Mr. DULLES. FBI Academy.
Mr. ROWLEY. The Police Academy would be if we had occasion to send them
there, if there was something they could benefit from. We do send the
White House Police to the FBI Police Academy, because that is more in
connection with their police function.
Mr. RANKIN. How does your agent get into the Presidential protection?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, some of the agents have indicated in their personal
history questionnaires submitted each year whether they wish to select
an office of duty preference, and there are three offices listed. If an
agent wants for one reason or another after a period of 3 years on the
White House detail to make a request for a transfer, we consider which
of the three offices he selected has a vacancy, and we assign him to
that office. Then we bring in one of the new men from the field service
to replace him. We then train him in the protective work.
Necessarily, you have to have a nucleus. So there are also a number of
men in supervisory positions who have been on the White House detail
for 20 or more years.
Mr. RANKIN. But your theory is that they should be able to be trained
so that they could be shifted to any part of the service?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And it has this advantage: Once they are
trained in Presidential protection, if for some reason the White
House detail gets instructions that the President is going to fly to
one of the cities, or some hamlet across the country, and we do not
have time to get an agent aboard a plane and send him there, or maybe
the Air Force has no plane available to transport him there, we pick
up the phone and call an agent at the nearest place--and here is an
agent that has been trained, he knows the mechanics of the operation,
and the procedure, and he goes to work, and effectively lays out the
arrangements.
Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, this Commission Exhibit No. 1028,
which shows the budget and the positions, I think is helpful. But in
the submission of the budget by the Secret Service to the Congress,
they have a greater breakdown of their personnel setup.
I think it might be wise to include what they submitted to the
Congress, or something comparable to it, because I think it is far more
complete than this.
Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.
Representative FORD. And I think it might be helpful for the record.
Mr. ROWLEY. We do not disclose the number of men on Presidential
protection.
Representative FORD. I understand that. But you are familiar with
the presentation you might submit for your overall budget, including
personnel?
Mr. ROWLEY. Right.
Representative FORD. Can that not be submitted for our record, just as
it is submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations?
Mr. ROWLEY. It is a matter of public record. But whether or not the
tentative one, the 1966 can be, before the Budget Bureau sees it, is
something else again.
Representative FORD. I would not expect that it would.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; but the others can be.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to secure a copy of
that and insert it in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted when you obtain it.
Representative FORD. May I ask one other question, and then I have to
leave?
In listening to the testimony, Chief Rowley, sometime ago, I was a
little concerned--more than a little, I should say--with the process
by which the man in charge of a Presidential trip undertakes his
relationship with the local law enforcement agencies.
As I recall the testimony, the man in charge has contact with the local
police and the sheriff's department and any other local law enforcement
agency. But the impression that I gained was that there was no clear
delineation of responsibility. They sat around, they talked about what
this local law enforcement agency would do and what another one would
do.
But it seems to me that a more precise checklist, a clear
understanding, would be wholesome and better.
What is your reaction on that?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, No. 1, in our revised Manual on Presidential
Protection, this is part of the thing.
Now, I would hesitate to prepare a checklist for everybody, because you
may be embarrassed to find it in the press some day, because of the
activity of reporters around the police.
I do not want to downgrade any police department, but this is what
happens through no fault of theirs. There are variations in different
cities.
Now, I think what you are referring to, Mr. Congressman, is that they
complained they did not have a sufficient notice of the route and
so forth, so they could make the proper preparations. That is true.
Neither did we have sufficient notice. Because they were going back and
forth trying to establish--until they were told they had 45 minutes
allotted to them for this route, and first our man had to go, which is
a natural operation, to look over the route to see whether or not it
could be negotiated within that particular period of time.
Once establishing that it could, and the thing looked safe, then they
notified the police and went over it with the police. And then with the
police they indicated what they would like done here at intersections
and so forth, and other features.
Now, it is true in most cases we ourselves like to get sufficient
advance information, we like to send our men out in advance so they
do not have to cope with these fast operations, because when a police
department has sufficient notice of the route and so forth, then
they have adequate time to get out instructions to their own police
department--whether by precinct or by group commanders, and so forth.
And this is what I think in this instance that they are complaining
about.
Representative FORD. As I understand it, however, at the present time,
and for the future, there will be a more precise procedure for the
relationships of the Secret Service on the one hand and local law
enforcement agencies on the other.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. That is set forth in your manual as presently
revised?
Mr. ROWLEY. In our present revised manual.
Representative FORD. So that when your agent-in-charge goes to city X,
he now has the procedures set forth for many to follow on, so there are
no uncertainties, if that is possible?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And you have to necessarily do that, because
you have agents, as I said--as I cited an example where an agent had
been trained in the White House, but you have to utilize his services,
because you cannot get a regular White House man out there. He has this
information, and he follows it accordingly. It is a check for him as
well as for the police.
