log 7 td ~@ Docld: 32266787 Page 9 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 ~ I think we belabor that ‘too , much, “going. into Coo “much aoe detail 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. Itwould read Like this. “For. technical and administrative reasons, the committee : had some delays in the course of the investigation. For | example y. the conmittae aia not have. access to certain files on the assassinations for spproxinately two months; telephone service was. disconnected for the same period, preventing the state from maintaining contact with witnesses and potential - aaNet witnessess and other problems which severely restricted the fommittes in: tts Arivestigative, efforts." aes don't, think’ we should lean on the budgetary restric- ihe a oa tions, because that: is one. of the problems that we have to dvercone: in beth ‘the Rules ‘Committee and on the Floor. “y don" od think that we should talk about specifically what. our problems were.” r think the language suggested would |pyobably tell the sane story. : | MRA
dog 8 18, on 413 3 12 ‘ae . we Coe - 7 _— : ‘Then the next three-Line paragraph, I don't like what — 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 "impedinents" and strike out. "removed" nd insert "resolved." " That: would read: “Under the chairman- go ship of Representative Louis Stokes, the problems have: been resolved and the @ investigations are now resuming in a | I tne rough 1 manner." | : | Tr am. not married to the language, Mr. Chairman, but I think that ‘it would be less provocative. / The Chairman. rs ‘agree with you. - The staff will take that into consideration. ast there anything else? - OMe. | ‘Devine. ‘that is all, Mee Chairman. -T séanned it during the luncheon period. By and large, r think it will ‘do the job. Bo Doe Le ; - The Chadzman 2 wonder if r ean sort of react to the | * * ["investigation™ part here. : I ‘guess, Me. Sprague, r wi direct the question to you 4 and to Me. Tanenbaum. oa am concerned that with reference to the. investigatory material that appears in the report, that we do ‘not have the | news media once again taking another shot Docld: 32266787 . Page io °
log 9 at us in the sense of their rehashing the same old stuff — - which gives our opposition on the Ploor the arguments that ' they need.. They will wery, hastily say to George Lardner or - gome other author who is an authority on each one of these investigations. --. +: guess Ir 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 highiy volatile information that just cannot be- disclosed in light of this. type of investiga- tion and that. type of thing. . a, 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. heing done, and on ‘the other hand, to just have. that it is 0 sensitive creates, r guess, the problem ‘that we “are going to be criticized. Are we just hiding behind a. Label and not disclosing? | What we have attempted to. da and really part of the. reason that: this has. ‘not been submitted to you, as r indicated | te 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 Ancorporate and put into writing what. has been the comments and “suggestions by members of the comittee. Docld: 3272766787 Page 11
DoctId: 32266787 page 120 of us is that any material contained in this proposed report, whether there is. a balance between so-called new material ff which has already been revealed in the Warren Commission -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’ | material? 7 ae 7 a — -- it is hard to say something is new as opposed to rehash, becatige in fact people have read everything under the sun. | Ruby and Oswald had been in contact prior to the assassination ‘| stanapoint, is that we have located a witness who apparently says that. ‘The allegation may be ola. and in ‘terms of proof is | thee = may be nti. 2 oe ae 7 we’ are: + doing is. ooking into what. has béen. alleged to be able fT to 'p: prove. or tepreve so ‘that to go. into what we. are ‘doing is ‘going to, of neceasity, raise things that have been raised | right along... That ts one of the reasons that we are doing it. /docunents that 1 were Prepared, ‘final docunents, we were able “Mr. Devine. Mr. Chai pen _I think, Mr. Sprague, what concerns the Chairman and most report and, the Senate ‘Intelligence Committee report! -- is it Mr. Sprague. Part of ‘the problem, Mr. Devine, is that Somebody may well suggest, and I am sure has suggested, 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 -
og ll 10°. to take those two documents along with the oral presentations | e 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. | se As a result of that, I doubt that the Rules Committee is going | to. Y really want. us to get: into disclosing what we feel po we are ‘on to here... | Now een 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 aia 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. a § am just wondering, are we hurting. ourselves with ‘this | approach here Fight now? a | i Mee ‘Sprague: "Me. Chairman, I : really don't. know what | else could be. included. I am struck by the fact that Mr. ‘Preyer, ‘im reading the Kennedy aspect, said it came out stronger, ‘than he thought it would. . From. that. standpoint, Ir would assume ‘that, te would. be somewhat ‘helpeut. To Limit: it ‘| further, raises. the problem that if | we ‘are. > going to be attacked that we obviously: are. not: doing mich... The chairman _ You. don"t see. a. problen here revealing } this mich? weal PM Pes Mr. Preyer. r ‘think ‘it is a problen all right, as you ‘have outlined it. ' Docld:32266787 Page 13
log 13 es 6 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. Zr ‘think your point is well taken. Possibly in the very beginning, I think we get ourselves into a box wheref one: puts the purpose of support? Are we suppoded 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. am 8 think if you stated at the outset what the purpose of the report was and . that was to “Breiag 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. re we could disarm the press at the outset Docld: 32266787 Page 15
