1995 transfer of Star Gate to the CIA

In the classified annex to the defense appropriations act for fiscal 1995, Senate conferees wrote that "in the post-cold war era, the nature and activities of the STARGATE Program are more relevant to the mission of the Central Intelligence Agency Program (CIAP) than the military Intelligence services. Therefore, the conferees direct the Director of DIA to transfer ten civilian billets and $500,000 that are currently dedicated to the STARGATE program to the CIAP. The transfer of STARGATE resources and management to the CIAP should be completed by July 1, 1995." The DCI was to report by March 1, 1995, on "1) management strategy; 2) transfer status; and 3) identification of a program manager." The CIA took the Star Gate program from the DIA on July 1, 1995, and on September 27 the Director of Research and Development proposed that recommendations to terminate remote-viewing operations and research "within the intelligence community" be forwarded to Congress.¹²

The Directed Action

The conferees adopted the language of the Senate Appropriations Committee's report, which had been addressed to DIA: "Of the funds available to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Committee directs that $500,000 be applied to the STARGATE program and that the current 10 billets remain assigned to the program. The Committee requests that funds be applied roughly equally to foreign assessment, research and operational viewing. The Committee is concerned that Congressional direction in the past regarding the solicitation of users across the NFIP and DoD and development of joint programs with the Russians and Chinese has only been sporadically pursued. The Committee remains perplexed by the obvious reluctance of support on the part of the DIA leadership for this program." The committee "does not accept the excuse that this somehow compromises US intelligence activities," and "believes that the time has come for a re-evaluation of the classification of the existence of this effort as well as the results that have been obtained over time." It asked the DCI for "a retrospective review and technical analysis of the data that has been produced by the program since its inception 20 years ago," including "an inventory and analysis of the files held in the CIA, while it administered the program as well as in DIA," and for the DCI's declassification committee to determine "what parts of it may be declassified and be converted into an openworld activity." It asked the Director of DIA "to initiate further contacts with individuals involved in the Russian subprogram, to establish an open-world, declassified activity of cooperation between the two programs and report to the oversight Committees by February 1, 1995." Contracts "with outside entities" required prior notification.¹

The CIA's Plan

On December 14, 1994, "during a briefing arranged by CMS and given by the current DIA program manager, the program was described as an operational activity that is accepting requirements, conducting remote viewing operations, and disseminating intelligence based on these 'operations.' Over 90 such operations had been conducted during the past year. Staffing consists of three remote viewers, a program manager, a technical advisor and a secretary. Asked his opinion for the reasons the Congress had transferred the program to CIA, the program manager stated his belief that he had failed to respond to previous direction to conduct objective reviews and pursue foreign liason activities. He also told us that all of the program funds had been expended and that their contractor (SRI) had stopped work on the R&D activities." The Director of Research and Development, given the action in January, sought "a corporate (i.e. all directorates) buy-in" for an approach of three parts: "(a) Seek to decompartment all aspects of the program, (b) Convene a Blue Ribbon Panel of outside experts to review the program and make recommendations to CIA regarding our next step (c) Develop a program plan including needed funding and personnel resources." With Army support, the Office of Research and Development planned "to contact the chairman of a panel that did a review (circa 1988-1990) for the Army of unconventional techniques (including remote viewing), for enhancing human performance," and ask him to convene a similar group. The Director of Congressional Affairs "described our approach to Mr. Richard D'Amato, the congressional staffer responsible for the language effecting the transfer, and Mr. D'Amato expressed concern about the DIA people, in particular the three remote viewers." The three "should be kept as DIA employees until the Blue Ribbon Panel reports," since "they need to use the tasking and dissemination methods already in place in DIA."²

The memorandum anticipated the issues: "Parapsychology is a very controversial subject. It has been studied for at least the past hundred years by many renowned scientists without reaching any yes/no answers regarding its scientific validity. We do NOT intend to ask our blue ribbon panel to tell us if there is or is not anything to the concept, rather we intend to ask them to review the STARGATE program to assess its overall value to the USG based on intelligence value, process validity, customer satisfaction, and foreign assessment activity as directed by Congress. It is possible that our panel will recommend that we do NOT proceed with the program, and that has the potential for some controversy with our oversight committees." A draft memorandum to DIA of February 21, 1995, stated that "STAR GATE has an extraordinary nature and history and it's existence within the intelligence community remains controversial." The proposed language for the March 1 status report went to the Comptroller on February 27, and on March 28 the Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs sent the responses to Larry Combest, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, with originals "to the leadership of the committees with intelligence oversight responsibilities that have an interest in this topic."²³