Representative FORD. Other countries have protection problems of their
chief executive.
I am sure in recent months the French have had considerable problems in
this regard.
Do you ever have an exchange of methods with other governments for your
benefit or their benefit?
Mr. ROWLEY. We have been approached, Mr. Congressman, for instructions
on security and so forth, but we, for reasons--for national security
reasons, I would like to go off the record.
(Off the record.)
(At this point, Representative Ford left the hearing room.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Mr. DULLES. You have referred to the dry runs which you made in Dallas,
and you usually make, I understand, to establish a route.
First I think you said you did this yourself, and then with the local
police.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Do you have any reason to believe that those dry runs were
observed by the President or known to the President, or received any
publicity?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; they did not receive any publicity.
The CHAIRMAN. Chief, you were referring a little while ago to the
revised rules.
When did the last revision take place? Has it been since the
assassination?
Mr. ROWLEY. No.
The overall revision of the Manual of the Secret Service, was
undertaken before I took office, and because it was delayed, I took it
upon myself to assign a man to sit down 7 days a week, to bring this
manual up to date. The overall manual has been completed. Now we have
almost completed the revised advance manual.
The CHAIRMAN. And--but there has been--as yet there has been no
revision since the assassination?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; It is in the process.
The CHAIRMAN. It is in the process of being done? Very well.
Senator COOPER. I would like to ask a question. I think you stated
that you took part in the procedures and methods for the protection of
President Kennedy when he was--prior to his visit to Dallas.
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. I thought you said that you participated in a dry run.
Mr. ROWLEY. Oh, no; I was describing what the advance agents do.
Senator COOPER. Anyway--you know what the agents of the Secret Service
did in preparing for the visit, of President Kennedy to Dallas?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. And you know what procedures they followed during the
actual route of the motorcade on that day?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Now, reviewing those, is there any failure that you
know about on the part of the Secret Service in those procedures or in
the methods which they used on the day of the assassination?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, would you tell us the salary scale for your
agents for the first 2 years?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; we recruit an agent at grade GS-7, at $5,795.
Mr. RANKIN. How does that compare with the starting salary for the FBI?
Mr. ROWLEY. I think it is a difference of three grades. As I
understand, the lowest FBI grade is GS-10.
Mr. RANKIN. $10,000.
Mr. ROWLEY. Grade 10.
Mr. RANKIN. What salary would that be?
Mr. ROWLEY. It might be--for example, GS-11 is $8,410. Now, it could be
somewhere between $7,500 and $8,000.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you able to get at that salary the quality of men that
you should for this kind of work?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; we have found to date that we have been able--we
have been selective. And, of course, the fact that we have only
appropriations for a limited number of men.
For example, today we have well over 40 men waiting to be accepted,
with completed investigations, some a year or more. Sometimes when we
put in requests for a given number of men, we want to put those men on
at the beginning of the fiscal year, so we undertake to recruit them
and complete their investigation, so that everything--the character and
the physical is up to date--and we can put them on, if we get the funds
precisely at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Mr. RANKIN. You recognize that your starting salary is not favorable in
comparison with some police forces, do you not?
Mr. ROWLEY. I recognize that. But at the same time, we are guided by
the Treasury law enforcement examinations, and the other Treasury
investigative standards. But we are below some of the west coast police
organizations, for example. They are well-paid and great organizations.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, what kind of a workload do your agents have on an
average?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, at the present time we have a caseload of 110.1 cases
per man.
Mr. RANKIN. How does that compare with other intelligence agencies?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think--a satisfactory caseload per man per month is
from 14 to 15 cases.
Now, I am quite certain that in other agencies it is a little more than
that. But whether or not it is as high as ours at the present time, I
have no way of knowing at this time.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you thing that is a handicap to your operation?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it is a handicap. But I think it is testimony to the
dedication and the industry of our men, that we are not complaining. We
are conducting ourselves and performing our services for the Government
to the point that even though we are understaffed, nevertheless we are
not quitters, and we are carrying on the work within the responsibility
entrusted to us.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you write the Commission a letter telling the history
of the early development and growth of the Secret Service operation
over the years?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Is Commission Exhibit No. 1029 that information that you
gave us?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; this also included the White House police.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine Commission Exhibit No. 1029, and inform us
as to whether or not any of that should not be included on the public
record in light of the national security problem?
Mr. ROWLEY. I have no objections, because in the years past--this is
part of the public record. So I would not see any objection at this
time.
(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No.
1029.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No.
1029, and received in evidence.)
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you write us a letter with regard to
proposed legislation, dated June 11?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1030 that letter that you
wrote us with an attachment telling about possible legislative changes
that you thought might be desirable?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No.
1030.)
Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1030.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission
Exhibit No. 1030, was received in evidence.)
