| they will have them fully printed up for us this Friday . ‘Morning. The same would apply, by the way, with regard to this report. It will be printed up for us this Friday morning. If we are unable to do that, we can have the report ‘and/or. the. transcripts for them by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow morning, |. ‘they will have either or both of those items printed up Monday | morning. | - | . The Chairman. I guess this part of the whole equation will be a question of whether. some members will want to have 10 ratipplemental or additional views to submit in the report, also. _H i r assume _they will prepare those. Mr. rithian, Mr. ‘Chairman, will we need to take action | _ 12 :13 in the. committee when we have a quorum to dispense with the 14 usual three days for. minority views or | for separate concurring -15) views? 1 : The Chairman: I would imagine that we , would have to, ay -in light of the time constraints here. 18 Mr. Pithian. I have no separate or dissenting views, ot but I wanted to make sure we don't get tripped \ up on a techni- 90. eality. = us oe . | a . | . cant . “The Chairman. -r donte know whether everyone has suffi- cient tine ‘to be able to get through these or not; to discuss Mr. Preyer.. “Mr. Chairman. 95 The Chairman. Mr. Preyer. Docld: 322765557 Page 6
dog 5 5 Mr. Preyer. If 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. It sounds more interesting or intriguing than I thought it would. I wonder about the Amlash incident? One reason I ask is that I thought that incident 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 lines that the process by which the intelligence agency gathering went along has been compromised. Therefore, to make the point which I probably over- emphasized, that if we -don't have to necessarily come out with a new result. in the Amlash case to justify, that whole process is void, ab initio, and that is a good enough reason for going ahead with it. That Amlash case has some good-quotes on it: I wonder why you left out Amlash in this. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Preyer, my thinking there is that we had made reference in the earlier report, the end of last year, to the U.S.,Senate Select Committee's statement. That is in that earlier report, at least their statement, after “having gone into Amlash, and that to put that in here would | look almost like we were repeating it. Docld:32265557 Page 7
2°\| together? [of page 12, "the question about Ruby and Oswald. You say, . "he Committee staff has spoken with a witness." || moxe than one witness on that subject? cated. tant, is that we emphasize where we can what is new , and what the top of page. 1p necessarily you have to be very cautious fin that case, but. that is a brand new witness, as I understand it. you have a chance to emphasize that the start came up with “aa ‘this ‘witness, he may have been known befere but he never | tentiziea before, if we could have emphasized he 1 never testi- think that makes a good atrong statement. SA. Mr. Preyer. You. were considering both of these reports 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. - I have one specific question. At the top “Maybe we have just spoken with a witness, but is there Mr. Tanenbaun. No, that was the young lady that indi- | Mr. Preyer. «There was a witness there who said that. ‘The other. comment. I would make, and I think it is impor- is not just. a rehashing of old evidence. Like that one at 7 Mr. Tanenbaum. ‘that is correct. oo Mr. Preyer. . wonder there and in other instances where oy Be, fied, he is new 7 and it is: not a rehash, that would be good; I Docld:32265557 Page 8
18 ‘16 iW “18 23 2 Docld:32265557 Page 9° 25 The Chairman. Mr. Devine. Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am overly sensitive about the problems that this committee has had since its conception until such, time as you became chairman. Iama . Little. troubled | by the wording of the first paragraph on page me I think we belabor that too much, going. into ‘too much | aetaia about all ‘these budgetary restrictions, and I have rewritten some language for paragraphs 1 and 2 that I think | would be less inflammatory and still do the job. Iwould read like this. "For technical and administrative reasons, the committee - had some delays in the course » of the investigation. For example, the committee aia not have access to certain files on the assassinations for approximately two months; telephone service was. disconnected for the same period, preventing the [state from maintaining contact with witnesses and potential witnesses; and other problens which severely restricted the Joonmittee : in its investigative efforts." | creases don! t. think we should lean on. the budgetary restric- ‘3 tions, because that. is one of the. problems that we have to overcome in both the ales ‘Committee and on the Floor. I don't think that we should. talk about specifically what our problems were. — I think the language suggested | would |probably tell the same story. al
aa 12: 13 2 a Then the next three-line paragraph, I don't like what ‘you say: ". . many of the impediments have been removed," ‘under the chairmanship of Mr. Stokes. I would like to have |them believe they all. have been. / My suggestion on that: is in line 2 of the second para- Graph. strike out. "many, of" and “impediments” and insert . "problems". instead of "impediments" and strike out "removed" and insert "resolved. ” ‘That! would read: "Under the chairman- ship of Representative Louis Stokes, the problems have been resolved and the investigations are now resuming ina thorough r manner." ‘I am. not married to the language, Mr. Chairman, but I think. that it would be less. provocative. The Chairman. I ‘agree with you. . The state will take that into consideration. Is there anything else? . Me. Devine. That is all, Mr. “Chairman. it scanned it during the luncheon period. _=BY and large, I ‘think it will do. the Job. “The Chairman. t wonder, it rt can sort of react to the | tinvestigation” part, here. * I ‘guess, Mr. Sprague, Ir will direct the question to you and. to Mr. Tanenbaum. “T am concerned that with reference to the investigatory material that appears in the report, that fwe do not have the news media once again taking another shot Docld: 32265557 ‘Page 10
- | @ label and not disclosing? > at us in the sense of their rehashing the same old stuff | which gives our opposition on the Floor the arguments that | they need. They will very hastily say to | George Lardner or ; gome other author who is an authority on each one of these - investigations .-- I guess I am wondering whether that section “needs to be reworked or less data included, we need to make more reference to the fact that there is within our possession much more sensitive and highly volatile information that | Just cannot be disclosed in light of this type of investiga- tion and that type of thing. Ti am just. wondering whether we need to go “this way. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, that really hits the nub of the problem, because to have something is going to cause the problem; that it is so limited as to make it appear what ‘yf in the world is being done, and on the other hand, to just have that it is. so. sensitive creates, I Guess, the problem | that: we are going to be criticized. Are we just hiding behind ---What we have attempted to. do and really part of the reason that this has not been submitted to you, as rt indicated ek would be on Monday, is that we have gone through a number of drafts. What. you have here is a tremendously toned down | version of what existed, trying to really incorporate and put into writing what. has béen the comments and Suggestions by / member's of the committee. Docld: 32265557 Page 11
og 10. Docld:32265557 Page 12 whether t there is: a balance between so-called new material which has already been revealed in the Warren Commission “report and ‘the Senate ‘Intelligence Committee report -- is it )all a rehash of those two things or is: there enough new stuff to show that we are not just rubber stamping or rehashing old it is hard to say something is new as opposed to rehash, because in fact people have read everything under the sun. . || Somebody may well suggest, and I am sure has suggested, that | Ruby and Oswald had ‘been. in. contact prior to the assassination ; standpoint, is that we have located a witness who apparently gays that. the allegation may be old and in -terms of proof ri that. may be nil. we are: doing is Jeoking into what. has been. alleged to be able Hl to p prove or disprove. 80° ‘that to go “into what we are ‘doing is going to, of necessity, raise things that. have been raised | xight along. That is one of the reasons that we are doing it. | documents that were prepared, final documents, we were able Mr, Devine. Mr. Chairman, > I think, Mr. Sprague, what concerns the Chairman and most of us is that any material contained in this proposed report, material? a oe Mr. Sprague. Part of the problem, Mr. Devine, is that _ Ruby knew Oswald. What is new, in a sense here from out | Obviously in this investigation, one of the things that The Chairman. ‘Here is what I have in mind: From the two
