<DOC> [DOCID: f:90483.wais] H.R. 1553, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD REAUTHORIZATION ACT ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 1553 TO AMEND THE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION ACT OF 1992 TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 __________ JUNE 4, 1997 __________ Serial No. 105-85 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 90-483 WASHINGTON : 2004 _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------ VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent) ROB PORTMAN, Ohio Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director ------ Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JIM TURNER, Texas BOB BARR, Georgia Ex Officio DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Robert Charles, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Jeff Schaffner, Professional Staff Member Ianthe Saylor, Clerk David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 4, 1997..................................... 1 Text of H.R. 1553............................................ 6 Statement of: Stokes, Hon. Louis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio.............................................. 7 Tunheim, John, chair, Assassination Records Review Board; Steven Tilley, Chief, John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, National Archives; Max Holland, author, contributing editor, Wilson Quarterly; and Bruce Hitchcock, teacher, Noblesville High School, Indiana.................. 14 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 4 Hastert, Hon. J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, prepared statement of............... 3 Hitchcock, Bruce, teacher, Noblesville High School, Indiana, prepared statement of...................................... 50 Holland, Max, author, contributing editor, Wilson Quarterly, prepared statement of...................................... 39 Stokes, Hon. Louis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 9 Tilley, Steven, Chief, John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, National Archives, prepared statement of....... 30 Tunheim, John, chair, Assassination Records Review Board, prepared statement of...................................... 17 H.R. 1553, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD REAUTHORIZATION ACT ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:15 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Dennis Hastert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Hastert, Souder, LaTourette, Barrett, Cummings, and Turner. Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director and chief counsel; Jeff Schaffner, professional staff member; Ianthe Saylor, clerk; David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk. Mr. Hastert. The Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice will come to order. This hearing will focus on a very important piece of legislation: H.R. 1553, the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board Reauthorization Act. This bill was introduced by Chairman Dan Burton on May 8, 1997. Included in the original cosponsors: Ranking Minority Member Henry Waxman and Congressman Louis Stokes, our first witness for today, also who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In 1992, 30 years after the assassination, nearly 1 million pages of records compiled by official investigations still have not been made public. Congress decided to set up a process for reviewing and releasing to the public the records surrounding the Kennedy assassination. The result was that on October 26, 1992 President Bush signed into Public Law 102-526, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. The original act provided a 3-year timetable for a Review Board to compete its work. Unfortunately, extensive delays in the appointment of Board members delayed the Review Board's work from the very beginning. In 1994 the Congress extended the 1992 law's termination date for 1 year, until September 30, 1996. The Review Board subsequently exercised its authority under the statute to continue operating for 1 additional year. The review process has proved to be more complex and time- consuming than anticipated. And although we believe that Congress should not indefinitely continue funding Federal entities that were intended to be temporary, Chairman Burton and this subcommittee support the request for a 1-year extension of the Board's reauthorization. I believe that by releasing these documents to the public we serve the important public right to know and advance the cause of total accountability of the people of this country. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett. [The prepared statements of Hon. J. Dennis Hastert and Hon. Dan Burton, and the text of H.R. 1553 follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 105th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1553 To amend the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend the authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until September 30, 1998. ______ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 8, 1997 Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Stokes) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned ______ A BILL To amend the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend the authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until September 30, 1998. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) is amended-- (1) in section 7(o)(1), by striking ``September 30, 1996'' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``September 30, 1998.''; and (2) in section 13(a), by striking ``such sums'' and all that follows through ``expended'' and inserting ``to carry out the provisions of this Act $1,600,000 for fiscal year 1998''. ------ Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to welcome my esteemed colleague, Representative Louis Stokes, to testify before this subcommittee. We're fortunate to be able to draw on your experience in this area. Over 30 years ago this country was shocked by the assassination of President Kennedy in a way that it had not been shocked since the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the bombing of Hiroshima. Yet today we are still prying papers out of the government about that assassination. The legislation that created the assassination Review Board broke new ground by establishing the principle that there should be a presumption of public access to government information. That legislation was necessary because administration after administration had failed to release documents. That should not be. The assassination Review Board released millions of pages that could have otherwise remained locked in government file drawers. We are here today to extend the authorization of this Board, because the process of making government information public has been more complex and time consuming than anticipated. I am not criticizing the work of the Board or the dedication of its members. I am, however, critical of the fact that we are still fighting with our government to allow public access to government documents. Congress has passed laws and resolutions reiterating the principles of public access that were laid down when this country was founded. Administration after administration has worked to thwart that access. I applaud President Clinton for his efforts to declassify documents, but we need to do much more. I hope that every employee at the Office of Management and Budget and every agency in the government will pay attention to what this Board has accomplished. It is a refusal to allow public access that breeds suspicion of the government. It is the thwarting of public access that causes the public to mistrust government officials. If we are to turn the tide of mistrust and suspicion it will be done by opening the doors of access. Today is one step in that process. But there is much more work to be done. Thank you. Mr. Hastert. Thank you very much. I now hand it over to any members wishing to make an opening statement. If not, our first witness this morning is fellow Congressman Louis Stokes, who served as the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1976 to 1979 and as a cosponsor of this support and bill. And Mr. Stokes, we want to say welcome and thank you for your fine work in this area. And please proceed with your opening statement. STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS STOKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Turner, Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit my written testimony for the record. And, if I may, I'd like to just summarize my testimony. Mr. Hastert. Without objection. Mr. Stokes. Thank you. It seems, Mr. Chairman, though it's not as long as it is--but it's been actually 20 years--it was 1977 when I was appointed as chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. We were authorized at that time and directed to complete an investigation surrounding the assassination and the death of President John F. Kennedy. We completed, as you've already stated, our investigation in 1979. And on March 28th of that year we filed our final report. In addition to it, 12 volumes of evidentiary material printed by the Government Printing Office was made available to the American public. In addition to this, we conducted 18 days of public hearings and an additional 2 days of public policy hearings. Now, prior to the committee running out of both time and money, we had released everything