to achieve these 4 jectives, the Act creates a presumption of disclosure upon the go ernment, and it establishes an expeditious process for the revie and disclosure of the records. The Act creates numerous requir : ments to ensure that the public will be enabled to make its ow
14-00000 === 18 observations, judgments, and determinations with regard to the history of the assassination and related matters. In order to pro- vide for the most comprehensive disclosure of records related to the - assassination of President Kennedy, the Act empowers an inde- pendent review board with the authority to request any additional information or records from relevant government, agencies and con- ional cormmittees. Finally, the determinations of the review ard are reviewable and enforceable in a court of law. These purposes and objectives were carefully addressed during the development of the new legislation. The ident John F. “Presid Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act” (“the Act’) reflects . the many recommendations.and ideas developed from the hearings, meetings with affected roment cies, and views expressed by members of the public experienced in efforts to access records from relevant agencies in general, and with j emphasis upon the assassination of President Kennedy. f the considerable research and expertise of the Committee staff with regard to the law and policy of public access to government information. ; . The legislation establishes the President John F. Kennedy Assas- sination Records Collection at the National Archives. The Collec- tion will be made. known and accessible to the public by the cre- ation of a subject guidebook and index to the records created by the National Archives. The Collection will include all publicly avail- able assassination records at the National Archives at the time of enactment (e.g. public records of the Warren Commission); all as- sassination records released by government offices pursuant to the Act; all postponed records as part of the “protected” Collection; and all postponed records as they become publicly disclosed in the future. The public will also be able to request reproduction of records from originating government agencies. — Government offices holding assassination records are required to begin organizing and reviewing such records upon enactment and have this work completed within ten months of enactment. During this time, the government offices will determine whether records qualify as “assassination records” and then whether they recom- mend to the Review Board that public disclosure of certain records be postponed for reasons of national security, confidentiality, and privacy, as established in the Act. All assassination reeords which are not recommended for postponement must be made immediately available to the public through the government office and by trans- mission to the National ives. rds recommended for post- ponement are required to be reviewed by an independent Assassi- ‘nation Records Review Board, which makes determinations for re- lease or postponement. ; ; In the case of executive branch records and information, the President has the authority to override the Review Board's deter- minations with regard to release or postponement. For congression- al records, in the event that the Congress with a determi- nation by the Review Board, each House would be required to - adopt a resolution to change or create a rule governing the disposi- tion of its records at issue. Such rule-making authority is preserved by the Act. Finally, all med records undergo peri ic review and must be disclosed in no later than twenty-five years after bill also reflects . mandating the release of - 19 the date of enactment unless, in the case of executive branc records, the President demonstrates that public disclosure wi f result in an identifiable harm to the national security, intelligenc operations, or foreign relations of the United States. The Assassina : tion Records Review Board is an independer agency. within the executive branch. The five-member Revie Board will be appointed by the President with the advice and coi Senate. The confirmation hearings will t conducted by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Act/r: quires that the Review Board include at least one historian an one attorney, and that each member ‘is a national recognized pr sent of the United States fessional in his or her field. The legislation requires that prior ommendations from the American Historical iation, the making the appointments, the ident is required to my, the Org : nization of American. Historians, the Society of American Arct vista, and the American Bar ‘To ensure a com on. . and disclosure of assagsinatic records beyond the stope of previous official inquiries, the ie ive search to enable the public to obtain information ar | has the authority to direct any government office to produ | ’ additional information and records which it believes are related the assassination. It has the authority to subpoena private perso: : and to enforce the subpoenas through the courts. | The Review Board is authorized for a two-year period and it m: be extended by a majority vote of the Review Board for up ta : additional year. The Review Board could decide to extend it exi: ence to less than one year if that is the time determined as nec sary to complete its work. Annual financial reports and other pe odic reports are required to be provided to the Congress. The 1 ports must include statements of progress, the level of cooperati- of government offices and agencies, and the possible need for ad. tional time or authority from Congress. IV. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assae nated. It was a tragic and defining moment in American histo The desire by the American public to understand who assassinat President Kennedy, and why, has resulted in several official inv tigations and a broad spectrum of private inquiries and schol ship. Unfortunately, ‘in the eyes of the public, each investigati and inquiry se to raise additional questions, and did so w increasing the volume of secret government records about the sessination. In 1992, the public demand, fostered by increat media attention, the ing of necret Files by changing ve ments around the world, an other factors, culminated in the r ognition by the Congress records related to the assassination of President Kennedy should fully disclosed. In addition to the legislation considered by the Committee, and the Executive Branch that|i (| its counterpart-considered by the House Committee on Governm | Operations, four other related, though more limited, m were introduced in the House of Representatives in 1992. Two all Kennedy assassination investigat