Chronology

The CIA's chronology of the transfer records: a program manager appointed by the Director of ORD; a detailed briefing by the DIA program manager and personnel on February 6, 1995; "informal discussions with US Army Research Institute (ARI) and National Research Council (NRC) about potential CIA paranormal study request" in February and March; archiving from February to April "of all DIA and CIA files relating to paranormal studies going back 20 years"; a meeting with the Center for the Study of Intelligence "to discuss potential strategies for declassification"; on February 28, "CIA met with DIA principal investigator at SAIC, Dr. Ed May. All-day technical exchange"; in March, a site visit to Fort Meade "to meet all program personnel and discuss transfer." On March 15, "after informal discussions with NRC, panel member selection begins: Jessica Utts, John Palmer, James Alcock, and Ray Hyman contacted by NRC and agree to act as commissioned reviewers," and an independent contractor was hired "to assemble detailed bibliographies of all Star Gate program documents potentially subject of review," beginning work at Fort Meade "immediately." On March 21 the CIA accompanied DIA to brief the program to Benson Adams, assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. On March 27 a "Terms of Reference" went to Congress "stating NRC would perform unclassified retrospective, CIA would proceed with declassification, interim report on management strategy would be provided in July," and D'Amato was briefed at the Hart Senate Office Building and agreed. In April a memorandum of understanding was "executed between US Army and CIA, funds officially transferred to Pentagon," and on April 14 "evaluation of customer feedback on Star Gate tasking begins at Ft. Meade."⁴

On May 10, "NRC formally rejects CIA study proposal citing prior definitive study. NRC stated unequivocally that 'the case for remote viewing... is virtually nonexistent,'" and the same day the CIA met "with president and representatives of American Institutes of Research (AIR) to consider potential CIA study request after NRC rejection." On May 16 DIA "responds to request for assistance in declassification citing new EO 12958 as controlling, declines any further DIA action. Agrees to CIA declassifying DIA fact of program." On May 19 DIA gave notice that it would "reassign Star Gate personnel since study will not be concluded by 1 July. We concur in this decision." On June 1 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence "briefed on Star Gate status. Seven staffers attended." The AIR contract was signed on June 12; on June 14 DIA was notified "that CIA will give DIA documents to AIR and disclose DIA's program," and SRI "of CIA's intention to disclose formerly SECRET association. SRI later concurs." On June 21 an ad hoc declassification committee was formed "to review Studies in Intelligence Article summarizing history of CIA program," and on June 22 the first unclassified documents went to AIR, which "asks for identification of 10 best reports," and the Director of ORD declassified "3 ORD classified SRI contract documents identified as critical to AIR panel." The chronology ends there.⁴

Briefing slides of May 22, 1995, for the Senate Appropriations Committee gave the transfer by month: in January "Office of Military Affairs liaison established with Army"; in February "CIA transfer manager appointed, DIA program reviewed," "archiving of all files at CIA, DIA, and SAIC begins," and "US ARI agrees to be executive for NRC study, MOU established, resources transferred from CIA to Army"; in March "CIA responds to CDA; Status report briefed to Richard D'Amato (SAC)"; in May "NRC categorically rejects remote viewing study" and "program personnel, resources still reside at DIA." Of the status briefing of March 27: "CIA terms of reference requested that no resources be transferred until Blue Ribbon Panel completes directed review, SAC staffer agreed," and "it was agreed program personnel could not be transferred immediately since CIA has no way to task them, field requirements, or disseminate product and could not keep them productive."¹¹

The Program Under Review

A memorandum of April 17, 1995, to the DIA program manager on the "Star Gate Customer Base" recorded "your concern that the customer base exists today largely because of the personal relationships you have had with various customer elements and without those relationships, the customers might not have been interested in the program initially," asked for "points of contact (names, phone numbers, locations, etc.) so that I can interview each of these customers over the coming months," and, "based on your advice Thursday," dropped the plan of briefing the customers and "new potential CIA customers" on future services: "The interest in customers for future services, however, is still high. How can we substantiate a future operations program without it?" Of the numbered list of customers, only the last entry survives in the released copy: "Additional Classified Customers: Status as to tasking requested and feedback provided unknown."⁵

An ORD memorandum for the record of April 20, 1995, its author and addressee redacted, states that "Ed May of SAIC called this morning and volunteered to send me unsolicited information he had obtained from a 'remote viewer' named 'Joe' relating to the Oklahoma City Bombing"; ORD "did not have a means at ORD for tasking or disseminating this type of information at CIA," and the Counterterrorist Center named the FBI as the recipient. The Director of Research and Development wrote to CTC the same day that "we attach no credibility to this information, and currently have no way to evaluate it," and that May "has been the primary contract investigator in this area, and we have not completed our evaluation of his past efforts."⁶