that we had the time and the resources to release. All of our other records were placed in the National Archives under House of Representatives Rule-- which existed at that time--Rule XXXVI, requiring such unpublished records routinely to be sealed for 30 to 50 years. The records of our committee relative to this investigation consisted of 935 boxes, which we turned over to the National Archives. Then, over the years, considerable public debate about these records has ensued, including accusations that these records, if released, would contain evidence of a government cover-up or complicity of government agencies in the assassination of President Kennedy. A great deal of this was fueled in 1992 by a movie entitled ``JFK.'' That movie contained many distortions to the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of our President. As a result of that movie my office was deluged with thousands of letters and telegrams by Americans calling for the release of these sealed files. As a Member of Congress and a former chairman of that committee, I deemed it important not to have the good work of our committee impugned by such base accusations. Our committee had attempted to conduct its investigation into the assassination of the President and present the results of that investigation to the Congress and to the American people in a thorough and dignified manner in keeping with the memory of this great President. Consequently, in 1992 I introduced, and the House and Senate passed, Public Law 102-526, a bill entitled, ``The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.'' That law created the Assassination Records Review Board, which mandated and authorized that Board to identify, secure, and make available all records related to the assassination of President Kennedy. It was our intention, Mr. Chairman, that everything that could be released from every agency, every court record, anywhere they existed, that those records be released to the American people. Under the law, the Board had until October 1, 1996 to fulfill its mandate, plus an additional year at the Board's discretion. We were very fortunate to have a very distinguished panel. This panel was appointed by President Clinton 18 months after the law was enacted here by the Congress--a considerable delay in the appointment of this panel. But we were very fortunate to have persons such as Chairman Tunheim, Dr. Henry Graff, Dr. Kermit Hall, Dr. William Joyce, Dr. Anna Nelson, and outstanding Executive Director David Marwell. Under this panel, they have now released more than 10,000 previously secret government documents. They have released a report which I would urge all the members of the committee to read if they have an opportunity, because I think you will see the extensive amount of work in which they have been involved. They now need 1 additional final year in order to complete their work. Their work in this period of time will be primarily to secure the release of documents from the CIA and the FBI. Those are the two main agencies left from which they still have a considerable number of documents to be released. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I think that it's important that we complete this work and in an orderly manner with full and complete disclosure to the American public so that they will feel that they know everything that their government knows about the assassination of their President. And I would urge the support and passage of this legislation sponsored by Chairman Burton on which I am one of the original cosponsors. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Hon. Louis Stokes follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. I really appreciate the work that you have done here. I have just two brief questions here. Actually three. You believe that the Review Board is up and running smoothly now? Mr. Stokes. Absolutely. In spite of the delay of 18 months, they have done just a yeoman's amount of work. It's just been almost incomparable to realize how much they have done. And to their credit, they feel that if given just this one additional year, that they will complete the work. Mr. Hastert. And do you believe that this process is consistent with the goals of your original legislation in 1992? Mr. Stokes. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hastert. And then you are confident, as you said before, that the Review Board can finish its task by September 30, 1998? Mr. Stokes. I'm just very confident that in projecting the fact that they can finish this work in 1 year. And when they say, themselves, as they will say to you when they appear, this will be 1 final year. Mr. Hastert. Thank you very much. And thank you for your testimony. Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a lot of questions, either. I just want to compliment you, Congressman Stokes, on the fine job that you have done. Mr. Stokes. Thank you. Mr. Barrett. Just one question. Do you think that in the unfortunate and hopefully unlikely scenario that there are future assassinations that this was a good way to approach this problem--the panel that you served? Do you think that you have accomplished what you intended to accomplish? Mr. Hastert. Mr. Barrett, at the time that we undertook this panel and Congress passed the act to create this panel, 85 percent of the American people believed that someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald had participated in the assassination of President Kennedy. A national poll had told us that. There were boundless rumors and myths. People were writing numerous books and things of that sort. And as a consequence of it, I think that putting this panel together and permitting this type of investigation was very helpful. I think it allayed many of the rumors and myths that grew up and abounded around the assassination of our President. However, I don't think that they've put to bed everything. We uncovered many things. For instance, we pointed out many things that the Warren Commission had not done properly. And we were able to destroy many of the myths, such as the umbrella man theory and things of that sort. But we couldn't put everything to bed. We had begun that investigation 15 years after the assassination of the President. I think if had we been given this type of investigation immediately after it had occurred, it would have been a different result. But many of the witnesses had died, evidence had disappeared. As you can see now, there were materials which we were not able to get even within that 2-year period before we went out of existence. And so, as a consequence of it, I think we did an outstanding job. No one has ever been able to refute any of the work that we did. No one has been able, thus far, to say that anything was ever covered up from the American people. And so, to that degree, I think that it performed a good service for the American people. Mr. Barrett. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Hastert. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this hearing today and for also expediting the markup on 1553, and give praise to the cosponsors, our chairman, Mr. Burton, Mr. Waxman, and also to Congressman Stokes. The editorial comment I would make is I'm always amazed at each succeeding day that I serve in Congress of the rich history that a number of our colleagues have. And to now have our fine colleague from Ohio, Congressman Stokes from Cleveland, here, and talk about his previous work in the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Although many members in the House remember his service, I would venture to say that there are a number of people back home that don't know all of the things that you've done during your many years of service to this Congress and this country. Just as an example, the other day I found out--and I don't know if you're a lawyer or not, Mr. Chairman--but I found out that Congressman Stokes--well, you're lucky you're not a lawyer--but I am. And I'm proud to be a lawyer. And I found out that Congressman Stokes was responsible for a ruling called Terry v. Ohio. And you might have heard of a Terry frisk and search. And I didn't know that until the other day, that Congressman Stokes had a hand in that. So, again, we find Congressman Stokes showing up again sharing his expertise with the country. Louis, the one question that I would have deals with, in both your written testimony and then also your observations to Congressman Barrett's question you talked about the JFK movie and all of the rumors and innuendos and the public polls. And you still run into people, as I'm sure I still run into people that aren't convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on that November day in Dallas. And part of it has to do, I think, with, after your Commission met, and now the legislation in 1992 and a little delay in getting everybody in place in the Review Board, do you think it was necessary--after you've reviewed the documents in this case--that we waited, as a government, 34 years to make these documents available? Was there something impinging upon the national security that you found or discovered that made it necessary for the government to wait 34 full years before releasing this information and hopefully dispelling some of those rumors? Mr. Stokes. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Latourette, firstly for your nice remarks. But it's a good question, because not many people realize that this was not--when we sealed these records for the period 30 to 50 years, this was not done because of anything relative to this particular investigation. That was a House Rule in existence at that time that applied to any committee that when it completed its work and filed its final report, if they had documents which had not been released publicly, under that House Rule, they had to be sealed for 30 to 50 years. The same applied to the other part of that investigation which we conducted, which was to investigate the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which was a companion part of our investigation. So that applied to that one also. But as a result of it, in compliance with the House Rule, it just sort of sat there until things were stirred up by that JFK movie, and it sort of brought things to a head. Mr. LaTourette. OK. The principles behind your 1992 legislation--the Assassinations Record Collection Act-- obviously now we collect records differently than we did before. A lot of them are electronically stored. Do you think that we can use that act as a vehicle should another tragedy-- God forbid we should ever have such another tragedy in this country--but should another tragedy such as this occur, and can we use the lessons learned in the model of this Review Board to prevent the significant time lag between the date of event and the eventual release of documents for public review? Mr. Stokes. I would hope, Mr. LaTourette, that we have learned some lessons. First, here in the Congress we no longer have such a rule in effect. And that will help us, I think, tremendously. But also, I think by the agencies now working with a review panel of this sort, and the realizing that many of the type of documents which they will cite to you in their testimony--for instance, there is a very interesting document that they will talk about where the whole page, with the exception of just the date and the name of a country, everything was redacted. And under their work, that whole page has been released and everyone can read that. What you do by that is that you're able to allay all the suspicion as to what really has been redacted and people can really see. And then you can't have the kind of rumors and myths that grow up around it. And I think and hope that, in the event of such an occurrence in the future--which all of us hope will never occur--that our agencies will realize that this has been a good example of how we can allay some of the fears and suspicions that the American people have around the manner in which we conduct this type of thing. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Congressman Stokes, for your expertise. Mr. Stokes. Thank you. Mr. LaTourette. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Hastert. Thank you, and at this time recognize the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All I would add is to also compliment you, Mr. Stokes, for your many years of work on this effort. I, too, stand somewhat in awe of the number of years of service and your contributions to this body. Mr. Stokes. Thank you. Mr. Turner. And I know the Congress and the American people are grateful for the years of service you have provided not only on this issue, but on many other issues to which you've contributed. And I also want to thank those who served on this panel, because I'm sure that it's a time-consuming endeavor to carry out this task. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stokes. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Mr. Hastert. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Mr. Stokes. Thank you. Mr. Hastert. Will the second panel come forward, please. Our distinguished second panel includes four witnesses: Mr. John Tunheim, chair of the Assassination Records Review Board, Mr. Steven Tilley, Chief of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives; we also have Mr. Max Holland, author and contributing editor of the Wilson Quarterly, and Mr. Bruce Hitchcock, a historian and teacher at Noblesville High School in Indiana, our distinguished chairman's home State. And I also would say that at this time Mr. Burton wanted to be here to make a few comments. He is not here yet. We may entertain that at any time. So, if you gentlemen would please stand. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Hastert. Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And if we'd start with you, Mr. Tunheim. STATEMENTS OF JOHN TUNHEIM, CHAIR, ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD; STEVEN TILLEY, CHIEF, JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION RECORDS COLLECTION, NATIONAL ARCHIVES; MAX HOLLAND, AUTHOR, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, WILSON QUARTERLY; AND BRUCE HITCHCOCK, TEACHER, NOBLESVILLE HIGH SCHOOL, INDIANA Mr. Tunheim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to submit my written testimony for the record and just give a brief summary to the members of the subcommittee today. I'd like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify today in favor of House bill 1553. And I'd also like to note our thanks to Congressman Stokes for his leadership on this issue and his guidance in the important effort to release the records relating to the tragic assassination of President Kennedy. The Review Board is confident that the additional time requested and provided by Congressman Burton's bill will allow us to complete our work and submit a truly complete final report to the Congress, to the President, and to the American public. I'd like to thank Chairman Burton for introducing the bill and Congressmen Waxman and Stokes for cosponsoring the bill that is before this subcommittee today. And I also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your role in chairing this hearing today and assisting in this effort. One of the other members of the Review Board is present with us today. I'd like to introduce her. Dr. Anna Nelson, who is the distinguished adjunct historian in residence at the American University and is seated in the row directly behind me. Dr. David Marwell, the executive director of the Review Board, is also here, as are a number of staff members who are very professional and very dedicated and have done their work for us very well. The Review Board, Mr. Chairman, began releasing records in July 1995 pursuant to the act passed by Congress. And thus far, the Board has acted specifically to transfer more than 14,000 documents to the JFK Collection at the National Archives. That collection, as Mr. Tilley will tell the subcommittee shortly, now contains more than 3.7 million pages worth of material. I'd like to show one brief and rather dramatic example of the work that the Review Board is doing. Congressman Stokes mentioned this issue in his testimony. This involves one particular record. This is the before version, the record that was available to the public up until several years ago. You probably cannot see it from here, but it was a document that was sent from the FBI's representative in Paris to Director Hoover on October 12, 1960. That is indicated at the top of the memorandum. The subject, as indicated, is Lee Harvey Oswald internal security. And then it says, ``Re: Paris letter, 9/27/ 60.'' And the remainder of the entire document is blacked out. Not surprisingly, a document like this dated 3 years prior to the assassination of President Kennedy, a document sent to J. Edgar Hoover, attracted a great deal of interest among researchers who saw it, because everything was blacked out underneath. The speculation that individuals had about this was great. While the Board aggressively pursued the release of this information, initially ordering its release, the FBI appealed that decision to the President. Subsequently, we worked out with them, including an aggressive effort to contact Swiss authorities, who were the subject of this particular document. I met personally with the Swiss Ambassador to the United States to ask for his assistance in obtaining Swiss approval to release it. And here is the record that is now released to the American public at the National Archives. All of the material is released. And what it indicates was the FBI was interested in whether Oswald was indeed attending a college in Switzerland during that period of time. And the document tells about the investigation that Swiss authorities did to determine whether Oswald was indeed enrolled. He was someone who the FBI was following because of his interest in defecting to the Soviet Union. That's a good example of the type of work that the Review Board is doing, pursuing individual releases of information that has long been redacted from the public. The Board has worked closely with Federal agencies. The vast majority of the records are at the CIA and the FBI. We have completed the review of the core collections in both of those agencies. And significant numbers of materials have been released. The Board has also been aggressive in identifying and acquiring significant assassination related records that have been in the hands of private citizens and local governments. Just a couple of examples: the papers of J. Lee Rankin, who was the chief counsel to the Warren Commission, have now been released through the efforts of the Review Board. Virtually all of the records of the prosecution in New Orleans of Clay Shaw were also released. And I'm announcing for the first time today that the Review Board has just acquired the original personal papers of Clay Shaw. He was the individual prosecuted in New Orleans in 1969-- the only individual prosecuted for the