14-00000 20 records were H.R. 4090, introduced January 3, 1992, and H.R. 4108, introduced January 24, 1992. Two House resolutions directing the unsealing of the records of the Select Committee on Assassinations were H. Res. 325, introduced January 22, 1992, and H. Res. $26, in- troduced January 24, 1992. ° - The Committee shares the belief in the importance of disclosing the records. It believes that all government records related to the assassination of President Kennedy should be preserved for histori- eal and governmental purposes; that all such records should carry a@ presumption of immediate disclosure; and that all such records should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination. The Committee also closely examined the issue of whether legis- lation was necessary and concluded that it was. While disclosure of the records could be achieved through a non-statutory approach— by each House of the Congress passing a resolution pertaining to its records, and the President issuing an executive order to the same effect—a statute is necessary to ensure an independent and enforceable mechanism for disclosure under uniform standards for review. In addition, the Committee found that legislation is necessary be- "cause congressional records related to the assassination would not otherwise be subject to public disclosure until at least the year 2029 (with uncertain disclosure of related classified executive branch records); because the Freedom of Information Act, as imple- mented by the Executive Branch, has impeded the timely public disclosure of the assassination records; because Executive Order 12356, “National Security Information,” has eliminated the govern- ment-wide schedules for declassification and downgrading of classi- fied information and has prevented the timely public disclosure of assassination records; and because most of the records related to the assassination of President Kennedy are at least 30 years old, and only in the rareat cases is there any legitimate need for contin- ued protection of such records. . . The release of records and materials in the possession of the fed- eral government pursuant to the legislation will significantly expe- dite public access to this information. Although certain records re- lated. to the assassination of President Kennedy have been made available over time to the public, the legislation will create oppor- tunities for the public to review records which might otherwise not be possible for several decades. Importantly, the public will be en- abled to make their own observations and. judgments based on first- hand access to previously undisclosed records In addition to the above discussion, the Appendix of this report contains a thorough description and summary of the records of the presidential commissions and congressional committees which in- vestigated the assassination of President Kennedy. ¥. MAJOR PROVISIONS The requirements of the “President John F. Kennedy Assassina- tien Records Collection Act” are written in a detailed manner to © ensure that its implementation is effective and efficient. In addi- Defining assassination records . the records of past presidential commissions and congressio Ph nebe ‘and Rockefeller Commissions, and the Church and House 21 tion, it is important to emphasize and clarify the legislative intent | and importance of particular provisions of the Act. “Assassination records” are defined in Section 3. The definition of “assassination records” is a threshold consideration for the suc cessful implementation of the Act. Its scope will be the barometer of public confidence in the release of assassination records. While committees established to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy are included as assassination records under this Act, it js intended and emphasized that the search and disclosure of records under this Act must go beyond those records. While such records are valuable, they reflect views, theories, political constraints. and prejudices of past inquiries. Proper implementation of this A and providing the American public with the opportunity to ju the surrounding history of the assassination for themselves, quires including not only, but going beyond, the records of the oe ect Assassination Committees. The term “assassination record” was not more specifically iad fined by the Committee because to do so before more is kn about the universe of records would have been premature, anc would have further injected the government between the record and the American public. There is a sufficient volume of known a: sassination records to organize and review at the outset. However. | it is intended that the Review Board issue guidance to assist in ar. ticulating the scope or universe of assassination records as gover: : ment offices and the Review Board undertakes their responsibil. ities. Such guidance will be valuable notwithstanding the fact that government offices will begin to organize and review their reco before the Review Board is established. Government offices are rp quired to begin the review and disclosure of records upon enact ment to expedite public access to the many récords which do noi require itional review or postponement. However, the ultima work of the Review, Board will involve not only the review 0! records recommen: ‘or postponement, but requiring government offices to provide additional information and records, where appro priate. Guidance, especially that developed in consultation with the public, scholars, and affected government offices, will prove valua | ble to ensure the fullest possible disclosure and create public confi dence in a working definition that was developed in an independ. ent and open manner. . Autopsy Records aa The Act ifically excludes from the definition of “assassi. — nation records’ the autopsy records and copies or reproduction: made from such records donated by the Kennedy family pursuant to a deed of gift-executed on October 29; 1966. These records in clude the autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kenned The Committee believes that thie exclusion is a sound policy. The | Committee believes that there is a compelling justification for tecting the privacy of. the Kennedy family from the unwarrante