10° to take those two documents along with the oral presentations “and we were able to convince both the leadership of the House ‘and most of the Rules Committee members that we were on to -something here that needs to be continued. Asa result of that, I doubt that the Rules Committee is going to Really: want us to get into disclosing what we feel ‘we are on to here... - » Now the question is in terms of this presentation here ‘will we get the same kind of result that we have gotten last? | Obviously we can't name names as we did the other day. I know the media are. sitting: here waiting to tear us apart on this report, and we have to out-think them. I am just. wondering, are we hurting ourselves with this | approach here right how? oo Mr. ‘Sprague.- Mr. Chairman, I really. don't. know what “else could be included. I am struck by the fact that Mr. . Preyer, ; in reading the Kennedy aspect, said it came out 18 ‘stronger than he ‘thought it would. | From. that standpoint, I T wouta assume that, at would be somewhat helpful. -To Iimit it | further raises. “the problem that if we ‘are going. to. be attacked, that. we obviousiy: are not doing much. “The Chairman. You don't see . a problem here revealing this much? Mr. Preyer. I think it is a problem all right, as you ‘have outlined it. DocId: 32265557 ° Page 13
©. 11 The Chairman. I think we can make a statement that there are in both cases witnesses who have talked to investi- gators who have never been interviewed before, never given a ‘statement ‘before, substantive in nature, and so forth. Mr. Preyer. I am wondering what is new, _leoking through — the Kennedy thing, and. is not a rehash. on ‘page ll, second paragraph, “Oswald was associated with anti-Castro groups." There is new evidence on this, ‘flisn't there; it has not been. rehashed? Mr. Sprague. That is correct. _ Mr. Preyer. The second paragraph; the Hunt letter is ‘new. That has just recently surfaced. On page 12,. ‘top paragraph, that is new. In other words, the first three paragraphs, each Ir think can be defended as new evidence. aan oe a oe - meafficante, ‘Tr don't know whether that witness surfaced ‘before or not that we are talking about now. | ‘The Chairman. - What: would trouble me on page 12 is that ‘the committee "received information, not yet corroborated. . Iz think. ‘the news media would take you apart on that; Pye "received information, ‘not. yet corroborated. ° _ What ‘does that mean? Mr. Preyer. I wonder if we should not make some blanket statement at the outset or at the close of it that we empha- ‘size these are all leads; they nave not been subjected to Docld:32265557 Page 14
: cross~examination or polygraph test or the usual test of 12 | corroboration, but they are the kinds of things that are so important, if true, that they must be run down, that we should be allowed to corroborate and cross-examine them. I think we would be making a mistake to try to give an ; impression that these things are all true. Then if they blow up in our face, we will really be in trouble. Mr. Dodd. ‘ft ‘think your point is well taken. Possibly in the very beginning, I think we get ourselves into a box wherei.one: puts the purpose of support? Are we supposed to be able, in the period of time we have been in | existence, to come up with corroborated, conclusive evidence that ‘would convince the Congress we should go forward? I think everyone ‘in the: Congress knows what difficulty this committee has: ‘had over the past couple of months. The language would have to be chosen carefully. ‘I think if you - | stated at the outset what the purpose of the report was and | “that ‘was to bring up to date the members of Congress with regard to the activity of the committee, the hurdles that they have had to overcome and ‘so forth, and not allow ourselves to be | put in ‘the: = position of trying. to defend the material we have with conclusive evidence which has not been brought up at one time in the past -- I see us getting into a situation where we are really boxed in. Mr. Preyer. . If we could disarm the press at the outset Docld:32265557. Page 15
-by saying “Sure, this is uncorroborated." }it down. of saying we have not been able to get into this stuff and it is thoroughly because of our problems, which is one: thing we ‘have been saying, which is a fact, which is true, and then to ‘is not our intention in this report, to defend necessarily 19 | this committee. has been constituted, these questions are still ‘unanswered and we are in the process, within the limited ‘time we have had of ‘developing the leads and other information. that | has come to us and that I ‘think we can gay that : some of ‘before surfaced, without being sensational or wrong, but to show that there is an ongoing progressive state of an 13 We will say it has raised questions and we have to run Mr. Dodd. We don't want to get ourselves in a position also come forward with evidence that we have had an opportunity to examine thoroughly, that is contradictory. I think we ought to make to clear in the beginning that , that kind of evidence being fact. the Chairman. tt may be that we can approach it from the viewpoint of saying, we refer back to the time that the committee was originally constituted, it was constituted as a direct result of the unanswered questions that were apparent | as. relates, to. both these deaths. Obviously, the short period of four months or so that ” the leads and information that have come to us have never Docld: 322765557 Page 16
meat 2 14 Docld:322765557 Pat investigation. In that regard, I think, further, we can say that obviously there are things we cannot include in this | report because of the sensitive nature of the investigation. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I thought we really had, in a sense, responded to what is being raised now, because on ‘page 2 at the beginning we do say in the bottom paragraph; _ - While the committee believes that the new leads” must be vigorously pursued, we » emphasize the fact that it is impossibt to predict whether the information will be proven reliable. and capable of verification. The investigations are in their -infancy and, therefore, the committee cannot submit verifiable conclusions with. respect to the assassinations before the. inquiry is completed and the evidence gathered, tested and - corroborated." I thought that. would address itself to what Mr. Preyer jf was saying in the beginning. ’ ‘The reason. in the latter part dealing with trafficante on page 12 where it says} "The: committee has received infor-| | mation, not. yet corroborated," + was “that ¢ we wanted to keep. the r credibility of this. committee at. the highest level, and even enough there is ‘that, statement at: the beginning, we ‘thought it well ‘to reemphasize that with: regard to that particular information so as not to be caught off base, because I would hate to get. in the ‘posture for this committee where we are making one statement with a number of others and then somebody
g 16 Docld:32265557 Page 18 15° goes out and - proves that. one statement is untrue and that giving an implication that everything else is down the drain as well. That. is why I thought we covered really what you are vaising here. Mr. Dodd. ‘tr am suggesting rather than that, that should be the first paragraph. That is out immediately.- This is ‘the first thought that is in this report that we are not, in effect, saying that it is in its infancy, we have not had a | chance or opportunity to corroborate all the evidence and | testimony come forward because of the obvious restraints the ‘committee has operated under, and so- forth. I think that “ought to be the. first thing that we ‘say. Ir think that, ‘in’ a sense, will get us off: the hook of | having to defend’ each and every statement that is in here with regard to potential witnesses, evidence and so. forth. Mr. Sprague. We just ‘want - to be very careful, Like that Trafficante—Ruby situation. We can put it more in the ‘beginning than we have it... We. did not want it thought that this committee representing the House of Representatives is . ‘making the statement, nonetheless, because if things are not. > put in a cautionary sense, it fs gong to have the weight of ‘this committee behind it. and it ought not. have that where we are not able to say that definitively.