Mr. RANKIN. Can you briefly state the contents of the attachment to
that exhibit, Chief Rowley?
You recall that it is a commentary on the suggestion of legislation
about the assassination of the President?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; it is a recommendation on the bills being proposed,
that the assassination of a President or Vice President or possible
successors to the Presidency be made a Federal crime.
(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.)
Mr. ROWLEY. Currently there is such a law whereby when people of lesser
rank in the Government are murdered, that is investigated by Federal
agencies.
Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission briefly what your idea is as
to whether or not it would be helpful to have such a statute?
Mr. ROWLEY. I think today it would be helpful, because it would be
a continuation of the present law, and it would be under Federal
jurisdiction--because this is a Federal employee. And I think it
properly should be under Federal statute. There would then be an
opportunity particularly today in the case of the President or Vice
President, for the investigation to be pursued immediately, and the
assassin or groups of defendants to be interrogated as promptly as
possible to develop and ascertain whether or not there is a conspiracy,
and not wait as we have to do under the present law because of the
State statute.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any suggestions in your proposal about who
would have jurisdiction to investigate and report in regard to any
violation of that law?
Mr. ROWLEY. Currently the Federal enforcement agencies--namely, the
FBI--have the responsibility of conducting investigations, on most of
the Federal laws in the country, and therefore it might properly be
their responsibility in a situation like this.
However, we do have a reservation with respect to an attempt or threat
on the President, because we would like to work out an agreement
whereby we would jointly conduct an investigation because the threat
phase of it has been under our jurisdiction, under section 3056, for
many years. It ties in with our responsibility for protection of the
President.
Mr. RANKIN. In connection with the investigation of the assassination
of President Kennedy, have you personally participated in working with
regard to that, in supervision of that investigation?
Mr. ROWLEY. In the early stages when we assigned our men to inquire
into the background of Oswald and all. But then eventually, when the
President authorized the FBI to conduct the investigation, we pulled
out and only continued and finished up those reports that we initiated.
Mr. RANKIN. And since that time, after the FBI was given the authority
to proceed with the investigation, you have cooperated with the
Commission through the staff, your staff, in helping with various items
of information from time to time. Is that right?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have any information of a credible nature that
would suggest to you that Oswald was or could have been an agent or
informant of any Federal agency?
Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information of that kind; no, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Was he an agent or informant or directly or indirectly
connected with the Secret Service in anyway?
Mr. ROWLEY. Not in any way. We did not know of him until the event.
Mr. RANKIN. From the way that the Secret Service employment is
arranged, and the records are kept, and the payments are made, if he
had ever been placed in any such capacity with the Secret Service,
would it have come to your attention?
Mr. ROWLEY. It would; yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And you are certain that he never was hired directly or
indirectly or acted in that capacity.
Mr. ROWLEY. He was never hired directly or indirectly in any capacity.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any credible information that would cause you
to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of any foreign country.
Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such credible information.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any credible information to cause you to
believe that he was involved in any conspiracy in connection with the
assassination, either domestic or foreign?
Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information on any of those.
Mr. RANKIN. Are there any areas of the investigation of the Commission
that you would suggest that further work should be done, as far as you
know the work of the Commission?
Mr. ROWLEY. I do not.
Mr. RANKIN. From your knowledge of the investigation, do you have any
opinion as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the killing of
the President?
Mr. ROWLEY. From what reports I have read, I would say that he was
involved in the killing of the President, but I do not have complete
knowledge of it.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any opinion from your knowledge of the
investigation as to whether Mr. Ruby was associated with anyone else
directly or indirectly in the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. ROWLEY. I have incomplete knowledge with respect to Ruby.
Consequently, I could not say, other than what I saw on television or
read in the newspapers, whether he had any connections.
Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything in connection with the work of the
Commission or what you know about our inquiry here that you would like
to add to or suggest that the Commission do beyond what you know of it?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question?
Mr. Rankin asked you several questions. He asked you if you had
credible information, which I think was a proper question. But may I
ask if you have any information based upon any facts that you know or
based upon any information given to you by persons who claim to have
personal knowledge, that there were persons engaged in a conspiracy to
kill President Kennedy?
Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such facts, sir.
Senator COOPER. I address the same question as to whether you have any
information that the killing of President Kennedy had any connection
with any foreign power?
Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such information.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, any questions?
Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir; I have one general question.
From the testimony, and from my own study, it would seem to me that it
was likely that there would be parallel, somewhat parallel structures
to develop the investigative capabilities with regard to possible
suspects in the area of Presidential protection. And my question is
as to whether, in order to avoid that undue expense, you think there
would be any advantage in putting the responsibility of that within the
FBI, who would then be responsible for advising you as to potential
suspects and possibly following up on that, rather than putting that
responsibility now to a certain extent on the Secret Service--whether
there is not a division of responsibility in this field which is
unfortunate and may possibly lead to greater expense, personnel doing
somewhat duplicative work?