log 14 Docla: 32266787 Page 16 _2 We will say it has raised questions and we have to run 3 lat down. _4 : pod. We don't want to get ourselves’ in a position ost of saying we have not been able to get into this stuff and it: 7 | is thoroughly because of our problems, ‘which is ‘one: thing we 7 [nave been saying, which is a fact, which ‘ts true, ‘and then to 8 | also come forward with evidence that we have had an opportunity 9 to examine thoroughly, that is contradictory. 7 . 10 T think we ought to make to clear in the begining that _ - ar fas not. our intention in this report, to , defend necessarily 2 | that kind: of evidence being fact. aE. 7 ‘he Chatman. Tt may be that we can approach . it from _14 the ‘viewpoint of saylig, we. refer back to the time that the ars committee | was originally conatituted, it was constituted as 6 fa atrece x result of the unanswered questions that were 2 apparent /} cart ‘as. relates, to. both these deaths. ; Ws , Obviously, the short. period of four months or so that Pm | this comnittes has been constituted, these questions are still m0 | unanswered and ve are in the Process, within the limited ay feime we have had of. t developing the leads. and other information. Pe y that has come’ tous. and. that! I think we can & say that some of na I the leads and: information that have come: ‘to us have never 24 ff ‘before surfaced, without Being sensational or wrong, but to show that there ‘ts an ongoing progressive state of an by saying “sure, this ‘is uncorroborated. "
log 15 vr 14 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 impossibl . to predict whether the information will be provén reliable 1 and capable of verification. The investigations are in their nt “infancy and, ‘therefore, the committee cannot submit verifiable M conclusions. with, respect to the assassinations before the 13 | anquizy is completed and the evidence | gathered, tested and ad corroborated, oa . oo 1S _t thought that would address | itself to. what Mr. Preyer ws eas saying in the ‘beginning. | the reason. ‘in the latter part dealing with trafficante 18 on page 12 where it says). "The : committee has received infor- : 19 mation, not. yet corroborated," was, that we wanted to keep the "0 | creaaniniey. of ‘this, committee at the higheat level; and even © arf chow there is ‘that. statement at the ‘beginning, we ‘thought | it welt to. reamphasize that with regard to that particular | information 80 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 ‘Docla: 32266787. Page’: i?
1 os goes out a: and | proves that. one statement is untrue and that _2 giving an . implication that everything else is down the drain | Ky as well. . 4 | That. is why Ir ‘thought we : covered really. what you are - _§ raising hee. oe a - &. Mr. Doda. : am suggesting rather than that, that should The the first paragraph. That ts out inmediately.- This is a | 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 10: chance or opportunity to corroborate all the evidence and a | testimony come forward’ because of the obvious restraints the : _ ? committee. has ofieratedunder,, ‘and so-forth. -I think that | | , ees | ought to be the first thing that we s say. ee - I think that, ‘tn’ a sense, will get us 0 off: the hook of. having to defend: gach and every statement that is in here with regard to potential witnesses, evidence and so forth. Me. ‘Sprague. We just ‘want ‘to be very careful, Like that ‘trafticante-Ruby situation. ‘We can put it more in the 4 beginning than we have it. We, did not want it thought that "ag | thia com ttée’ representing the House of Representatives is B ar jmaking the statement, nonetheless, because if things are not od put ina cautionary sense, it is geing to have the weight of this committee behind ‘tt, and. te ought not. have that where we are not able to, say that definitively. The Chaimian. Mrs. Burke. . Docld:32266787 Page.18 .
log 17 es 68 . . 16 | Mes. Burke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before we get too far along, I wanted to ask if it is possible to clarify who Mr. Maheu was. We know, but every time I have heard the name or the name said, I have heard someone say "Ts this the same Maheu?" | Could there be some sentence there explaining which Maheu and the fact that I guess he testified to certain things | | before the Church Committee? Was it the Church Committee? . Mr. Sprague. That is correct. I will certainly put in who he wena his statement that he was in fact recruited for this purpose. Mrs. Burke. The next thing I am saying is something I am not sure about the reaction politically. the allegation that we go on here, the CIA, FBI, and various th Gs. tf I could argue both sides: It does raise confirmation of suspicions that some people have. on the other side, there are many people I find in the House that, unless there is something that they can really cling ‘to, they are terrified by the idea of oriticizing our intelligence agency. The statement, for instance, ‘in here that Hoover tried to mislead the Warren ‘Commission. From ny experience, and my own experience relates to appropriations where we reviewed, | for instance, the CIA budget, where we took a vote there and Docld:32266787 Page 19