assassination of President Kennedy. That will add another dimension to the story. This is an example of his diary, which the Board has just obtained, and will be released as soon as we can process the materials. It's very interesting. It's his diary from the day that he was arrested on March 1, 1967, and his feelings about Oswald on that particular day. Despite the best estimate, Mr. Chairman, that this job could be done in 3 years, we cannot finish our work by the end of this fiscal year. We're confident that in the additional year we will be able to get through the records, which will largely involve the sequestered collections at the CIA and at the FBI, records sequestered by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. I'd be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, that you and the Members have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Tunheim follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Hastert. Thank you. We'll hold all the questions until the end of the testimony. Mr. Tunheim. Very well. Mr. Hastert. Mr. Tilley. Mr. Tilley. Mr. Chairman, I am Steven Tilley, and I am Chief of the Access and Freedom of Information staff at the National Archives and Records Administration. And I wish to thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the National Archives in support of H.R. 1553. I am appearing today in my capacity as NARA's chief of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. In that role, I am charged with implementing NARA's responsibilities under the act. And I serve as NARA's liaison to the Assassination Records Review Board. It's my understanding that my written statement will be made part of the record. Therefore, I'll be brief in my remarks. Mr. Chairman, this month marks the 20th anniversary of the closing of the office of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. I oversaw the closing of that office and supervised the transfer of those records to the National Archives. Most of my career at the National Archives since then has been working with sensitive records. In 1993 I became chief of the JFK Collection. And I've served in that capacity ever since. When the Review Board members were confirmed by the Senate in April 1994, my staff and I began to work with the Board and later with the Board's staff to provide information on the records of the JFK Collection, the development and use of NARA's data base, our contacts and discussions with other agencies involved in searches for assassination records, and the existence of assassination records in the custody of private repositories or individuals. The Review Board and NARA have maintained an excellent working relationship through the 3 years of the Board's existence. And I'd like to think that this close relationship has in some way contributed to the success of the Review Board. NARA enthusiastically supports passage of H.R. 1553 to extend the Review Board's authorization. The Board needs the time designated in this bill to complete its important work in making available as complete of a historical record as possible concerning the assassination of President Kennedy. I would like to briefly offer for your consideration some statistics and facts to demonstrate the success of the Board. The JFK Assassination Records Collection has grown to more than 1,600 cubic feet of records, or approximately 3.75 million pages from more than 30 different government offices. These numbers are a testament to the work of the Board in obtaining the cooperation of the entire Federal Government as well as private donors in this important task. For the information of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I have attached to my testimony a copy of the register of the collection, which lists the major groups of Federal records and private papers along with a supplemental listing of FBI records. Not only has the collection increased dramatically in size, the significance of the records in the collection cannot be underestimated. In addition to the records of numerous executive branch agencies and offices, the records of relevant congressional committees, related court cases and records donated by private entities are also available in the collection. This rich documentation is searchable electronically, giving researchers the ability to seek out documents concerning a topic, person or event, or even individual documents not only at NARA's College Park facility but from their own personal computer through the Internet. Finally, Mr. Chairman, public demand for these records is the ultimate evidence of the value of this collection. Reference requests have risen in number every year since the collection opened with new records in 1993. This year we have already received over 600 written inquiries, an increase of over 30 percent from this period last year. The number of inquiries on our computer Web site has also steadily increased since March 1996 when the assassination records data base was made available through the Internet. It has been accessed over 100,000 times by the public. Due to the exceptional work of the Assassination Records Review Board, great progress has been made on making available as complete a record as possible in the history of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Without the focus, integrity and expertise of the Review Board, the collection would not have the size, quality or public demand witnessed today. However, there is still much to do. NARA supports passage of H.R. 1553 so this important work can be completed. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Tilley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Hastert. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Holland. Mr. Holland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a brief statement summarizing my testimony. Nearly 75 years after President Lincoln's assassination, a chemist turned author named Otto Eisenschiml provoked a national furor with his 1937 book, ``Why Was Lincoln Murdered?'' Eisenschiml claimed one of the most important events in American history was still a mystery. And Eisenschiml claimed to have uncovered the truth: President Lincoln was a victim of a conspiracy organized by his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, who was allegedly opposed to the President's program for a charitable post-war reconstruction of the South. When pressed, Otto Eisenschiml openly admitted that he had no evidence to support his case. At the same time, though, it was precisely the documentary record that enabled critics to prove that Eisenschiml's book was just another in a long line of lunatic theories about the first assassination of an American President. Here lies, I submit, the long-term importance of the work being carried out by the AARB. The meaning of the raw data being unearthed by the Review Board will probably not be appreciated any time soon by the generations sentient when President Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. But if these generations cannot come to terms with history as it happened in their lifetimes, then at the very least they have an obligation to hand over, insofar as possible, a complete and thorough documentary record. Citizens will need that record to rebut the Otto Eisenschimls of the next century--not that there is any dearth of them now. I strongly support, without qualification, extension of the Review Board for another year and full funding of its operations. Bringing its work to an abrupt end would not only diminish the investment of time and resources already made; in all likelihood, it would throw the whole initiative into chaos. Not least of all, gutting the effort now would surely create an ineradicable suspicion about the Federal Government's intentions in the first place. I'd like to spend the balance of my time describing the three areas where I think the Review Board has made its greatest contributions. The first has to do with the Warren Commission. The Review Board's labors have resulted in many new documents that I believe will eventually remove the stigma that has been attached to the Commission, which is probably the most unfairly reviled and ridiculed entity ever created by the Federal Government. These records paint a sobering portrait of our Federal Government during a very traumatic time. It's not the idealized versions depicted in civics textbooks nor the demonized version featured on talk radio. It's the real Federal Government: imperfect, plodding, driven by ambition, distrust, rivalries, compartmentalized by secrecy, working at cross purposes or in ignorance, simultaneously guided by the most banal bureaucratic instincts and the most elevated national concerns. Somehow, through all of that, it does struggle and manage to do the right thing. Besides the Warren Commission, I think the work of the Review Board has made a very substantial contribution toward understanding the operations of the intelligence community. The assassination necessarily caused what could only be termed a mobilization of the U.S. intelligence community's far-flung resources. The government had to determine that weekend who was responsible and whether the assassin or assassins had any coconspirators either foreign or domestic. Consequently, the records being released now constitute a gold mine of information about domestic and foreign intelligence operations at the midpoint of the cold war. These records not only shed new light on what the government knew 34 years ago, the release is an object lesson in why they