Mr. ROWLEY. As it applies to this law now?
Mr. DULLES. As it applies to the situation today, without the law which
is recommended in your memorandum, and might apply also after that,
because the investigation would be required in either case to turn up
possible suspects.
My question is, where should that responsibility be primarily centered
in order to avoid undue duplication and expense, and yet accomplish our
objective?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, when you mention duplication, I do not think there
has been much duplication in this case, when the President directed the
FBI to conduct the investigation to determine whether or not there was
a conspiracy.
Mr. DULLES. I am not talking about now. I am talking about
investigation prior to, say, the President's visit to city X in the
United States.
Mr. ROWLEY. I see.
Mr. DULLES. Or abroad--where you have the problem of the Secret Service
and the CIA.
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think you want to keep the concept of Presidential
protection by a small, closely knit group, because of the intimate
relationship. But if you want to expand it and give it to another
group, to take the long-range view, you do not know what may develop
from something like that--whether a police organization could lead to
a police state or a military state--if you want to delegate it to some
organization like that.
The CHAIRMAN. I suppose also, Chief Rowley, that if your people were
not doing the spadework on this thing, and keeping their minds steeped
in this protection matter, but were obliged to rely on the written
records of someone else presented to you, that they would not be in the
proper state of mind, would they, to be alert to it?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. There would be a tendency to relax and say
John Jones is taking care of it. This is always the possibility that
you might encounter something like that.
The CHAIRMAN. And in law enforcement, you have to have the feel of the
situation, do you not?
You have to do the spadework in order to be aware of every possibility
that might develop?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is true. Because you see in this, Mr. Dulles, on the
Presidential detail, it is a unique detail. This is something that they
think 24 hours a day. They do it 24 hours a day. They are not otherwise
involved. For example, they have the principle of screening the
President and being always ready to make a quick exit. They do not have
to stop to investigate or identify any person, whoever the assailant
might be. Their responsibility is only to protect the President at all
times.
Mr. DULLES. But they have to know against whom to protect him.
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. But they are ready for anything under the
present close screening.
But if I understand your question, Mr. Dulles, you also want to know
whether or not in the screening or the investigation of certain
groups, like the Communist group, and so forth, since it is their
responsibility and not ours, because they have the internal security of
the United States, this is something that we have to develop.
Mr. DULLES. Is "they" the FBI?
Mr. ROWLEY. The FBI.
That is something that we have to have a formal arrangement about,
because it enters the realm of internal security. We do not want to
conflict with them, if that is what is uppermost in your mind. We have
to be most correct about that, in any of the agencies, as you know.
Mr. DULLES. How much larger staff do you think you are going to have to
have to cover that situation in the future?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I would not know until we see the volume of reports
that we get that we have to refer to the field for investigation. Since
we are processing them now, we have to wait to make that determination.
Mr. DULLES. Should you do field investigations as contrasted with the
FBI--the FBI have a large number of people in a large number of cities
throughout the United States. You do not have that?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; but on the basis of the criteria we discussed earlier,
the FBI would give us the information, and if in our evaluation we
determined that it should be referred to the field for investigation,
particularly in the case of individuals, we would conduct our
investigation, to determine whether this individual is a high risk to
the President.
Now, where it comes to the group, this is something for the FBI to do,
because it ties in with their responsibility for internal security.
Now, if there is a close connection between the two, then we would have
to have a formal agreement. But because of our responsibility, and the
fact that this is part of the work that we have to undertake, then
we would conduct our own investigation, because we know what we are
looking for.
Mr. DULLES. If the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had been submitted to you
by the FBI, what would you, in the normal course, have done?
Would you have referred that back to them for investigation, or would
you have carried on an independent investigation?
I am talking now if that name had been referred to you when you knew
you were going to go to Dallas.
Mr. ROWLEY. If we knew we were going to go to Dallas and we had this
present criteria, then we would investigate him.
Mr. DULLES. You would carry on the investigation?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I am through with Chief Rowley
now--except I would like to ask him to supply a copy of the information
about their appropriation request, and insert it with Commission
Exhibit No. 1028. [The information subsequently furnished by the Secret
Service was inserted in the record as a part of Commission Exhibit No.
1028.]
We have Mr. Carswell here. As you recall, there was some difficulty
at one meeting about the testimony about what the Secret Service was
doing in regard to the Speaker. And while he is here, I would like to
straighten that record out.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.
Mr. RANKIN. It will be very brief.
The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I want to take this opportunity to thank you and
the members of your Secret Service for the cooperation you have given
to this Commission. They have been very diligent, very helpful, as you
personally have been. And we appreciate it.
Mr. ROWLEY. Thank you, sir.