14-00000 a intrusion that would be raised by public disclosure of the autopsy records conveyed by the deed. - The Committee has carefully examined the deed of gift, which is _ Operative throughout the lifetime of the survivors of the late Presi- dent Kennedy. The deed in no way restricts access to official gov- ernment investigators concerned with the assassination. Other members of the public may cbtain access to the. autopsy. photo- graphs and X-rays only with the express written permission of the Kennedy family or their legal representative. The Committee found that since the time of the donation, that public access has been granted judiciously and feirly, and that those best qualified to review and make use of the have been granted access to ‘the records. It is believed that this practice can and should contin- ue as set forth by the terms of the deed and will rightfully balance .the needs for access by professionals with the privacy protection in- tended by the terms ofthe deed. Lastly, the provision also serves to restore to the original autopsy records donated by the Kennedy family to the National Archives any reproductions or copies of such records. This provision specifi- cally governs all reproductions or copies made by official investiga- tive committees or for other purposes, including those created by or for the House Select Committee on Assassinations . During its hearings, the Committee was provided a “protocol” or summary inventory of the HSCA records prepared by the National Archives. The “protocol” revealed that the HSCA records contain Kennedy autopsy photographs and X-rays which were duplicated from the original records conveyed by the Kennedy deed. This is true despite a clear and documented understanding between the attorney for the Kennedy family and the National Archives, set forth in an August 15, 1977, memorandum by the National Archives general counsel. This memorandum required that all reproductions or copies of the autopsy records be returned to the original collection. It.is intended that the Kennedy autopsy records contained in the HSCA records should be restored to the original collection of such records in the National Archives and treated as Kennedy autopsy . records which are exempt from disclosure under the Act. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection and the National Archives and Records Administration The legislation is designed and retitled to achieve the single most important purpose of the Act: public access to the assassination records. The records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are the most publicly sought-after, unreleased records of our government. It is necessary to ensure that our nation’s _ public access laws apply in full to these records. In Section 4, the Act requires the Archivist to establish the President.John F. Ken- nedy Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives and Records Administration [National Archives]. Furthermore, the Archivist, the National Archives, and presidential libraries have * specific responsibilities with regard to public access and disclosure, as well as for providing guidance to government offices whose records are the subject ofthe Act. = - Lot nde ‘to provide a uniform method for identifying records and ae ‘tion accessible to the public includes the Committee’s concern ove provisions of the Freedom of Information Act be applied by the Na 8B Subject Guidebook and Index Section 4(a) requires that the Archivist create a subject guid: book and index so that the public may identify ‘and make requ for assassination records in the Collection. It is intended that guidebook and index, or parts thereof, be made publicly avails i} on a-cumulative basis. In addition, it is intended that the Archivi ensure thet copies of the completed guidebook and index are di tributed: nationally to ensure access to the Collection through |r quests for reproduction of documents. | Identification or Finding Aid ; In Section 5(d\(BX1XA) the Archivist is required to develop la identification aid for all- assassination records. The p of identification aid ig to serve as a communication tool. It is inte clearest possible communication between government offices, o: nating bodies, the Review Board, and others. A final purpose of t identification aid is to serve as a finding aid to those in the Natior al Archives who will be archiving and preparing the subject guide book of the assassination records. The Archivist’s responsibilitie with regard to the identification aid are solely for the preparatio: [ of a standard form that can be used easily and effectively for above by all government offices. Each government offic must use the identification aid as required by this Act, and the chiviet may not alter or amend those requirements in any way & — any additional guidance or-regulation. Fees for Reproduction of Records The Archivist’s responsibilities with regard to making the Coll the cost of records reproduction. It is intended that the Nationa Archives, along with other executive agencies, are required make copies of assassination records available to the public at reasonable cost. Additio: , the Act requires that the fee waiv eu tional Archives, executive agencies, and all originating bodies in cluding the Congress. The fee waiver provisions are essential provi sions of law which have served an important purpose of easing: anc facilitating public access to government reco! In developing the legislation, the Committee carefully considere¢ | the cost of reproduction of the assassination records charged to the & public and the application of the Freedom, of Information Act fe ‘waiver requirements to the National Archives other government offices which possess assassination records. Just as the definition o! the term assassination.records is the threshold test for public confi- dence. in the scope of disclosure resulting from the Act, public access itself is the single most important purpose of the Act. _ For example, it has been the experience of certain researchers, | including the Assassination Archives and Records Center, that it is more expensive to obtain copies of records related to the i i tion of President Kennedy from the National Archives than from the origina’ ting such as the Central Intelligence (CIA) and the edcral Buren of Inwestiontian (PRT The Agency