Docld: 322765557 ft possible to clarify who Mr. Maheu was. We know, but every time I have heard the name or the name said, I have heard | gotigone say "Is this the same Maheu?" - Maheu and the fact that I guess he testified to certain things | | before the Church Committee? “that he was in fact recruited for this purpose. am Rot sure about the reaction politically. various things. tfr could argue both sides. | have. on the other side, there are many People I find in the | House that, unless there is something that they can really “@ling’ to, they are ‘terrifies Ay the idea of oriticizing our intelligence agency. for instance, the CIA budget, where. we took a vote. there and | 16 Mrs. Burke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before we get too far along, I wanted to ask if it is Could there be some sentence there explaining which Was it the Church Committee? Mr. Sprague. That is correct. - I will certainly put in who he is and his statement Mrs. Burke. The next thing I am saying is something I The allegation that we go on here, the CIA, FBI, and It does raise confirmation of suspicions that some people ‘The statement, for instance, in here that Hoover tried to mislead the Warren Commission. From my experience, and ny own experience relates to appropriations where we reviewed, '
17 the majority of the members of that committee voted not to 2 | know what was in the CIA budget, the idea being that there is 3 this terrible apprehension of criticizing those agencies. — 4 So, I just want ‘to raise the question, realizing that maybe the people who feé@l that way would never vote for us 6 | anyhow, which is a possibility, but I am not sure, and I 7 | would just throw that out, Me. Chairan. | & The Chairman. I think the gentlewoman's observations - are well taken. , | 10 The gentleman from Maryland said he had originally voted uv for it, but now he understood that it would embarrass the FBI /12 | and like that, he used the PBI in his objections the last time . +13 He opposed the resolution. | 41 F think that is something we might rethink, in light of “15 that knowledge. -What we wind up doing is one thing, but it 16 | might not be necessary for us to telegraph it. | Mr. Sprague. May I respond, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Burke? “We 1 put it in, and it is on page 14 really dealing with : "whe committee has obtained evidence suggesting the actual ‘destruction « of evidence." That, in fact, is something: that is known and that the “Federal Bureau of: Investigation has admitted . It is not a disclosing of something ‘unknown there. It seems to us that not putting in a matter that is concerned with the connection : between Oswald and the FBI, when it already is an area that is Docld: 322765557 Page 270
7 =«18 | in the public domain and questions have been raised, would lead to the question why is it not mentioned since you are mentioning different things? That is the reason for that. | It seems to us that everything we do is going to be | reviewed, : subject - to analysis. If this.is an area involved int the investigation, ‘if there isa feeling of | not = putting it in now because, let us, say, someone might attack | us on it, I query how thorough will be the investigation if there is a concern like that and something that is publicly known. The second part dealing with the misleading statements, again, that is not based really on witness's statements. | That happened to be something that is predicated upon the :  actial documents that exist. ; . ' Mrs. Burke. If this is in the public domain, I would think it should be: stated specifically; rather than "The | committee has information" it should be saying that evidence ‘has 3 already: been corroborated or there have already been statements before committees that Oswald had a link with the fem. If we. have it in ‘the ‘public domain, I think it should 1] be specificaliy stated. ‘The Chairman. Mee ‘Tanenbaum, isn't that in the Warren | Commission report? . . Mr. Tanenbaum. What is in the report is that Oswald had some pro-Castro. views. There is nothing there that 'fndicates that he had links to the CIA, that we have, namely, Docld: 32265557 Page 21
og 20 19 : through Feliciano. That is new; it is not in the public ‘domain. The Chairman. I thought the Warren Commission sent their counsel to J. Edgar Hoover for the purpose of his mak- ting inquiry as to whether Oswald was one of their agents or not. - ne a Me. ‘Tanenbaum. That happened in executive session on two occasions in January 1964. | The Chairman. Mr. Fithian. Mr. Fithian. | I share some of the concerns of Mrs. Burke. I am wondering it, on ‘page 14, we might not want. to do it slightly differently. I think that we ought to indicate pat the beginning of that paragraph at- the top of the page ‘that "It has already been established that," or some such | wording, if that’ isthe case, and then I am wondering if we might not drop the rather accusative paragraph which follows || Lnvolving the CIA, et cetera, "must be fully serutinized." rt does seem to cast this whole inquiry and investigation into sort of an. investigation ef the. FBI and CIA. Some ‘| aspects of those two agencies obviously have come into review. . I am wondering ££ we need to irritate those members who. otherwise might. go. along with us. I have found one of the ‘more effective arguments. with some members of the House is to argue the case that we ought to clearly delineate, in the ‘ course of this investigation, exactly what administrative Docld:32265557 P ge 22 . oye
20 . | procedures were and were not followed by agencies of the | government in order to establish whether or not there is | need for legislative rene. One of the things we do not | : point to ‘in. this: report - -- maybe we. don't want to; maybe | that is jumping the: gun -- but it. does seem to me to be a very convincing justification for this committee asa Congressional committee to" review those procedures. and to conclude sometime down the line ‘that we ought to mandate that in times of national emergency or assassination of a a President or a national leader that certain things would, of . | necessity, be done by these agencies; that all information would be immediately transmitted to duly constituted investi- gative bodies, or some such thing. For a lot of them’ who. are uncertain as to ecactly what ‘role either of these agencies was and there are those in the . “House | who, fall. on both. sides of that, they can all agree that “££ this investigation demonstrates a breakdown in the normal | process, then it might well be the responsibility of this 7 ; committee to. recommend some. legislation correcting the process | ana that is ‘not ‘necessarily digging up ‘the bones of. J. Edgar | roovers tt ts “Looking down the road ahead to prevent some breakdown in the process. I am wondering if we might not want to drop words like | "gerutinize," et cetera, and recast that in such ‘a way that tt simply indicates we are going to review all of these Docld: 322765557 Page 23.
