CHAPTER 8 CO M P L I A N C E W I T H T H E JFK A C T B Y G O V E R N M E N T O F F I C E S A. INTRODUCTION Chapter 6 of this Report describes both the Review Board’s requests for additional infor- Are federal agencies cooperating fully, mation and records to federal agencies and or is there resistance that fosters public federal agencies’ responses to those requests. distrust of the government?1 The Review Board’s compliance pro g r a m The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records stressed agency obligations to search for and Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act) directed fed- publicly release records relating to President eral agencies to search for re c o rds re l a t i n g Kennedy’s assassination. As part of its com- to the assassination of President Kennedy pliance program, the Review Board asked and to transfer those re c o rds to the John F. each agency to submit a declaration, under Kennedy Assassination Records Collection penalty of perjury, describing the re c o rd (JFK Collection) at the National A rc h i v e s searches that it completed, the assassination and Records Administration (NARA) for records that it located, and any other actions public disclosure. As explained earlier in it took to release assassination records. The this report, agencies began their compliance Review Board established the compliance activities even before the Senate confirmed program in furtherance of the JFK Act’s man- the nomination of the A s s a s s i n a t i o n date that there be “an enforceable, indepen- R e c o rds Review Board members in 1994. dent and accountable process for the public Once the Review Board convened, it disclosure” of records on the Kennedy assas- assessed the efforts of federal agencies to sination.2 comply with the terms of the JFK Act. The Review Board worked extensively with In late 1996, the Review Board initiated a for- agency personnel to resolve outstanding mal program to ensure that all re l e v a n t compliance issues prior to submission of agencies were complying with the JFK A c t . Final Declarations of Compliance. The Review Board used its compliance pro- gram to ensure that government offices ful- B. FEDERAL AGENCY COMPLIANCE WITH THE filled their JFK Act obligations. The pro g r a m JFK A CT re q u i red agencies to certify that: Each section of this chapter describes work (1) the agency conducted a thoro u g h that a particular agency completed, both s e a rch for assassination re c o rds as that before and during the Review Board’s exis- term is defined by the JFK Act and the tence.3 Review Board’s regulation further defining the term; 1. Central Intelligence Agency (2) the agency identified, organized, and reviewed its assassination records; The Review Board considered the CIA’s com- (3) the agency prepared its assassination pliance with the JFK Act, including complete records for public release at NARA; disclosure of all CIA records relating to Lee (4) the agency responded to each of the Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assassina- Review Board’s requests for additional infor- tion, to be one of its highest priorities. mation and records; and (5) the agency transmitted its assassination The CIA complied with the JFK Act through records to NARA. the auspices of the Agency’s Historical 145 Review Program (previously the Historical the Directorate of Operations, the Direc t o r a t e Review Group or HRG). HRP reviewed doc- of Intelligence, the Directorate of Ad m i n i s t r a - uments, re f e r red documents within CIA, tion, and the Directorate of Science & Tec h - answered questions, negotiated issues with no l o g y .) As a result of this search direc t i v e , the Review Board staff, and, after Board vot- the CIA identified 31 boxes of potentially ing, processed documents for release to responsive re c o rds, and these were for- NARA. The HRP reviewers were all CIA wa r ded to the HRG for review under the JFK annuitants, with twenty years or more expe- Act. Included were 19 boxes of working files rience, working as independent contractors. on the Kennedy assassination by CIA off i c e r Beginning with a 14-member staff in 1992, Russ Holmes (for many years he was the the staff grew steadily to 29 reviewers and Agency’s focal point officer with res p o n s i b i l i t y nine administrative personnel by the sum- for responding to questions related to CIA’s mer of 1998. HRP also drew on the resources Kennedy assassination-related rec o r ds); two of numerous other offices at CIA for record boxes on KGB defector Yuri Nosenko; seven searches, answers to Review Board ques- boxes of Latin American Division rec o rd s ; tions, and the provision of records for inspec- and three boxes related to the Bay of Pigs. The tion by the Board. From Review Board identified 22 boxes as res p o n - [T]he only thing more horrify- 1992 until December 1997, sive under the JFK Act, although many of the ing to me than the assassination HRG functioned as part of rec o r ds were duplicates of rec o r ds contained itself is the insidious, perverse the Center for Studies in in the Oswald 201 file or the CIA–HSCA notion that elements of the Intelligence and its Chief se q u e s t e r ed collection files. American Government, that my was the Director of Cen- own Agency, had some part in tral Intelligence’s per- The Review Board requested numerous cate- it. I am determined personally sonal rep r esentative to the gories of additional CIA records in an effort to make public or to expose to Review Board. In January to ensure the most complete disclosure of disinterested eyes every relevant 1998, the CIA’s reo rg a n i - information relating to the Kennedy assassi- scrap of paper in CIA’s posses- zation renamed HRG the nation. The Review Board made 16 formal sion, in the hope of helping to Historical Review Pro- requests in writing, and 37 informal requests, dispel this corrosive suspicion. gram and moved it to join for additional information and records from —CIA Director Robert Gates, other CIA de c l a s s i f i c a t i o n the CIA. May 12, 1992 e fforts in the Office of Information Manageme n t . In anticipation of the Review Board ’ s requests for additional information and In 1992 and 1993, the CIA’s Historical Review records, the CIA, in April 1995, requested Group proceeded to assemble CIA records each directorate and the DCI administrative relating to the assassination. In early 1992, officer “to appoint a focal point officer” for prior to enactment of the JFK Act, the Chief the JFK Act. Review Board inquiries were of the History Staff located and inventoried referred by the HRG to the appropriate CIA the CIA records on the assassination that CIA office. A number of CIA officers facilitated held pursuant to an agreement between the the difficult processes of securing access to C I A and the HSCA (the CIA–HSCA CIA files, as well as negotiating issues relat- sequestered collection). This material com- ing to the release of records. The Board found prised 64 boxes. In addition, the History Staff that, whenever it and its staff were able to secured the 16 boxes of the original Lee Har- deal directly with knowledgeable experts vey Oswald 201 file. Following passage of throughout the Agency on substantive issues the JFK Act, the CIA reviewed and declassi- or records, more often than not the result was fied with numerous redaction the Oswald a mutually acceptable release or postpone- 201 file and files within the CIA–HSCA ment. These compromises reasonably bal- sequestered collection, and in 1993 the CIA anced the public interest in disclosure with transmitted those records to the JFK Collec- legitimate needs for continued secrecy on tion at NARA. limited issues. The Review Board encoun- tered early CIA resistance to making records In October 1993, the CIA’s HRG requested the available to the Review Board, as well as various CIA di r ectorates to search for addi- resistance to the ultimate disclosure of tional rec o r ds on Lee Harvey Oswald and on records. A small number of CIA staff officers, the JFK assassination. (The directorates were almost exclusively from the Directorate of 146 Operations, unnecessarily impeded the Board inquiries regarding specific records. process and damaged the Agency’s interests The Review Board was disturbed by the by resisting compromise with all-or-nothing belated discovery of these records, particu- positions. larly given its mandate to assure the public that all relevant materials on the Kennedy In response to the Review Board requests, the assassination were being released by the U.S. Board staff was granted access to review government. original, unsanitized CIA f i l e s — i n c l u d i n g original files of the highest officials at CIA In an effort to ensure that the CIA had con- during the time of the assassination—to con- ducted thorough and adequate searc h e s firm the existence (or non-existence) of mate- under the JFK Act, the Review Board specifi- rials relating to the assassination.