Senator COOPER. Since the assassination?
Mr. ROWLEY. Not unless we had these three categories of factors we just
enunciated.
Senator COOPER. I would suggest--first, I understand there are not many
defectors who have returned to the United States.
Secondly, it seems to me a man who has defected from the United
States to go to Russia or a Communist country indicates that he has
pretty strong convictions against the United States, or else there is
something questionable about his mental processes.
I would think that fact alone would make it important to watch his
activities when he came back.
Mr. ROWLEY. It would. And I think the FBI properly conducts the
investigations, from the standpoint of internal security, and furnishes
us a report. And then if there is something in the report that
indicates he could be a risk to the President or the Vice President, we
could take it from there.
Representative BOGGS. Mr. Rankin. I have to go to a meeting in 2 or 3
minutes. There is just one question I would like to ask before leaving.
Is it not a fact that probably the greatest deterrent that you have is
the very fact that the public knows that there is a Secret Service?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. That you do guard the life of the President. And
that the chances of an assassin escaping with his own life are pretty
remote. So this psychological weapon is one of the things you rely on?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. And you must necessarily keep a degree of secrecy
about the methods you employ.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; otherwise they could develop countermethods, to
thwart anything we might set up.
Representative BOGGS. Exactly. Thank you very much.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, do you in the Secret Service obtain the
benefit of cooperation with other governmental agencies in the
protection of the President?
Mr. ROWLEY. We receive cooperation from every agency. If I may name a
few--we were scheduled to visit Puerto Rico in 1948 or 1947--I am not
quite certain--with President Truman, who was then vacationing at Key
West. We had no office in Puerto Rico at the time. We did not know the
situation other than that it could be sticky because of the Nationalist
Party of Puerto Rico.
(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. ROWLEY. Our advance man called me and asked me if I would not
talk to Mr. Hoover to see whether or not we could have the assistance
of some of their agents who were down there in an office established
there. And I communicated then with the Assistant Director, who said,
"I will get back to you" and got the approval. That was an example of
the beginning of the cooperation, when I was at the White House, with
the FBI.
Now, in the years subsequent to World War II, anytime we were abroad,
I made personal contact with Mr. Dulles, and I think for national
security we should go off the record on this, because this is something
that pertains today.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, Chief Rowley, are you familiar with the provisions
in the appropriation act with regard to the FBI concerning their
protection of the person of the President?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. You know of that, do you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I do. Historically, that was first passed in 1910. It
stated that because of the limited number of Secret Service men at that
time, that appropriation--a certain given figure--was to be used by the
U.S. marshals to assist the Secret Service.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the Secret Service opposed to that provision in the
appropriation act for the FBI?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; it has never opposed that provision over the years. I
started to say, Mr. Rankin--subsequently, after the founding of the
FBI, this was transferred, apparently, from the marshals to the FBI,
and it has been in the appropriations as long as I can remember. We
have never objected to that appropriation.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, there is some language in H.R. 4158, I understand,
which deals with the permanent organization of the Government that you
are objecting to; is that right?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; that has to do with the codification, wherein
it states that the Attorney General will appoint--I think, in
substance--officials for the protection of the President of the United
States. And this is a feature in the codification of the law we object
to, because the Secretary of the Treasury authorizes and directs the
protection of the President.
Representative FORD. Is that a bill, Mr. Rankin, that is before the
House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Mr. ROWLEY. They are preparing it, and they asked for our opinions. It
must be now. This is a month or so ago, Mr. Ford.
Mr. RANKIN. I think I can give the Commission the exact language. It
is chapter 33 of the House rule that I have just described, and it is
under section 534, and the words are: "The Attorney General may appoint
officials"--and then in quotes below that, in (2) "to protect the
person of the President" and--and then it deals with other matters.
Now, will you tell why you have an objection to that? Just briefly
summarize it.
Mr. ROWLEY. Because of the long history of Presidential protection we
have been directed--it has been under the jurisdiction of the Treasury
Department, authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. But this would
confuse and be a conflict in jurisdiction. Conflicts would naturally
arise in the future as to who had jurisdiction.
If anything happened like Dallas, we would get into an Alphonse and
Gaston pantomine.
Mr. RANKIN. You would get into a jurisdictional dispute?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. And that is why you object?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. But as far as any provision that has been made historically
for the FBI to have funds so they can supplement and assist you, you
have no objection to that?
Mr. ROWLEY. No objection at all.
Representative FORD. Do you know how much in the way of funds have been
utilized through that provision?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; I would not know of my own knowledge, Congressman,
because that would be under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the Budget
Bureau.
Representative FORD. In other words, they don't take money that they
get through their appropriation bill, and transfer it to the Secret
Service?