21 - processes and where they demonstrate or prove to have broken down we may want to subsequently recommend legislative remedy . | That is not proving who killed JFK or Martin Luther King. © It is an entirely different thrust. Mr. Tanenbaum. I think a point has to be made here. That is what we are not simply saying from what we know that J. Edgar Hoover whispered in somebody's ear something that was significant; that CIA made a mistake in filing a report, _we think during the course of the investigation we are going to look into those kinds of problems. | | ‘The two areas we have with the FBI and Cra are very significant. In fact, J. Ragar lied about a very important witness concerning their own assassin; Oswald. CIA misrepre- sented also about Lee Harvey Oswald; his alleged trip to Mexico City. | | It seems to me that people who otherwise might not vote for this committee because they think there might be a problem in. those areas might be very hard pressed, when confronted with the report, that documents based upon their own documentation, not witnesses that we have but upon things that they have themselves, that we were able to put together, they will be very. hard pressed on the merits publicly to vote against the committee that has demonstrated unequivocally that both of these agencies significantly played a role in - covering up, acquiescing or participating in the assassination Docld: 322765557 Page 24
10 a” 72 13 14 er 15 16 18 19 Docld:322765557 F 22 of the President. Mr. Fithian. Why don't we say "based on documents in possession of these agencies"? 'In other words, we are not now drafting this from newspaper accounts. It would strengthe | it if we say "based upon documents in the possession of these agencies." I am still wondering, instead of saying all this scrutiny business, that we might not hint at some legislative remedy. I know as an investigator you don't worry about what we might do later on in offering a bill before Congress, but that might well be the action of this committee. | Mr. ‘Tanenbaum. Absolutely. I do think that it is very . important that we ourselves maintain our own integrity with : regard to this. I agree with Mr. Stokes, there is no need to telegraph a play that may be called sometime in the future. This is a very fundamental issue and that is part of what we have already found. For us to sidestep it now, it seems to me, is not to. really, play fair and square with people who are in | the opposition.: tf they still wish to vote against us, knowing that we have documentation about significant major importance, power- ful misrepresentations ‘and cover-ups, then let the record be so stated that they voted against it knowing that, rather than just simply saying that we are > going to carefully e 25
10 me 12 13 “15 16 17 13. 19 23 26 2s 23 scrutinize or in any way politically, we can all agree. This is too important to do that. Mr. Preyer. I think the first paragraph does what you are talking about. It sets out, it talks about information, . when corroborated. It talks about evidence. I believe with Mr. Fithian on that second paragraph that there you are drawing a conclusion rather than talking about what we have in evidence. From a political point of view, it is going to antagonize some people, I am afraid. They will say we are on a crusade against the FBI and CIA. I don't see how we can lose anything to either strike out the second paragraph or amend it in the form that Mr. Fithian has suggested . We are not trying to hide from any- body that we have evidence and information that they are involved. : The Chairman. The staff can take those suggestions in mind and work that over - oe Mey Sprague. Mr. Chairman, we can omit that second paragraph. ; oo. a Mr. Devine. As a postscript to what has been said about that, I think it should be .in our final report, but it can be inflammatory to those persons who are looking for excuses to vote against us. | We have to survive in order to get to the point to establish those things. It is not essential that this be Docld: 32265557 Page 26
24 retained at this point; I think it had better go out. Mr. Sprague. I think it is easy to omit that second paragraph altogether. | ‘Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, a small technical matter. On page 10, which has the budget, would it not be helpful to put an asterisk behind that final figure at the bottom and indicate in the footnote that this figure includes the repay- ment of the $254,000 for the funds already expended during | the January to March period? Those of us who work with these figures so much now know that is the case, but I think it might be helpful to other members who are reviewing the budget to know when they see the one page that has the budget in it, that that total figure at the bottom included the January-February~-March repayment of funds already expended. Mr. Sprague. ‘Mr. Chairman, may I bring to Mr. Fithian's attention that the paragraph just preceding that budget figure ends with the following statement: "We submit for the consideration of the members of the House the following summary of our proposed budget of 1977, | which includes the funds." Mr. Pithian.. ‘What I am saying is if ‘somebody is bothered with the budget, they don't read ‘the rest of the report. They say "That is $2,796,000. I thought the Speaker was in ' favor of $2.5-million" -- bang. Docld: 32265557 Page 27
og 26 10 VY 12 414 - + § 16 7 . 13 19 2 _ 23 24 25 25 Mr. Sprague. We can easily put an asterisk and put that specific thing under it. Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief comment, if you have not passed the point of discussing page 10 of the “report. ‘I think that, to some extent, this very, very skeletal outline of the budget leaves a little bit to be desired. I am wondering why it can't be fleshed out with just a little bit more detail. You have a figure here of almost $2 million for salaries, and nothing more. I don't know, I could be wrong, but~T think when the members learn that in lieu of the original contemplated staff of 170 that you are down to 115 and they are going to be phased in gradually over a period of time from the present level of 73, that I would explain that a little bit, 1 think, and adjust a little bit more detail on the budget. The Chairman. Maybe that reconciliation sheet that you worked on this morning might be the way to do that. | Mr. Preyer: One suggestion has been that we put the | budget plus the reconciliation statement plus some of the comments on how we got the six and a half million to $2.7 million that was made this morning into the Congressional Record, print the whole detailed budget in the Congressional Record. I think your point is a good one. Docld:32265557 Page 26 |
Looking at that cold there, it looks bare. Mr. Anderson. At least on the salary item, I would like to see a little more detail. | The Chairman. Where is Tom Howarth? | Mr. Sprague. I think he is working on budget for the Appropriations Committee right now, Mr. Chairman, but we can ' follow through on that. 7 The Chairman. Mes. Burke. Mrs. Burke. Mr. Chairman, how many staff members did the Watergate Committee have? Mr. Devine. In addition to the staff members, they had the total cooperated of all the FBI, Secret Service and the State Department and everybody else. I don't know the number | of persons on the staff payroll. I think it is in our ori- ginal report. — | Mr. Sprague. - Are you talking about Warren Commission or Watergate? Mrs. Burke. Watergate. Mr. Sprague. Watergate, I do not know. | | Mrs. Burke. The Judiciary inquiry, Impeachment Committee 7 Mr. Sprague. I have a recollection somewhere of 120. Mrs. Burke. this is one of the things that was raised with me by some of the people who served on that committee, . and I was trying to get the correct. figures. Mr. Sprague. We can get that. Tt is 110.
