ay & Doctld: if ‘he wit be: there, aoe 7 ‘the: Rules Committee ‘ or. not; i 329966787 Page 4 } not going to want to get into very much questioning on that — t aspect. we So, the less. said about that in all probability is going i to be, they think, the best : approach. . The Chairman. Me. . tuto. Mee: Devine. ra am: ‘not sure it. will be: a: problem, but Me, “Anderson of, Tiitnois mentioned this morning that one of. the 19 water. - projects that President Carter deferred or eliminated happens, to, be in his district and there is a pub- fo Ate hearing in his district on Monday. I wish. it were possible ‘for Mr. anderson. to be at athe: “Rules” ‘Committee when we | appear - “Tse — because he is very articulate and on our side. I don't know whether we can persuade hin ‘to neglect his constituency or aot, but we might, keep. that in mind in scheduling. - The” ‘young Lady from Me. ‘andergon' s: office, do you iaow tr i whether he, is scheduled in mLinois on Monday? "Me. Brown. at believe 2, yes. I don't know how r long the Chairmen. ft aged with your a think at fe Amportant | ! [0 try to have tee ‘Andézecn be here. We will try to work — Soke te nent “Do they have + prsiiied in the Rules Comittee? - By Mr. Devine.” | x don'é Know whether they have proxies in
Mr. Dodd. Absolutely not. No proxies. ud woe 6! ON _. ‘The Chairman. | The Chairman can't vote for Anderson, ‘fT then? | | | . - | . Dodd. No, he has to be there. | -Is there a : problen?: | Mee Devine. “His water project has been eliminated by + oa . . ve 7 r r the President: and he is having a meeting’ ‘in Ais district. . ‘8 om + Dodd. ‘You can't use the Proxy, I can tell you that. Ft would like to ‘see him there. ; ra 7 Mr. Devine.» I would, too. to | . n | The Chairman. We will have to try to work that out. o 12. : “Let us get back to. the discussion of the report and om. - | 3 cena matters | relating to the report. | | | os a | 14 . : Is. everyone provided with a copy of the draft report? We are 0 open_ to @iscussion relative ‘to this Graft report. How - q mach time do. we have, Mrs ‘Sprague, in terms of being able to ] revise and extend this Feport and prepare for final prepara- ent | : ae | Mes ‘Sprague... “Mee chaizman, x asked before we recessed . | for ‘tuinch if t Goula. have. ‘that time to ‘take up with. the wet "s ade af Printing oftice the, matter of, the. printing of the transcript ‘that have been turned over, to you and ‘the matter of the | printing of this report. ae pe | We have ‘been, advised that. ifs we get. to. the "Printing . office by 6 6:00 p.m. ‘this @ evening, the fFanscripts,. as correct ies aa eo th Docld: 32266767 Page 5
4 usual three days for’ minority: views or for separate concurring ' o The Chairman: I would imagine that we , would have to, Sf pin light of. the time constraints here. | Mr. Fithian. =; have no separate or dissenting views, . Y ee will have them fully printed up for us this Friday . eS | z | nornin- . The same would apply, by the way, with regard to ; a 3 q this. report. It will be printed up for us this Friday morning.| . & | | TE we are unable to do that, we can have the report = -§ | and/or the. transcripts for ‘them by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow morning, | . “6 | om will have either or both of ‘those items printed up Monday [ 7 a | } a : The aero ‘ty guess this. part of the whole equation - ¢ f wit be a question of whether. some members will want to have) a 10 Poltpplemental or additional views to submit in the report, also. = u rt assume they will prepare those. WZ oe, Fithian. Mr. Chairman, will we need to take action | | . - . / as in the committee when we have a quorum to dispense with the | | | | | | but I ‘wanted: to make sure we don't get tripped up on a techni- - serene | | t don't know whether everyone ‘has suffi- ctent “time to- be aie © to. get through these or not; to discuss The Chatman. Mr. Preyer. Docld: 32266787 Page 6
dog 5 DocId:32266787 Page 7 af * - . . 5 Mr. Preyer. - I£ no one ‘else has a comment, initially, I would like to. ask a couple of questions about the ending _ part of the report. I thought it would sound a lot. more sterile than it ) really sounds. Tt sounds more interesting or intriguing than T thought it would. © of wonder about ‘the amlash incident? “one xeason I ask - | vey is that Ir ‘thought ‘that ineident which is not new, of course, and so > we can't take credit for developing all of that, it gives us an opportunity to say a couple of those quotes there along the. dines that the process by which the. intelligence agency gathering went along has been compromised. “therefore, to make the point which I. probably over— | exphasized, that if wa: ‘don't ‘have to. necessarily come out [wien a new result in ‘the amlash case to justify, that whole | process is void, ab initio, and that is a god _ enough reason © ‘for going ahead with it. 7 _ That Amlash- case has. seme good quotes on it. I wonder free you, left out. _ Anna an this. a SPs ERY ot load Ti ae : baa made 2 reference tn ghee earkier. report, ‘the ena of. last ‘oth year, to the U.S. Senate, Select Comm tte" 8 “statement. That is in that earlier eport,, at least their statement, after “having gone into anlash, and that to pot that in here would , look almost like we were repeating ite eee
dog 6. Docld:32266787 Page 8 cated. Sh. , Mr. Preyer. You were considering both of these reports Zz together? a _ Mr. Sprague. Yes. As a matter of fact, in part of this report we have made reference to material in the. final report. , Mr. Preyer: - rt have one specific question. At the top I of page 12, the question about Ruby and Oswald. ‘You say, : ; "The Committee staff has spoken with a | witness." - Maybe we. hava just spoken with a witness, but is ‘there nove than one witness on that subject? . Mr. Tanenbaum. No, that was the young Lady that ‘indi- oe Mr. Preyer. ‘There was a witness there who said that. The other: comment r would make, and I think it is impor- T tant, is that we emphasize where we can what is new and what [tet not Justa Hehashing of old evidence. Like that one at ay | tne t top of page, 12, necessarily you } have to be very cautious 2 that case, but that is a brand new witness, - as I understand ee ‘Tanenbaum ‘that ts correct. Me. Preyer: t wonder there ana in other Anstances where oS "| have a chance to, emphasize that the state came up with ‘this witness, he may have ‘been. known before. but he never testified before, ir we ‘could have emphasized he ‘never testi- ‘fied, he is new , and it is: not a rehash, that would be good; I ‘think that makes a | good strong statement.