Mr. ROWLEY. No.
Representative FORD. This is simply a provision which authorizes them
to use whatever funds they get for this purpose?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I understand that regarding H.R. 4158, the
Treasury and the Justice Department have agreed that the language may
be changed so that it will read "Assist", is that right?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.
Mr. RANKIN. And that is satisfactory?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. That is what we worked out.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, in connection with your protection of the President,
have you drawn upon various people in the Government and consultants to
assist you in regard to scientific problems?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; some 8 or 9 years ago, we evolved a relationship
with the Defense Department--I think more specifically in the last 4
years--a relationship with the President's Scientific Advisor.
This is off the record.
Mr. RANKIN. Why, Chief?
Mr. ROWLEY. That has to do with national security.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, do you find in work of the Secret Service
that you have need for scientific advice and consultation concerning
problems that develop regarding the protection of the President, so
that if you had some arrangement whereby you could have the assistance
of either the President's Scientific Advisor or consultation with
independent consultants, it would assist and in fact be necessary to
your work?
Mr. ROWLEY. I think it would be a great help, and it is necessary
today, because under the crash program that we are endeavoring to
undertake, I think it is important that we know, in Presidential
protection, what the current devices are that are available and are
efficient in connection with countermeasures against eavesdropping and
other things that we have been researching over the years. But this is
not necessary on a day-to-day basis, and it could be on an informal
basis with other agencies. I think it is necessary to have somebody of
that type, who is conversant with the subject, a trained expert, who
knows precisely where to go.
We might spend a lot of time going around the paths, but by having an
expert, he knows precisely the organization, the contracting company,
what they have, whether it is suitable, whether it is efficient for our
purposes.
Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, is the letter of April 22, 1964, from
Mr. Rowley to you with the enclosures a Commission exhibit?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; that has been offered. That is Commission Exhibit No.
1027.
Representative FORD. In this enclosure, Chief Rowley, on page 4,
under subheading (c), the following is stated: "The Secret Service
has no funds for research and very limited funds for the acquisition
of protective devices. In the fiscal year 1964 budget, the Service
requested $23,057 for two positions for technical specialists. The
Congress did not make any appropriation covering this request, and it
was repeated in the 1965 budget request, and has been included in the
appropriation passed by the House several weeks ago."
Could you define more particularly what you had in mind for these
so-called technical specialists?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; this was someone that knew something about
electronics or electronic engineering for the sweeping of different
places. We felt that to date we were utilizing the services of agents
who primarily came with us on the basis of criminal investigation, and
that, therefore, it was my feeling that we should have this type of
expert.
As I said earlier, I realize the shortcomings and the requirements
which we are operating under--and I was endeavoring to get the funds
from Congress, the personnel that I thought were necessary, as well
as the equipment I thought we should have, primarily to have this
operation under control for us.
Now, I might say that the CIA has been most helpful. The equipment
we used in the early days were from that organization and the State
Department.
But now they have gotten so busy, as you well know, that they haven't
got much time to assist us.
So that we feel we want to have our own equipment, our own experts, and
people that know our work, and devote their time to it.
Representative FORD. When you talk about technical specialists here,
you are referring to electronics specialists?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. You are not referring to a general research and
development program, however?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; this confusion is why it was refused a year ago.
Representative FORD. Let me ask this, then, Chief Rowley. Would
these technical experts, or technical specialists, have been on duty
in Dallas on this particular trip if you had had the funds and had
employed them?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; but they would have been employed in something
entirely different.
Representative FORD. They wouldn't have had any relationship to the
motorcade?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. If I may go off the record.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us why you are going off the record?
Mr. ROWLEY. Because it involves national security.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Representative FORD. As I understand it, then, the deletion of these
funds for these technical specialists in fiscal year 1964 did not
in any way handicap your operation in Dallas at the time of the
assassination?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; we have never said that. We are just saying that if
we had the equipment--in other words, what I am trying to do, Mr.
Congressman, is to move forward. And the only way I know, after a
period of years, is to ask for a sum of money, but then my experience
is that sometimes the Congress becomes alarmed. But this is a need that
we have. And this is what I am trying to explain. This is an example of
what we are trying to do, in equipment and manpower.
Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Rankin, I have to go shortly
over to a session of the House. And since we are in the budget area, I
think it might be well for the record to develop some facts concerning
your budget--what they have in the past and what you are suggesting
they might be in the future.
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have here a summary of the appropriation
allocations as it applies to manpower and equipment, and the number of
persons on the roll.
Representative FORD. Do you receive your appropriations in a lump sum
or how do you receive Secret Service appropriations?