14-00000 nn ee 24 tee examined this concern by investigating the cost of obtaining i copies of records at the National Archives and at agencies includ- ing the CIA and the FBI. The Committee i sought to de- termine the cost of reproduction of records which are “on the shelf” and for which no search is requi ; The Committee confirmed that it is more expensive for the public to obtain “on the shelf” records at the National Archives than ‘at originating agencies, This is the result to two factors: Pric- ing policy and app. ication of the fee waiver provisions of the Free- dom of Information Act (FOIA). The National Archives charges the public a higher price for reproduction and does not honor the fee waiver provisions of the FOIA in the belief that it is exempt from such provisions. ~ . _ The Committee determined that the pricing policy of the CIA and the FBI are identical. Where no search is required, the first one-hundred pages are free, and additional copies cost ten cents per page-— ess of whether the public takes delivery in person at the agency or by mail. In comparison, the National Archives charges the public ten cents per page for copies of records which are requested in person, and twenty-five cents per page for copies of records requiring mailing. The result has been that the National Archives has created a burden on the public to shop around gov- ernment for the least expensive means of obtaining copies of records. As a result of these findings, and the National Archives _ determination to continue to charge more for records reproduction than agencies who comply with the Freedom of Information Act fee . 8c e requirements and guidelines, the Act provides in Section §(h) that the public may also seek copies of “assassination records” from the originating agencies. _- ; The Committee next determined that it is less expensive for the public to obtain copies of records at originating agencies than at the National Archives because the agencies fee waiver provisions of the FOIA. Again, the Committee was especially concerned with the history of access to “on the shelf’ records related to the assassina- tion of President Kennedy. The Committee examined the National Archives claim that it is exempt from such provisions of the FOIA, the influence that this interpretation has had on the cost of records to the public, and the impact of such a policy on uniform and rea- sonable access and public disclosure costs under this Act. The Committee determined that application of the FOIA fee waiver provisions are particularly essential with to the records related to the assassination of President John F. . First, the National Archives is covered by the Freedom of Informa- tion Act, there is no exception.to this requirement in law, and to create such an exception would undermine the application of the nation’s foremost means of public access and government account- ability at the nation’s foremost repository of government records. Second, without applying the FOIA fee waiver provision to the Kennedy assassination records the National Archives would be acting in a manner which undermines that law. Simply put, the public would lose its rights under the Freedom of Information Act as soon as any record is transferred to the National Archives. Third, a¢ with ite pricing policy, its policy with to the FOIA ; . = Rae dae rma éha onhiie he raniiring . ecutive agencies including the National Archives. ‘and not vice versa. Third, there is less likelihood of loss or destr 25 that it shop around the government for the least expensive meas of records reproduction. | The Committee believes that it-is n records contained in the President John F. Kennedy Assassinati Records Collection because to do otherwise would seriously co with the and intent of public access and disclosure und the Act. While the Congress cannot specify the exact cost of reco reproduction under the Act, it is clearly intended that the costs - reasonable and that the FOIA fee waiver provisions apply at all __ Information Security Another area of responsibility ‘of the Archivist has to do with|i formation security. The Act.requires that the Collection inclu records which are publicly available under the Act as well as thc which are ed. e purpose behind housing postpon records at the National Archives is threefold: First, even tho postponed, these records are not exempt, and are therefore a of the Collection to be disclosed. Second, the Act requires perio: review of postponed records, in addition to the review specifica ; to uire the app | cation of the: FOIA fee waiver provisions te public sonnet designated by the Review Board. The Committee believes that sv | review should occur at a single facility, That will be most effecti | ly achieved by bringing the review committee to the documé) tion, and therefore ease of access at a single central location. The Act requires that the Archivist consult with the Informat: Security Oversight Office with regard to the protection of px poned records. This is required because during the course of de opment of the legislation several agencies expressed reluctan providing the original or even reproductions of classified or o' wise confidential information to the National Archives. An ment of the National Archives information security program the Information Security Oversight Office (SOO) was requ agencies. For the five year period between August 1987 and Ma 1992, Mr. Steven Garfinkel, Director of ISOO, identified 85 vir tions of improper disclosure and handling of classified informa by the National Archives at. 10 different facilities including Main Archives Building. Mr. Garfinkel stated that the Natio Archives “has not devoted or does have sufficient resources devote to its information security -” He added that the| tional Archives “currently has only one full-time information rity specialist.” Mr. Garfinkel cited overcrowding of docum commingling of classified and unclassified records, and other tors is the security problems at the National Archives. Senator Glenn. The results confirmed the concerns of a - The requirement in the Act for consultation between ISOO. | the National Archives is essential to the Archives fulfilling the @ sponsibilities in the Act for archiving and protecting postpo records. Failure in developing and properly implementing the ommendations of ISOO, and ing concerns of affected a cies, will prevent the transmission of postponed records to the tional Archives. -