were kept secret for all those years. They do not contradict the Federal Government's official conclusion as stated in the Warren Report. Rather, the documents were kept secret because they disclosed or tended to disclose ongoing intelligence sources and methods. With the release of these documents, the intelligence community's record in the wake of the assassination can finally be assessed with some fairness and thoroughness. The fact is that the information provided by the FBI, CIA and other agencies was instrumental in preventing the U.S. Government from overreacting when the circumstantial public evidence was highly suggestive of a link between Lee Harvey Oswald and a foreign power. The last area in which the Review Board has made perhaps its greatest contribution has to do with the whole issue of secrecy and disclosure. The balance between secrecy and disclosure has always been in favor of secrecy, especially since World War II, controlled by laws highly deferential to the equities of the interested government agencies. The five citizens who serve on the Review Board decided that if their mandate was to have any meaning, it was imperative to pierce this veil. They had to get at categories that had been classified heretofore, including information derived from intelligence sources and methods. While some historians have been critical of the resources devoted to this particular effort, I like to believe that a breakthrough had to be achieved somewhere. And, in fact, the records pertaining to President Kennedy's assassination make an excellent demonstration project of what can now be released. The lines drawn by the Review Board should prove helpful as the government undertakes to declassify the vast body of records generated during the cold war. Finally, I'd like to say that the entire history of the Federal Government's efforts in the wake of the assassination, including the experience of the Review Board, serves as a cautionary tale. Perhaps it will enable the government to strike a better balance between secrecy and disclosure in the future. For there exists no better example of the heavy wages of doubt, suspicion, and public cynicism exacted by secrecy than the Kennedy assassination experience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Holland follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman. And now, Mr. Hitchcock, I'd like to welcome you especially. The gentleman from Ohio asked me a little while ago if I was an attorney. Indeed, I was not an attorney. I happened to be a history teacher for 16 years before I ever got into politics. So it's certainly a noble trade. And I'm happy that you are here. I know that the chairman wanted to introduce you personally, but he couldn't make it this afternoon. You contributed students, I understand, to clerk for this Commission and have been involved in it to a very high degree. So we welcome you and will listen to your testimony. Mr. Hitchcock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, would ask that my written statement be entered into the record. And I will briefly summarize. Mr. Hastert. Without objection, all written statements will be entered into the record. Mr. Hitchcock. Thank you. My name is Bruce Hitchcock, and I am a teacher at Noblesville High School, located in Noblesville, IN, which is a community approximately 20 miles north of Indianapolis. I am currently completing my 28th year in secondary education. My teaching assignment has primarily been in the areas of U.S. history, American government, and international relations. And I want to express my appreciation to the committee for affording me the honor and privilege of being here today and permitting me to make some brief remarks about which I have very strong convictions, not only as a citizen but as an educator. In the spring of 1994 I assigned my honors U.S. history class a project studying the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This project culminated in the students placing the Warren Commission Report on trial. Half of the class represented the prosecution and half of the class defended the Warren Commission Report. The class became quite interested in and many would say obsessed with this subject. The project resulted in a trial which became quite intense and divisive, so much so that the class had to have a party at the end of the semester to rekindle friendships. They became so fascinated with the subject of the assassination that they requested an opportunity to travel to Washington, DC during the summer following their graduation to do additional research. From that modest class assignment developed an internship opportunity with the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. To date, four student groups from Noblesville High School have interned with the Review Board, with the fifth scheduled for the week of June 16th of this year. When this group completes its work, a total of 56 of our students will have participated in this unique and truly educational opportunity. I might add that except for the first group, succeeding groups have studied, researched, and prepared for their internship on their own time, outside normal class meetings. The most recent group to participate did so over spring break. The fact that students wanted to spend their vacation working with government records reflects the interest that the JFK assassination has for students. In my 28 years of teaching I have never had a topic create as much interest as the assassination of President Kennedy. It is a mystery, and it provides an excellent research opportunity as well as a chance for students to be actively involved in learning. Since November 22, 1963, there have been many who have believed and still believe the government did conceal, continues to conceal, and will continue to conceal the truth. If the Review Board is permitted time to complete its work, it will assist in defusing the last two charges. We cannot prevent the speculation that someone did conceal the truth. But the argument that a cover-up continues and will continue can at least be defused or discouraged. What has been lost cannot be replaced. However, what still exists can be made public. We should have access, and our students should have access to the information and documents still in existence. This is an opportunity for the U.S. Government to provide a credible response to public interest. The Review Board established by the Congress is actually a group of citizens telling the government what to do and what to release. An opportunity exists in this era of skepticism to restore some credibility and trust in the government. In his recent book, ``The Approaching Fury,'' author Stephen B. Oates quotes John Ferling as saying, ``Events by themselves are unimportant. It is the perception of events that is crucial.'' Perhaps in 1997 the most important aspect concerning the assassination of President Kennedy is the perception shared by many of a conspiracy involving individuals and agencies of the U.S. Government. Do we not owe our young people the opportunity to form the most accurate perception possible? Do we not owe them the chance to see as much of the truth intact as can be assembled? It seems to me that we owe this generation and all succeeding generations the opportunity to question, to study and to form opinions on the basis of information they can view independently without solely relying on the opinions of others. Oftentimes while I'm in the classroom, I observe students who have opinions but little to substantiate them. Congress has a chance before it in some small way or maybe in some large way to at least provide them with some more information so that they may have their turn in determining what the JFK assassination means. We have been affected by this event. For 34 years we have been affected. The 56 students from Noblesville High School have, as have countless others, been affected by the events of November 22, 1963. The study of this event has the public's interest. It is an event to which the public and students can relate. It touches people. As an aside, last week an article was published in the Indianapolis Star--I have a copy with me today--regarding our school's ongoing JFK assassination project. Within a day of its publication I had received phone calls from a gentleman offering 500 pages of documents for our use and from a former teacher calling me with information regarding some scholarship opportunities. I also received a call from ABC News Nightline, and yesterday, before leaving Noblesville High School, received a call from Atlanta, GA offering information. The subject of the call from Nightline was seeking information as to what Noblesville High School students were doing with regard to the study of the assassination. Together I think these calls reflect continued local and national interest in continuing to probe into what happened in Dallas. Congress has the opportunity to lay the facts before the American public and permit a more reasoned, rational and fact- based account and discussion of the assassination. I would hope that the committee would take into consideration the fact that the Review Board had a 1-year delay before truly becoming operational, that it is making a one time request for an extension, that the Review Board has been on task and on budget, that the Review Board has conducted its business in a professional and non-partisan manner, and in 1992, when the act was passed by this Congress and signed by President Bush, the enormity of the task