72 13 14 ant) 16 N7 19 27 Mrs. Burke. I think it is good for us to know. The Chairman. Mr. Fithian. Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that in our own handling of this, that we point out or emphasize in our | discussions the point Mr. Dodd raised; the fact that there are two investigations going on, so- any members we “have can be divided by two. | I am wondering if we might not follow up so that the staff has very specific instructions on what Mr. Anderson _ has raised with regard to fleshing out the budget. I am very much in favor of the total budget we discussed this morning and Mr. Preyer's remarks going into the Congressional Record. : I don't know how much is appropriate to include in here, although I am not one to worry about duplication of places that. members of ‘Congress could fina to read this thing, because if we tried to get at them both through the Congres- sional Record and this, they will think there is something wrong with it. | | Iam wondering if we. could give the staff some very specific direction as to how much. of the budget and how, much of the material you are. going to. put in the Congressional Record is going to be printed on pages 10 and succeeding pages. Mr. Preyer. One thing that occurs to me is that we could print the new budget here and put a column of the original Docld:32265557 Page 30
Cy &D 28 budget beside it so that you could see how much Salary had been reduced and so forth, and that would give you the oppor- tunity to then put a page of comment under salaries and _ : explain that this reduction came about by reducing to a total | 115 from the original total, and that sort of thing. Mr. Fithian. And then perhaps some comment at the bottom that would indicate that anyone who wants to peruse ‘the entire budget and explanation of it should see pages X, Y, 2 in the Congressional Record of such and such a date. I think we are not giving too clear a road map where they can find the information. They are all pressed for time as we are. If we have in there, indicating on pages whatever it is, in tomorrow's Congressional Record they can find the entire. budget, at least it cuts the ground out from under them by saying in the course of ‘the debate, "Well, you don't pre- sent us with enough information on this budget to know whether to support you or not." | It arms us a little better for the debate if we do that. ‘The Chairman. I suppose the headlines will be, "The - committee cut. the ‘Sprague budget by $4 million, anyway." | Mr. Sprague. The committee, cut Sprague. Mr. Fithian. ir see . here Item 3, "consulting Services." It seems to me that at our task force meeting, Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion about spelling out something there, | about experts or something, forensic services, scientific Docld: 32265557 Page 31
29 '] services, so that it did not sound like it was a sludge fund 2 for consultants, knowing the way the House operates. 3 Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I have gone through the report 4 | and have a bunch of little technical changes and some that 5 | are a little more substantive. 6 ‘I wonder if we might start with some of those. 7TH The Chairman. Sure. 8 Mr. Dodd. On page l, second paragraph after the words 9 "Martin Luther King, Jr.," for clarity's sake you talk about 10 "despite the eight years since these final conclusions were o reached" and so forth. 27 On page 2 at the very bottom this language might go 13 toward the front. "The investigations are in their infancy 14 «| and, therefore, the committee cannot submit verifiable con- 18 clusions with respect to the assassinations." 16 I would change the language to read-"Before all the a ‘17 | evidence is gathered, tested and corroborated, and inquiry is _18 || completed." : . | en oone 19 Page three, I have a question on the very first sentence, 20 "While the committee is pursuing new information, it has also 21 undertaken to initiate an exhaustive de novo investigdion of 29 | the assassinations." 23 It seems to me from the Rules Committee discussion and 24 | others is this to be a de novo investigatation or are we going Gy’ 25 ! to be relying on testimony, evidence and so forth? Maybe I Doclda: 322765557 Page 32
10 WW 12 14 “15 16 AW 19 20 21 23 24 25 13 30 still unclear. [I thought this was not going to be a completel de novo investigation. That is a fundamental question. I thought we were going to be in with those things already established, we are not going to go back to the very first - moment in time. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a pretty fundamental question. I have been under the assumption that we are going back to ground level number one, because part of the problem that would exist if it is not de novo is how do we know that which is in fact so? We must start at the beginning. There are, obviously, things along the way that have been established; there there is not going to be any difficulty in our reestablishing. But it seems to me that is. where we start. Mr. Dodd. Maybe I am suggesting that thereis some language after that sentence which would say, in effect, just what you have said that obviously, where evidence has been established as being conclusive, the committee is not going ou to reestablish that evidence. — | | The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield to me? — Mr. Dodd. “gure. : 7 ‘The Chairman. . I suppose what you are saying by eliminat-| ing the words de novo you could say "initiate an exhaustive investigation of the assassinations," which includes going | back to the beginning, wherever you have to. I think de novo Docld: 322765557 Page 33
dog 32 | +18 16 [VW _3l might engender some discussion. We still can do what we have to. | Mr. Dodd. That is a kind of fuse word language to our colleagues, to hear the word de novo. Mr. Fauntroy. I wonder if I may speak to that. I’ have not had an opportunity to read this, but it seems to me what has been effective in my discussions with other members has been to say that the committee is actually active in two areas. First, that we are identifying documents, evidence, names and locations of witnesses and the like that are available to us through both state, local and federal agencies We are identifying that. | And that we are also, secondly, and I hope this language . is included in this draft, we are also in the process of looking at new and previously unpursued leads. With those two things on the way, obviously we have to do, in my judgment, a de novo investigation. Once we have in hand everything that everybody has that we have looked at, then.we do the investigation and come right up. Secondly, in the process I have been saying, we are doing it. Like being cut off from the FBT files; we are looking at all of them. In the meantime, there have been some new leads. What perks up people, in my judgment, is when you say - . . . . - ae cee Docld:32265557 Page 34
32 fog 33 1 | new and unpursued leads. I would hope that we hold to the oOo 2 || idea of doing the investigation but having in hand when we 3 | do it, when we go to sit down at ground zero and say that we © 4 are at the Rainbow Motel, we know everybody else who was 5 | there and where they are. 6 ““- --™he Chairman. You would agree with Mr. Dodd's reasons? 7 Mr. Fauntroy. Make it de novo. 8 Mr. Dodd. The last paragraph on page 3, "Now that the 9 Il committee has adopted rules of procedure and proposed a bud- 10 | get, we are ready to continue." | I am changing the word "concentrate" to "continue." I 12 || think the concept should be woven through the entire report 13 || that this is a continuing function we are undergoing and not 14 |} something we are concentrating on. Change the word -1§ | "concentrate" to "continuing." 16 On page 4 -- and this was raised by Mr. Fithian in part 17 || at the beginning of that Section II A, I would like to 4g | include here and anywhere else the staff may find helpful, 19 | this restated concept of legislative action at the conclusion 90 || of this inquiry: | 21 Again, from a Judiciary Committee standpoint, one of ” their major concerns is that our resolution and our efforts 4 be designed ultimately to result in legislation to come out 94 ft of this committee, not just a criminal investigation. The 25.) language I have added here is, "The task of investigating Docld: 322765557 Page 35