14-00000 2 8. _ Publications and Reprints of Documents The original legislation gave the Archivist the authority to iden- ify records for reproduction and sale by the inti ernmental Affairs does not include this provision. First, it is be- poved that by requiring the Archivist to complete a subject guide- having this detailed document-by-document guide. It is expected that this guidebook and index will be nationally distributed and provide the public with the: best access to particular records, nd, estimates of the volume of records in the Collection will exceed one million pages, and it is unlikely that the Archivist would consider it feasible to seek multiple reproductions of boun: volumes containing all the documents ultimately released. Third, the Act serves to facilitate public disclosure, not to interpret, edit, or evaluate relevant records. To do otherwise would effectively au- thorize an official government editor, deciding for the American public which documents are “important” and once again interpos- ing the fevernment between the ination of President Kenne- dy and @ American public. The for Tonnretains existing guthor- ity making records available for reprin an le by the Public Printer, but such action should be undertaken with the afore- stated considerations in mind. In Section 2, the Act includes presidential libraries within the definition of the National Archives, and in Section (CXS) it specifi- cally requires the directors of presidential libraries to e ite the review of all assassination records and. make them available to the dential libraries to determine which of its records may qualify. as “assassination records”, regardless of whether the records were conveyed to the government by a deed or gift or donation, and ’ where appropriate, be reviewed under the standards for postpone- ment of the Act, not the more restrictive standards of the Freedom of Information Act or an executive order on information classifica- tion, : ; This provision reflects the existence of relevant records at presi- dential libraries, particularly, though not exclusively to include, the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Lib i i the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Each of these presidential libraries received pertinent records by deeds of gift or donation, but which have either been made public} available or which are in the Process of being made publicly avai able. Specific sets of records which should made immediately available for public disclosure, review by the Review Board, and in- clusion in the Collection as set forth by this Act. development of the legislation, the Committee contacted the Ford and Johnson presidential libraries with regard to the public availability of its holdings. In the case of the Lyndon B. Jo! n Presidential Library, the particular provision requiri expedited review, availability to the Review Board, and public disclosure was developed in consultation with its k and index to the Collection, the public will be best served by - . _ Tecords of the Rockefeller Commission related to the investi - Standards for postponement For the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential this provigi Ww Library, f the expedited review, availability to the Revie Boar Wires : public disclosure of all assassination records, and in particul; the relevant portions of the 8,095 tape recorded conversations the library's possession. ‘These recordings were made by Preside: Johnson, and were donated to the library by his former person assistant. Mildred in 1978. For the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, this Provision r quires the expedited review, availability to the Review Board, az public disclosure of all assassination records, and in particular £ of the assassination. closure of assassination records, It is important to emphasize stponemient means that the records will b be publicly available publicly disclosed at some point in the future, and that the ards for ent are not exemptions from disclosure, thermore, it is intended that the standards ary, not compulsory, requirements for disclosure. The underlyin prea: for a lying the standards for postponement remains th presumption of disclosure establish records or information should be narrowly drawn to enable the Thi jority of any record to disclosed immediately, so that the redactip 18 hinimal, and su ject to review and disclosure in the near fu ‘It is intended that the Review Board should make its own dete nations and that its judgments will be sha Section 6 establishes the grounds for postponement of public ay knowledge, and during the course of its work. In additior it is important to emphasize that nement requires that the be “clear and convincing evidence” that particular standards postponement are triggered. Certain clarifications, however, ma: useful to assist in providing the perspectives of the overnmen|! the Congress, and the public, ; 8 Intelligence Agents, Sources, or Methods a Section GOA) permite ‘ n is yeal'an intelligence agent w! identity curren uires tection.” Concerns over the breadth of thi provision have bear raised by representatives of government agencies and riences researchers, and have been considered in development of the provi | sion. Intelligence Agents One of the earliest concerns was whether the identity of a de. intelligence agent could be ned, it sercgged that at times this might be nesemary (Peat Lect continu rotection. é the definition of an “intelligence agent.” The government believes | the Act. Any postpone § ca its experienc: nement if the disclosure wo ft