was not and could not be fully appreciated. An opportunity exists to complete a task which I believe is overwhelmingly supported by the American public. And it is important that this mission and mandate authorized by Congress be completed. I would like to end with just a couple of quotes, one from former Senator Bob Dole, who said in a different context, ``This is not about only who we are, it is about have we made a difference.'' This is a chance to make a difference. And as former President Reagan often said, ``If not us, who, and if not now, when?'' After 34 years, it is time to let the public know the facts that remain. To do less would be a tragedy and a travesty. As an educator I believe that our most important task is to provide our young people the complete story of who we are and why we are who we are. We have the opportunity to work toward the accomplishment of that goal. It is an opportunity I believe we cannot afford to miss. In his last speech in Fort Worth on November 22, 1963 President Kennedy said, ``We would like to live as we once lived, but history will not permit it.'' History can only be served by permitting the public to see the evidence. Mr. Chairman, as a further aside, if I might just have a few seconds. Reflective of our students' interest in this event, I have my honors government classes perform the project of a model Congress. And one of the students this year--they could write a bill on whatever subject they wished--and one student who worked with the Review Board last year introduced House Concurrent Resolution 1 in support of the Review Board, and concludes, after all the whereases, ``The Congress of the United States firmly supports the Assassination Records Review Board in all endeavors leading to the collection, review and release of the documents regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, and supports the extension of the life of the AARB for an additional fiscal year.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hitchcock follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman. I thank the panel. Now I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Hitchcock, can you give us the name of that student so we can make him or her an honorary cosponsor? Might as well get the name into the record. Mr. Hitchcock. Abigail Meyer. Mr. Barrett. OK. Judge Tunheim, you mentioned that you were releasing some materials from Clay Shaw's diary and perhaps other things. Is there any information here that you find particularly interesting? Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. Barrett, I have not had a chance to go through it. We just got these materials in the last week through some aggressive efforts of our staff. The page that I cited to you was interesting in that he made the notation in there, and a portion of it in his own handwriting, that it was perhaps unfortunate that he had never met Oswald because he might possibly have been a tiny footnote in history: an ironic statement given the role that he played in the trial. We have not had a chance to analyze it thoroughly yet. It does contain his reactions to events as they were going on around him during the course of the prosecution and certainly supports his view that he was not involved whatsoever in the assassination, which ultimately was the view of the jury that acquitted him. Mr. Barrett. For my benefit, as a person that has not been immersed in this issue at all, you just mentioned that it took some aggressive work from your staff to get this released. Can you tell me what that entailed, where it was, why it was so difficult to get this information? Mr. Tunheim. Certainly. This is an investigation into where records are. And the bulk of our work has been with Federal agencies that hold assassination records. But we've also, at the direction of Congress and the bill that was passed, entertained a search for records wherever they might be. Records that are in private hands are not records that we can subpoena and take from people. So we have to find where they are. Staff members go out and talk to people, encourage them to donate those records to the American public, to the National Archives. And that was done in this case. We received a tip that an individual had records that were left over from Mr. Shaw, and a staff member went, talked with the person, spent some time with the person and encouraged them to share those records with the American public. And that's how it was developed. Mr. Barrett. How do you determine which assassination records you can disclose now and which ones have to wait? Mr. Tunheim. Well, there's a standard that's set up by the act. There's, first of all, a presumption that all records should be public. That presumption has governed what the Board has done throughout the process. But then there's a standard where the Board has to weigh the public interest in a particular record or information with the potential harm that might be caused by release of the material. The standards that we look at are: are there national security interests such as disclosure of an intelligence agent whose name hasn't been disclosed and whether that person perhaps may be in some danger if that name is released publicly, does it disclose a method of protecting the President that is not generally known today, so therefore, it might be a threat to the President, are there personal privacy considerations that are involved? I will tell you that when all is said and done, a very, very tiny percentage of information gets redacted under the standards that we are applying. And the process of going through the records has led the Board to arrive at a number of policy decisions which the agencies by and large are now following in their own review of records. And, therefore, decisions that we had to make 2 years ago we don't have to make because the agency is following the advice that the Board made on earlier records. Mr. Barrett. As long as there are some records that are not being released, do you think that we will inevitably face criticism from some people in the American public that there is still some sort of cover-up? I make reference to Mr. Holland's comments about a book being written 75 years after President Lincoln's assassination. Will the time ever come, do you think, when all records will be released? Mr. Tunheim. Well, I think it will, Mr. Barrett. The Board is releasing every record. The question is whether certain information on these records gets redacted or not. For every redaction, we are attaching a specific release date. Some of the dates are 5 years into the future. The law that was passed which established the Review Board provided that all records that are redacted, all information redacted, will be released in 2017, unless whoever is President at that time makes a specific determination that the record cannot be released because of some continuing national security concern. So we expect that virtually all of the information by 2017 will be released. But a very high percentage--in the 99.999 range--is being released right now. Mr. Barrett. Mr. Tilley, in your written statement you indicate that the collections currently consist of 3.75 million pages. What is your estimate of how many more records need to be reviewed? Mr. Tilley. Well, it's hard to say because there is still a good deal of material that is being reviewed by agencies at this time. We have located, at the National Archives, records that are still under review, such as the Secretary of Army's records dealing with Operation Mongoose, the campaign to destabilize the Cuban Government in the period after the Bay of Pigs. Other records have been located, other agencies'. I received a call from the Customs Bureau today, and they will be turning over their assassination records to me, hopefully this afternoon. After this hearing is over I'll be picking up the records they've located. So it's tough to say how much is still out there. But I think there's still going to be another--a considerable amount of material probably will be added to the collection before this process is finished. Mr. Barrett. Millions of pages or---- Mr. Tilley. Oh, no. I would say probably--if we add another half a million pages, that might be the extent of it. But what's interesting and fascinating about this process is we continue to turn up records where we did not know there were records before. And as agencies are aware of this effort, they've come to the Board. And the Board is responsible for a lot of this aggressive work with the Federal agencies, but--no, I don't see us ever doubling the collection again. But I think we will add a significant amount of material in the weeks and years ahead. Mr. Barrett. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hastert. Mr. Tunheim, just a very short question. You mentioned the movie that came out--``JFK,'' Mr. Oliver Stone's work--in there. Did Mr. Stone ever have any questions of your work at all or did he do research? Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. Stone has been very supportive of the work of the Review Board. He testified before the Congress when this bill was passed initially, encouraging broad release of the records, and he sent a representative to one of our public hearings who testified and spoke very favorably about the work of the Board. So he's been strongly supportive, and we've appreciated that support. Mr. Hastert. Why have you waited until this point in the process to begin the reviewing of the CIA and the FBI records? Mr. Tunheim. Well, we've been reviewing CIA records and FBI records from the very beginning, Mr. Chairman. The volume of records in those agencies is really significant. We have completed the entire review of the core collections of those agencies. And those are numerous: between the two agencies, it's more than a million pages of records. What we are doing right now is delving into what is called the sequestered collections within both of these agencies. Within the CIA these are records that the House Select Committee on Assassinations asked to be sequestered, taken away from their files and kept in a secure place for future review. The House Select Committee did not have the time to review these records carefully. Some of them are highly relevant to the assassination, others are not. Within the CIA there are about 62 boxes of material and 72 reels of microfilm. In the FBI the same kind of sequestered collection is about 280,000 pages of records. And those records are the focus of the Review Board's work over the next year if we get the extension. Mr. Hastert. Let me ask the same question I asked the previous panel. Do you think that you can finish your work by the end of the fiscal year 1998? Mr. Tunheim. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the Board can complete its work. The members of the Review Board are confident. We will make every effort to ensure that that gets done. In fact, we intend to provide to your staff a time line that sets out our anticipation of how we will review these records over the next year. We have set up a review process that we're working on right now that's moving quickly. And we're confident that the work can be done. We were set up to be a temporary Board. No one on the Board wishes this effort to take a long time. We need to get this information to the American public. Mr. Hastert. Thank you very much. Mr. Hitchcock, I wanted to ask you. As bringing students into the real realm of research and learning in that respect, how important is it that records like this be made available to the public so that folks like yourself can have the availability of them for students? Mr. Hitchcock. I think, Mr. Chairman, it's extremely important for not only teachers of history and historians, but also for students and future generations that the--one of the things so special about our relationship with the Review Board: it has not only been an opportunity for students to travel to Washington--they pay their own way, and they do their own research on their own time--but it has helped change opinions in many cases by students about not only the assassination but about government, politics, agencies and people who work for the government. I cannot overstate the importance it has had for the 43 thus far and soon to be 56 students from Noblesville High School that have had this research opportunity, that have been able actually to see, handle original documents, to work with documents, to see firsthand the evidence that exists. And to have that opportunity is something that no teacher, no classroom, no film, no laser disk, nothing in the classroom can simulate or stimulate such interest and focus as a trip to Washington, DC, the review of documents, the working with people that we've had an opportunity to be with at the Review Board on a firsthand basis. It is just something that cannot be duplicated or, as I said, simulated in any classroom anywhere in the country. And it's just been a fantastic opportunity and will provide students in the future with a place to go to find those records, to look at the records, to look at the documents, and be at least assured that as much as available and is in existence, can now be made available to them as ordinary citizens of this country, whether they be students at a university, students in high school, or in their just curiosity and interest as an American citizen. So I don't think it can be overstated. The impact that this will have in helping bridge that gap of skepticism--if this is the correct way to say it. I just cannot imagine what the many conspiracy theorists would think if the Review Board has to finish its stay without completing its work. Mr. Hastert. Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I would begin by indicating that my earlier query about your legal training was not meant to be an affront, and I should have recognized that your learned demeanor was that of a historian. Mr. Hastert. Not at all. Mr. LaTourette. And, Mr. Holland, I don't have a question, but I'm glad you told the story about Otto Eisenschiml. Because somewhere in the back of my mind I remember a book or a movie called the Lincoln Conspiracy, and I was certain that Secretary Stanton had something to do with the demise of our 16th President. So I'm glad you brought that up. Mr. Tunheim, I do want to ask you a followup question to what we were talking to Congressman Stokes about. And I was fascinated by the document that you held up. When I was in the prosecution business and we had a public records law in Ohio that was new on the books, we found that law enforcement agencies always wanted to take a big black magic marker and redact everything. And it was my view that that led to more conjecture, rumor, suspicion than not. And I think that this document that you brought forward, knowing that it came from the Swiss Federal police, that would give, I think, some cause to believe that Mr. Oswald had some Swiss bank account and was squirreling away money from foreign nationals as part of a conspiracy. If you unredact it--if that's really a word--you find out like so many other people that he apparently registered for the Albert Schweitzer College for the fall semester of 1960 and didn't show up. Nothing sinister or unusual in that at all. And the question that I have is, when you were testifying you indicated that the FBI originally appealed the decision to withdraw the redaction of this particular document. You also indicated that the vast majority of documents that you have left to review during this renewal period are located at the CIA and the FBI in the sequestered section, I assume. Are you experiencing any unusual difficulties with either of those agencies in terms of cooperation as you attempt to get to a public release of what should be appropriately publicly released? Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. LaTourette, the answer to the question is no, we're not receiving any degree of difficulty with those agencies right now. They are committed to this process. They are supportive of the effort to keep the process going for one additional year. The CIA has not appealed decisions that the Review Board has made. We've got a good working relationship with the people within that agency who are doing their work. The FBI appealed a significant number of our decisions, but now all of those appeals have been withdrawn. And we've got a working relationship with the FBI that I think has been constructive and professional and is working quite well. The FBI initially opposed release of the document that I held up and appealed the decision because they had contacted in a general way the Swiss Federal police and asked whether this record could be released and their answer was no. Our followup through the Ambassador is showing what, really, this document was all about, and led to a wiser approach to the particular issue. And sometimes it takes additional work like that to accomplish the release of important material. Mr. LaTourette. And the last question I would have is, Congressman Stokes expressed the view that perhaps the fine work of this Review Board, should another Review Board setting be required in the future to review another situation similar to this, that you may be breaking down some of the barriers in terms of suspicions the intelligence community may have about, do we need to stick to the script and have a page that has all black magic marker on it. Do you find that the lessons learned in this Review Board will be instructive to us as we move forward and think of ways of dealing with the release of documents in the future? Mr. Tunheim. I think that's a very good question. And we have found through this effort, being the first independent group outside of an agency to have this degree of control over the declassification process, that the process at first was rough and difficult and fraught with suspicion. That has changed. There has been a sea change as these agencies have realized that release of this information is not going to harm our national security, that perhaps it's time simply to trust the American people with access to important information about their government. And I think everyone has learned important lessons from this process. It's a process that while time consuming has worked very well for this set of records. Mr. LaTourette. And in that regard and in that vein, have you--the Review Board--put together sort of an instruction or an operating manual to be left behind for future such endeavors? Mr. Tunheim. Well, we certainly will. Virtually all of our work has been computerized so that we have an extensive record of exactly how we've approached all these issues. We do intend in our final report to make recommendations on how this effort can be extended in the future to other areas if the Congress so wishes. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you for your fine work. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Souder [presiding]. Thank you. I had a couple of questions. I read your testimony as I was listening to the other two. I'm sorry I was late. I wanted to ask Mr. Holland, were there credible historians who, at this point, are still questioning the assassination and the Warren Commission and the information that came out before this Commission existed, before these documents came out? Mr. Holland. Basically, most historians have stayed away from it, because they regard it as a tar baby. So there are actually surprisingly few--by historians, if you mean professors at universities. Surprisingly few who have written about it because they just see it as a morass, and how are they going to possibly figure out what happened. And so my answer would be credible is in the eye of the beholder. But there are actually remarkably few. And that's one of my arguments, is that you have to--it is time to insert it back into history. It did happen during the cold war, and that exerted a tremendous influence over what the government did right after the assassination. It was the precipitating element in the formation of the Warren Commission, that the cold war was ongoing and they worried about--to be frank--they worried about congressional committees holding hearings and disclosure of sources and methods such as the fact that Oswald had gone to Mexico City and been observed by photographic surveillance, and how was that going to be handled by a congressional committee. So, I do believe it has to be inserted into historical context. That's probably been the element that's been missing all this time. Mr. Souder. So you believe one of the benefits of this Commission, it will bring out of pop culture and in more mainstream because more documents are there, less questions can now be analyzed. And, also, you seem to hint that we'll gain as much--it's not necessarily that there's a lot of new information on the assassination--but that we're going to learn a lot about how our government worked and a lot of the interrelationships. And that may be, in fact, more use to the historians than any questions they had remaining about the assassination. Mr. Holland. I think--my own particular view is that besides being an investigation of three crimes, the murder of President Kennedy, assault on Governor Connally and the murder of Officer Tippit, and then the murder of Oswald--so four crimes--the Warren Commission is a fantastic lens to view the operation of the government circa 1963-1964. Because they had an overriding mandate but yet they were going up against agencies such as the FBI and CIA with entrenched interests. And especially Hoover's FBI was sort of a wonder to behold; you dealt with it very gingerly. So it's a great--and the FBI had not been second-guessed since Hoover became director. This was the first time. And you can't underestimate what that meant in terms of the difficulties it posed for the Commission. Now, I maintain they still came to the right conclusion. But the fact is that they had a lot of trouble with the FBI. Mr. Souder. One of the questions here is why it took so many years to get to this point? In looking at what future commissions might do, how much of that do you think can be overcome? In other words, how much of this was the Hoover FBI, say, and how much of this was institutional that in the first 10 years you have so many active in the field, ongoing operations, in the first 20 years there's still some--can we accelerate the process? What have we learned from this as to-- obviously this is one that particularly anybody in the 1960's era--was a defining event. So, it's an extraordinary assassination. But what have we learned for investigations in the future? Do you believe the CIA and the FBI will release information sooner and, if so, presumably they'll still be redacted, which still could lead to Oliver Stone movies and Lincoln conspiracy books and all sorts of things? Mr. Tunheim. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the fact that these records are 30 years old has helped in attaining their release. It's not information about the assassination, per se, that agencies have objected releasing. It's more who said what to who, who is an intelligence agent, and who is an informant for the FBI. Those kinds of issues. And there will still be institutional reluctance to release any of that information. I hope that through this process we can demonstrate to the public and to these agencies that this information can be released to the public, that the public can be trusted with information like this. There will still be a need for secrecy to a certain extent, but certainly not with the broad brush black pen approach of the past. Mr. Souder. We first learned that--I was elected in 1994, and our first experience in this committee was with Waco, which we had similar questions and still had some information that wasn't able to be released. We're certainly having that ongoing debate with the administration right now, because it gets far beyond the initial investigation. In the course of Travelgate we discovered the data bank. And, of course, with the data bank, you discover the code. And then you find out that the code leads to this. Pretty soon you're off into other investigations. That's going to be an ongoing problem. Do you believe in the end that this will have silenced most critics? Mr. Tunheim. In my view, Mr. Chairman, it will silence some. It will perhaps provoke others. We're many years after an event that was investigated in a different era. There were many mistakes made at the time that cannot be corrected at this stage in time. But I think when the Review Board is done with its work, one thing we should be able to prove to the American people is that the Federal Government is no longer keeping secrets from them relative to the Kennedy assassination. I think that will be a very significant development. Whether all the questions will be resolved or not, that's a question for historians in the future who will review these materials and make their determinations. This is like a gigantic puzzle with a lot of pieces missing. We are putting some of those pieces in--small pieces and large pieces. But there's a lot of pieces of the puzzle that will never be found. Mr. Souder. I want to ask one last question. And that is: the options of dealing with acquiring the Zapruder film, is that going to be a cost in addition to what you're requesting? Do you have options of how to pay for that? What's the status of that? Mr. Tunheim. Well, the Zapruder film, as the chairman is aware--the Review Board designated that as an assassination record about a month or so ago. We felt that that decision was determined by the Congress in the passage of the JFK Records Collection Act when it said that all records in the possession of the National Archives are assassination records and should be included in this collection. Recognizing the potential cost of a film like this, we did set forth a 16-month period before the taking would take place so that the Congress could address this issue and make appropriate determinations if the Congress wished to make those determinations. The Board did feel that decision had been made for it by the Congress in the earlier act and that it is the most significant piece of evidence of one of the most significant crimes in our Nation's history, so, therefore, the original has an intrinsic value and it should belong forever to the American public. We are hopeful that the Zapruder family will agree eventually to donate that film to the American public. We have no assurances of that at this point. But we did set the timeframe far out into the future so that the Congress can review this issue and make its own determinations if it so wishes. Mr. Souder. Do you have any additional questions? With that I thank you all---- Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, if I could beg your indulgence just to ask one more question, if I may? Mr. Souder. Sure. I yield to my friend from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Tunheim, my previous question about difficulty with the CIA and FBI--sometimes I don't make things broad enough. And, I guess, my query would be--it's been brought to my attention that perhaps there's been some difficulty in obtaining records from the other body. Is there any agency within the Federal Government that you're having difficulty in terms of cooperation that would impede your ability to complete your work in a timely fashion as envisioned by this legislation? Mr. Tunheim. Mr. LaTourette, I have not seen any evidence currently that anyone is deliberately stonewalling us so that when we go away they will put the records back into the files. We had some significant problems early in the process just in-- really because agencies didn't understand what this was all about and didn't understand what the law really provided for. So it took some time. It's taken some time, for example, with the Secret Service, to get them to the point of realizing their obligations under the act. They do now, and they've been very cooperative and easy to work with. But this has been a learning process for all of the agencies. And I feel at the current time there are no impediments among any of the agency partners that we're dealing with to completing the review of the records on a timely basis. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you. I thank the chair for your indulgence. Mr. Souder. I thank you all for your testimony and I appreciate your coming today. For procedural purposes I will now close this hearing. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] -