10 Ju 12 14 16 <7 mnt: 20 at 24 33 these two murders, especially as they relate to identifying possibly future legislative action by Congress was commenced under resolution," and so forth. I will read it again. After the words "two murders," "especially as they relate to identifying possibly immediate future legislative action by the Congress." That is something I feel we should emphasize, the legislative intent, hecause it is one of the major criticisms we face. On page 5, paragraph B, "The 95th Congress," going down to the beginning of the third sentence with the words | "thereafter," after "February 2, 1977." Thereafter, on March 8, 1977, Congressman Louis Stokes was appointed Chairman by. the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the committee was again reorganized and continued to pursue the investigation.” ; | | “Again the word "continuance." This is the period, that month, that I think is important so far as I have understood it, that even though the phones were cut off and even though ; the access was eliminated to the FBI, the staff was still working, research was being done and so forth. I think it might be important that during that month's period; the emphasis was on continual operation; crippled though it was, it was: still a continuing investigation. Mrs. Burke. ‘There.is no mention here of the former | Chairman Gonzales. I think there are people who are Docld:32265557 Page 36
dog 35 1 2 3 a . § 10 WW 12 :13 14 1S 16 Av 18 19 23 24 as Docld: 322765557 F 34. immediately saying "and they did not even mention his name." Mr. Dodd. We can put in subliminal cuts. Mrs. Burke. I think we have to give some recognition of the fact that he was the chairman at some time. Believe | me, there are a lot of people who are very sensitive on this point, I am telling you, arguing and discussing and rationalizing that we are trying to say that he has not been just overlooked and slighted and everything else. I think we have to put some reference that he was chairman. | Mr. Fithian. I would suggest that perhaps we could establish credit where credit is due very early in the report on the creation of the committee, but saying in respect "In response to the resolution proffered in the House by Henry Gonzales (D) Texas, when he first introduced the resolution," which goes back a long way, "and Mr. Downing's resolution." tn. other words, we can point to both their resolutions as being the fathers --. | Mrs. Burke. That is not true. Mr .. Fithian. 1 am not suggesting that we put anything in that is not true. | | | | | | Mr. Pauntroy. “Expiain.:it to him. - Mrs. Burke. Those resolutions were introduced and those resolutions were voted on and defeated in March 1976. The | only reason that those resolutions were passed was the e 37
10 nn 2 £13 a7; AS 16 . 18 19 | - 20 Docld:32265557 P 35 compromise reached on the resolution introduced by Mr. Fauntroy. It was a matter that the only reason the resolution came up on there before the Rules Committee was that we had | obtained a change in position and support for another resolu- tion just out of courtesy and we had to wait for the matter of having an old resolution overlooked, that those resolu- tions were brought up. That is a very misunderstood point. Mr. Fithian. To give credit where credit is due in including the Martin Luther King resélution? Mrs. Burke. They were not before the House. Mr. Fithian. As a member who came to the Congress first just one term ago for many, many months whenever dis-~ cussion of the investigation of reopening the Warren Commission came up, it is my clear impression that there was only one name associated with that and that was Henry Gonzales. Mrs. Burke. All of that was over and it had been voted upon and the whole matter was set to rest. It was only | brought up again in the context of the King resolution, and this was a matter of just, really it was just a matter of having a vehicle rather than just overlooking it. ‘The Chairman. That is an important point that the | gentlewoman is bringing up, because among the members on the e 35
1 Floor that is not understood, but that is the fact. Mr. Fauntroy. I did attempt to explain to the former 3 || chairman when he cut off access to the FBI materials by the 4 | staff that he was overlooking the fact that the only reason 5 | he had access was that I was kind enough to accept -- ‘Mr. Dodd. Let us go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Devine. "Congressman Louis Stokes was appointed 9 | chairman by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 10 || succeeding Henry B. Gonzales." WW 12 | the committee was again reorganized." &_/) rod 19 20. 21 Docld: 322765557 Paye 39 — — - eee er . Strike out "and" and start the next sentence, "Immediatel The 14 } this: "After February 2, 1977." "Upon adoption of this -1§ | resolution, Henry B..Gonzales was appointed chairman of the _ L . 16 | committee." Then thereafter "on March 8th." Mr. The Mr. 93 || the language, "One of the first actions was adoption of the - a4 || rules of procedure" and then this next sentence I have added 9s || language, "This item was a major requirement of the House and Chairman It follows a more logical sequence. Chairman. Would it not be better, Sam, if we said Devine. Either way. Devine. Either way. . Chairman.: Does that sound okay? right. Dodd. The next paragraph on page 5, beginning with
37 it is the committee's belief that these rules are outstanding" and then I have added here other language: "in their recog- nition of the requirement of due process, orderly investi- gations and emphasis on strict controls of staff activities | and may became a model for investigative committees in the "future." | | To repeat, after the word "outstanding," "in’ their recognition of the requirement for due process, orderly investigations and emphasis on strict controls of staff acti- vity." In the next paragraph, "A task force of the committee was appointed to consider the budgetary and staff require- ments of the ensuing year. In addition, the committee reaffirmed the decision to divide into two subcommittees." Mr. Edgar. .If the gentleman will yield at this point where you are reaffirming and dividing into two subcommittees, I notice on the front page, the third page in, it is not numbered, where it lists the members of the committee, it || lists our chairman and each of our members, I wonder, since we have made the division, whether we ought not to put the’ “two names of our chief investigators into the King and Kennedy assassinations to highlight to the members of the House that not only is Dick Sprague the Chief Counsel, but in fact Mr. Tanenbaum and Mr. Lehner are working as lead people. I think it would be helpful for the rest of Congress to
10 JW 12 «W3 14 - 15 16. 17 19 20 a 23 24 DoclId: 322765557 F&F 38 know that there are those two persons pursuing those two independent investigations. The Chairman. That can be done without any problem. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, could we also include in that the two chief investigators on this? “Mr. Edgar. I don't have any problem with that. I just wanted some way of showing the substance of the number of people who are on staff who are top staff personnel who are pursuing the investigations. Mr. Fithian. I think the value of doing what he is suggesting is that it is a graphic way of saying there are two investigations underway here which subconsciously may affect or impact on some people who say, well, there are too many staff, or whatever. It would show at the outset that we have Mr. Tanenbaum, Mr, Lehner and the chief investigator under that organiza- tional chart appearance. I think we would do a lot to trans- mit to them directly. | Some. People may flip this over and see who is on this. ' committee anyway. “That might be the only page some people” read, so far as I know. ; “The Chairman. Okay, fine. The staff will take care of that. | Mr. Dodd. on Page. 6, “I changed the language "Mr. Fauntroy, again, was appointed," to “remains as chairman of e 41