DIA's response to the directed action, transmitted under the signature of Letitia Long, Director of the DMI Staff, and faxed to the CIA on March 15, 1995, gave the program's history from the service programs of the 1970s through fiscal 1994 and reported that in March 1994, "prior to the receipt of Congressional language to review program documents for declassification, the DIA's Technology Assessment and Support Activity in concert with the SAIC's CSL initiated a review of SRI originated R&D reports covering the period 1973 through 1989. As a result of that review, 45 SRI originated project documents were reviewed and all references regarding DoD involvement were excised and the documents declassified. DIA's General Counsel and Public Affairs Office concurred with the declassification action in September 1994." Its reading of the CSL data: "Approximately 1 percent of the general population appears to meet strict statistical criteria for exhibiting a robust AC (Anomalous Cognition) ability," and "during the CY's 1992-1994 CSL may have discovered the source of an AC signal," proportional to "the total change of entropy" at the target.⁷

The Files and the Independent Contractor

ORD's Emerging Programs Group asked the Office of Personnel on March 7, 1995, to amend an existing independent contract "so that ORD can specifically task him to facilitate transfer of a technical program (Star Gate) from another government agency to CIA." The contractor's invoice of May 30 for Task A listed "four (4) annotated bibliographies of Star Gate-related classified and unclassified documentation," "a classified catalog listing all operational tasking of the program," and an index to "a circa-1991 program planning document" listing 266 documents. His invoice of August 7 for Task B covered "a classified and unclassified version of my report detailing the results of my independent evaluation of the operational tasking records from the Star Gate program supplemented by the results of interviews with the staff of four of the operational organizations that tasked the Star Gate program," with "a brief description of all 40+ operational tasks that were numerically evaluated by the tasking organizations." His invoice of September 19 for Tasks C and D stated that he had "attended all specified meetings of the AIR (replacement organization for the NRC), their appointed panel members, and ORD," "participated in the review and editing of all unclassified reports prepared by the AIR, its panel members and ORD," "assisted in the preparation (writing), review and editing of the interim and final versions of the report from the AIR and its panel," and "prepared a plan delineating a program for the declassification review of 43 boxes of material related to the Star Gate program and its predecessor programs."⁸

DIA's log of the files, sent after a telephone call of October 10, 1995, between its PAQ-4A office and the contractor, reflected "the contents of 38 boxes of Project STAR GATE data that was forwarded to your Agency in a transfer function in July 1995." The CIA's management paper of September counted "43 document boxes of diverse program material relating to at least five past CIA and DOD parapsychology programs at various government agencies including SCANATE, Sun Streak, Center Lane, Grill Flame, and Star Gate," spanning "the early 1970s to 1995," some of which "remain sensitive due to sources and methods of other intelligence organizations and operations which are discussed." Under Executive Order 12958 the CIA was "now responsible for records management as though it were the originating Agency"; its Review Declassification Team estimated "four person-years" and "$400K in each of FY96 and FY97" for the review.⁸⁹

The Final Response

The Director of Research and Development's memorandum of September 27, 1995, recorded that status reports had been given "to SAC and SSCI Committee staff" in March and April, that presentation of the management strategy "was deferred until September 30" to allow the AIR review (1995 AIR evaluation of Star Gate), that "it was agreed by interested staff members and CIA that CIA's final proposed management strategy would be based closely on AIR's review," and that at "a third meeting with a SAC Committee staff" it was proposed "that the NIO for S&T should conduct an assessment of Russian parapsychology with the assistance of DIA Star Gate program personnel in parallel with the technical review." That assessment "was conducted largely by DIA Star Gate program officers on special, temporary assignment to CIA," under "the National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology, and the CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research," and "was reviewed by various officers of the NIC and CIA but it was not coordinated within CIA or the Intelligence Community." The four recommendations: "Terminate remote viewing operations within the intelligence community"; "Terminate research and development relating to remote viewing within the intelligence community"; "Perform a comprehensive declassification review of all DOD and CIA program files to prepare them for official transfer to the National Archives"; and "Apply no resources to the assessment of foreign developments in parapsychology," the last on the Directorate of Intelligence's view that "we view developments in parapsychology as a relatively low threat to the United States, and, consequently, as a low priority among all the threats we are trying to monitor and assess." The briefing slides prepared for the appropriations committee summarized the AIR process as "SAIC principal investigator asked to identify 10 most favorable documents," "over 80 documents ultimately declassified, transferred to blue ribbon panel," "DIA program manager asked to identify most favorable users of remote viewing," "AIR conducted standard interviews of these users on location with CIA present," and "commissioned reviews exchanged, rebuttals permitted, AIR arbitrated final conclusions for CIA key recommendations."⁹¹⁰