10 UY 12 13 _ 14 - 18 16 al7 .. 19 20 39 the King subcommittee and Mr. Preyer the chairman of the Kennedy subcommittee." tr am trying to show flow rather than emphasizing the. breakup the committee went through during this traumatic period, to emphasize flow and continuity. ‘The end of the next paragraph, paragraph beginning, "A meeting was immediately arranged," I have added a sentence at the end of the last sentence there to read, "Access to FBI materials on both assassinations was continued." ‘Dropping down to the two paragraphs, the paragraph beginning with the words "On March 11, 1977," going to the very end of that paragraph, changing the period after the word "consultants" to a comma and adding the following lan- guage: “including ballistics testing of the alleged rifle used to murder Dr. King." | The next paragraph, beginning with the language, "On ‘March 16, 1977," and the second sentence in, "The witness refused to testify, claiming his privileges under the First, Fourth, Fifth.and Fourteenth Amendments," not just the Fifth Amendment. © - Further in the next sentence, "The staff continues to explore the leads developed in this area, and the committee is considering recalling this witness to pursue these ques- — ‘tions," again to reflect the status with which the witness | left the committee. Docld:32265557 Pdye 42
| 40 The Chairman. I think the official language was that he remains under subpoena to this committee. Mr. Dodd. Correct. Maybe that would be better said that way then "and he | remains under subpoena." On page 7, under. "Rules of Procedure," a technical amendment. "Congressman James J. Delaney" and “Chairman of the House Committee on Rules" is the proper title of that committee. | | ‘On page 9, subsection D, "Staff and Budget," the second sentence, "The committee has," and TI have changed the language "been fully briefed" to "discussed at length." ur. Fdgar. Going back to page 7 where the American: Civil Liberties Union letter is noted, I have noted ina number of reports they do include letters from the Administra- tion and letters from other people. | So I wonder what the value would be to make that statement and then include the letter from the American Civil Liberties - Union. Is that a bad idea or excellent idea? 7 Mr. Sprague. - Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that? “me Chairman. Mr. Sprague. | | Mr. Sprague. I think it is a bad idea, for the reason that although that letter now supports the rules and supports the continuation of ‘the investigation, they state things that | we allegedly were going to do in the past which we never were DocId: 32265557 Page 43
nv 12 -B 4 - 15 16 VW 18 19 a 26 of the members." | to Lee Harvey. Oswald by Jack Ruby," has that been 41 going to do. It happens to be a good illustration of the falsity of things that had been spread around. I do not think that we ought to have their letter here, since it does state things absolutely contrary to what we ever intended to do. | ‘Me. Fithian. (On. many occasions, including in. this report, however, there are examples of simply taking or quot- ing from insufficient sentences; we in the profession do this all the time. We don't use a whole six-page letter when there is only a half page that is pertinent. You put in an elipsis and the three sentences you want and you go. on. It is called selective evidence, Mr. Chairman. “Mr. Sprague. The trouble with that is that you end up with a blank letter. | The Chairman. ‘The essence of the letter was the fact that this quote as contained here was the real essence of it. Mr. Devine. I know a number of members that if they see the ACLU favors the investigation, they will vote against it. The Chairman. That is right. It is a red flag for some Mr. Dodd. On page ‘12, top of page | 12, the second sentence, "The committee staff has spoken with the witness who stated that in November 1963, prior. to the assassination of President Kennedy, the witness was personally introduced Docld: 32265557 Page 44
12 13 14 15 16 VW 18 19 20 at ., 23 24 Docld: 322765557 42 corroborated or is that a fact? Mr. Tanenbaum. Yes, it is a fact. Mr. Dodd. It has been corroborated; the committee has received information not yet corroborated that Ruby traveled : to Cuba and so forth? Mr. Tanenbaum. I am just trying to protect you. Mr. Sprague. Mr. Dodd, the statement that is there is absolutely correct. In other words, we have interviewed a witness who has stated that. We are not in a position of saying whether what that witness is saying is true or not. That is different than the next sentence which is based upon information that we have received of somebody telling us that he was at the jailhouse and he saw Ruby coming there to visit Trafficante. There is that difference. Mr. Dodd. You received information that Ruby traveled to Cuba to visit Trafficante. You received a statement from a witness who claims that he was mtroduced to Oswald by Ruby. One is corroborated. Mr. Sprague. I will say either is corroborated. I know that we have a witness who says the one thing. We have information about the other, but. we have not really gone to those sources yet. We cannot state that, in fact, when we go to those sources they are going to be in a position of saying, yes, they saw it. Mr. Dodd. I am just trying to protect against the qe a5
we 22 23 co _ 24 25 Docld: 322765557 43 accusation later that we are blowing smoke. ‘Te you want to leave it like that, I have no complaint other than just protect ourselves, that is all. Mr. Fithian. When you say “committee has received infor- mation, not yet corroborated," that leaves me a little uneasy, because it appears as. though the counsel is anticipating corroboration. | I was under the impression that that was uncorroborated and likely to remain uncorroborated. The inference I draw from that is that it is not yet done, but we expect to get this done shortly. Mr. Sprague. I do not want to give that implication. He was not yet corroborated. We don't have corroboration at this time. i | Mr. Fithian, Could we get out of it by striking the words "not “‘yet* ana put in the word "uncorroborated"? The Chairman. Before the word "information"? Mr. Fithian. Yes. That is even better. Mr. Sprague. That is fine. Mr. Fithian. ‘On page 13, second paragraph, "Recently an. ‘FBI informant stated he had. seen an FBI agent and Lee Harvey Oswald meeting." Who did the FBI “informant state that to? The committee staff; another itiformant?- Mr. Tanenbaum. To Dan Rather. Mr. Sprague. My problem there in stating that, I would ge 46
hy not like it to look like a House committee is relying at this point on a report carried by a newsman of what was said to him. It is the basis of the statement that we are making, but I don't like the idea of any notoriety. Mr. Fithian. Say "reliable source." ‘Mz. Sprague. I don’t want to say reliable source, either Mr. Devine. You can say publicly stated. Mr. Dodd. It is a question 1 would ask if I were look- ing at the report. If I was reading this thing and wanted to poke holes in it, that is one of the questions I would ask. -Mr. Tanenbaum. We have spoken to the witness on the telephone. He is the witness who indicated previously he want to take a lie detector test. He has indicated to us that what he said then is so. Before he speaks to us any further, he wants to take a lie detector so that we will understand he is telling the truth. Mr. Sprague. I guess the answer to your question is | that he has now said it'to us. We can put in there "advised by the witness." | 7 ‘the Chairman. In talking with him, did you consider that an interview or just conversation? | “Mr. Sprague. I would call it an interview. “The Chairman. Tf ‘that is a fact, then you could say "The witness, interviewed by our staff" or "witness we have interviewed." Docld: 32265557 PRoe 47
- 15 16 JW ..18 19 23 24 25 4S Mr. Sprague. My thought was to say "Recently, an FBI informant has advised the committee that." The Chairman. It takes it out of the Dan Rather cate- gory, at least, and puts it here. Mr. Dodd. Page 15, the third paragraph, "An FBI ballistics expert," the third paragraph down, beginning with the second sentence where you have the word “others by con- . trast believe that the bullet possessed sufficient character- istics." Mr. Lehner. We have one expert, Mr. MacDonald, who has_ stated that. We also have Mr. Haines who stated that, who was a former PBI agent. I don't think we would characterize him as an expert. That is why we left it with that vague "others." oo . Mr. Dodd. I think you ought to say "another expert." I think you ought to be clear. | Mr. Fauntroy. I think that would be helpful. Mr. Lehner. We can put "an expert." | Mr. Fauntroy. "an expert” or “another expert," but I. would not leave’ it as "others." . - . Mr. Dodd. The last thing is on the last page of the report, page 23, This is merely a question. I don't know how it should be done. “Again, I would like to emphasize the committee, therefore, recommends, * and going to the two points here.. Docld:32265557 Page 46
46 I would like to emphasize again here that I think the _ language regarding legislative intent ought to be stated at the conclusion of this report as well. I will repeat it again We ought to emphasize that, however possible, in this report. T don't know what language, but in addition, that the House reconstitute . the select committee and that the House approve the budget. . The Chairman. ‘Will the gentleman yield to me on that? I am just thinking out loud with you on this. The first thing is that I am wondering whether we need to have this recommendation, and secondly, I am wondering -- we are not asking at this time for action on the approval of the budget. | r don't know that these two explanations need to be included. Just strike both of those recommendations. | Mr. Edgar. Under title of Section 5, it ought to say conclusions. | | The Chairman. Strike both recommendations. Strike the language on page 22 saying "and recommendations." | Have. you: finished, Me. Doda? Mr. Dodd.” Two other points. One is the statement "Today we had a closed session with Mr. Sprague regarding. allegations" and so. forth. I would ‘Like. to have that, if it is not already, typed up; we are going to need that right away. It may be far too lengthy to incorporate in the Congressional Record. I think stapled together and collated,
dog 48 47 it could be available to members to go over. I have had several requests for it. The members who are most concerned about this have expressed satisfaction that those of us on the committee are satisfied, but they still _ would like to be able to have access to it. I think that should be done immediately. The Chairman. “Do we know when that will be ready? Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, it will be ready tomorrow. We are making copies for every member of the committee so. that you can have it for your own use if you want it. The 17th, I guess, would be in the morning. Mrs. Burke. I was going to suggest that if we feel it important enough to be in thé record, we could sequentially each sign for an entry in the record for it to appear that way if it was not too long. I think we can get it in the record if we feel that it is justified. | Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether it is the intent of the committee that it should go in the record. The Chairman. I think there is a consensus generally that it ought. not go in the record and be picked up by the |} press and let them make an issue of that at this point in time. | , So now I think it ought to be kept within the members of the committee's jurisdiction, and they can share it with those members when they please. DoclId: 322765557 Page 50
Docld: 32265557 48 ‘Mr. Dodd. I can remember one member in particular who is going to be asking for a copy. The Chairman. It was in executive session, and I don't think he should have it. Mr. Fithian. Congressman Wirth raised the question originally. Mr. Edgar and I have both talked to him at some length. | Our arrangement is simply this; that we, as a member of the committee, can get a copy of that proceeding in executive session. That if he and his staff person who has gotten involved in this and dug into it earlier and raised the question, want to come over to Mr. Edgar's office and sit down and read it, that is fine, Ir wholeheartedly concur that to now make this thing public would make --- I think some reporters are looking for something to run one good solid story or two between now and ‘our vote on the Floor. I think it could be handled that way, if they are that interested. Tf they are not that. interested, they should not see it, anyway. If they 3 are interested, they can come over to our office and look at it. a , | | ‘The Chairman. . I really want to caution you that that is all this committee needs. Mr. Fithian. I have an altogether different point to raise here, Mr. Chairman.
Docld:32265557 . E ~ suggest some trappings for the King report. In the first . instance, knowing | the penchant of the members for “scanning | reports and trying to glean quickly what the reports say, 4g The Chairman. ‘I know that Congressman Fauntroy has been waiting to be recognized regarding the section dealing with the Kennedy matter. I want to recognize him, and then we can come back to Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Chairman, I would just Like to would suggest a topic sentence to begin on page 14. _-After you-say "Developmient-of ‘the investigations into the assassination of Dr. King," I would like to suggest a “topic sentence that. summarizes what the report is and if it appears that that topic sentence would go something like that. . co - 7 | oe sf "The investigation into the assassination of Martin Luthar leads | in the. assassination of Dr. King. Second, the “comnittee is investigating | a number of questions not answered * by ‘our ‘review of available documents and investigations, con- - "ducted by federal, state and ‘local agencies into the. assas—- sination." | Having stated that, it seems to me then logically, we could list under the topic "New and unpursued leads," which I
the n e> IS mt:} 50 think ought to be up there because everybody is asking, "What is new?" -- I may quarrel a little bit with the order, but it seems to me the fact that James Earl Ray is now willing to talk with us after having publicly said that ‘he didn't shoot him and has indicated in his pleading that he did not agree that there was no conspiracy, that is a new lead. | | Secondly, I think at the very top of the new lead on this ballistics test, we sort of run into the ballistic test without saying why we are running into it. ‘The key sentence > there, I think, has to do with the belief by at least one expert that the bullet possesses sufficient characteristics to permit a definitive conclusion. So, the new lead we are pursuing is that the conclusion was reached that the -bullet could not be identified; on the 16 | basis of our information, now it may be. I think that some- 17 | how has to be the top of the reference to the ballistic test, because the ballistic test does not make context until you get 19 | that far. Now the ‘third ‘group is one that I have found on page 16 to be very impressive among the members with whom I ‘have talked when I say as a topic sentence to them "we are investi- | gating," I say "six previously potential witnesses who are prepared to testify on pre-assassination plot activity.’ You have. a statement here that essentially says that, but Docld: 322765557 Page 33
dog 71 10 Ju 12 13 14 +S 16 W 19 20 a 23 24 70 with regard to Mr. Bruton's situation. As I understood it and from previous meetings, this committee has already decided to accept the resignation of Mr. Bruton as of the same day that that firing occurred, provided there was no legal difficulty which would occur, and we were to check that. through. That has been checked -- | The Chairman. ‘I do not think they actually took the action. I think it was left open for him to check it out and return with a report back to us. Mr. Wolf. That is my understanding. The Chairman. And if it was possible to go ahead and accept his resignation, the committee ought to do that. That appeared to be the consensus of the committee at that time. Ir do not th ink on the record they formally did. Mr. Wolf. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sprague. I do not think, for a person to resign, involves the hiring and: the terminating. We are talking. about a different situation, | The Chairman. He posed the question in a letter to us whether we had been fired, and if so, was de done in a duly constituted meeting of the committee, and so forth. “In checking it. out, also we ascertained that was really an informal meeting that was called. It was not an official meeting of the committee. That action had been brought to our Docld:32265557 Page 72