log 18 Docld:32266787 Page 20 -  - | Zo 17 mi the majority of the members of that committee voted not to | know what was in the CIA budget, the idea being that there is this terrible apprehension of eriticizing those agencies. S0, Ir just, want to ‘raise the question, realizing that “se “maybe ‘the people who feal that way would never vote for us ‘anyhow, which is a possibility, but I am | not sure, and Ir ‘| wouta just’ throw that out, Mr. Chairivan. The. Chaizman. = think the gentlewoman' S- observations ‘1 are well taken. : - The gentleman from Maryland said he had originally voted for it, but now he understood that it would embarrass the FBI and tike that, he used the PBI in his objections the last time He ‘opposed the resolution. = think that ts. something | we might rethink, in light of that Knowledge. What we wind up doing is one thing, but at | mone not: Be. necessary for us to telegraph it. ie “Sprague. ‘May’ Tt zeapond, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Burke? / We ‘put it in, and at te on page 14 “really dealing with | ome. committee has obtained evidence suggesting the ‘actual | destiniction of ‘evidence. rere! * o ne oe WP “that, ‘tn fact, ts something: that is ‘known and that the | reaeral & Bureau of: Investigation has adnitted. rt is not a ataclosing of something unknown there. “Tt seems to us that not putting in, a matter ‘that ‘ts concerned with the connection | Between Oawald and thie FBI, ‘when tt already is an area that is
18 log 19 ae - CO, . | in the public domain and questions have been raised, would ap & | 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 “tn the investigation, if there isa feeling of not putting it eee in now because, let ‘us. say, someone might attack is on it, I query how thorough will be’ the investigation if there isa concern Like that and something that is publicly known. . ‘The second part dealing with the misleading statements, 1] again, that ts not based really on witness's statements. | . That happened to be something that is predicated upon the . - , actual documents that exist. oO aa Mrs. Burke. If this is: in the public domain, I would ‘think it should ‘be stated specifically rather than "The , committe. has information” it should be saying that evidence I has” already: ‘been corroborated or there have already been . | statenents before committees that Oswald had a Link with the | OTA. Tf we have: it in the ‘public ‘domain, I think it should ~ : 1 be specificaliy. ‘stated. S 7 x a | “the Chairman: | Me. “Tanenbaum, fan't that in the Warren a | comission ieoct? | fe Ba | Mr. Tanenbaum. What is in the report is that Oswald had some pro-Castro views. There is nothing there that indicates that he had links te the cua, that we have, namely, Docld: 32266787 Page 21
19 log 20 a sen I ae ty ‘through Feliciano. ‘that is new; it’ is not in the public - S&S . * paomain. _ | . - | - > . The. (Chairman. I thought the Warren Commission sent a ; 4 their counsel to Je Edgar. Hoover for the purpose of his mak- Fi ing ‘inquiry as to whether Oswald ‘was: one. of their agents or . & not Soe pe : a | | | a oT, oa: SS Mes: tanenbaum. that happened in executive session on two 38 occasions in January 1964. | ¢ | The Chairman. Mrs Fithian. | 10 : Me. Fithian. I share some of the concerns of Mrs. Burke. - Lr ‘ame wondering if,. on page 14, we might not ‘want to do 12 te lightly differently. I think that | we ought to indicate at the beginning of that paragraph ‘at. the top. of the page ‘that "It has already been established, that," or some such ae wording, if. ‘that: is the. case, and ‘then I am wondering if we “16 :might not drop the Yather accusative paragraph which follows aT -tnvolving the CIA,’ et cetera, | “must be fully serutinized. *. | | ; Te does seem to cast this whole inquiry and investigation i 19 | ‘into sort. of an "investigation of the. Br and CIA. ‘Some xs aspects of: those two, agencies obviously have come. into review. ab | es am wondering. tf we: need to, irritate those ‘members who. | ° “2. San might. go. along with | us. I have found one of the 23. ‘more effective arguments. with some. members of the House is to 24 argue the case that we ought to clearly delineate, in the’ “course of this ‘investigation, exactly what administrative | Docld: 32266787 Page 22 SO ey)
Jog 21 20 | procedures were and were not followed by agencies of the ' government in order to establish whether or not there is : need for legislative remedy. One of the things we do not point to ‘in this: report - -- maybe we don't want to; maybe ff that is jumping the gun -- but it does seem to me to be a a very ‘convincing justification for this committee as a 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 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 then’ who. are uncertain as to ecactly what 1 rote « either ‘of these agencies was and there are those in the . ' House who fall, on both sides of that, they cah all agree that if this investigation demonstrates a breakdown in the normal | process, t then. it might well be the responsibility of this .-f 19 | committee to ‘Recommend some tegislation correcting the process } and that: ts ‘not ‘necessarily digging up “the bones of J, Edgar :moover? it ts Looking down the road ahead. to prevent some 22 "breakdown in the process. rt an wondering if we might not want to drop words like | "gerutinize," -et cetera, and recast that in such a way that _it simply indicates we are going to review all of these Docld: 3272766787 Page 23
log 22 Docld: 3272766787 Page 24 - processes and where they demonstrate or prove to have broken 21 "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 Fe J. Ragar 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 problens. - he ‘two areas we have with the FBI and CIA are wey | significant. In fact, 3. agar tied ‘about a very important | witness concerning, ‘their own assassin; Oswald. CIA misrepre-_ sented also, about Lee. Harvey Oswald; his alleged trip to Mexico eter. cone ma ae “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 | contronted » with the ‘report, that documents based upon their own’ ‘documentation, ‘not witnesses that we. have but upon things enat they have ‘themselves, that. we were able to put together, + they. will be very, chard 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
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." a a | | : 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. ae | | I agree with Mr. stokes, ‘there is no need to telegraph . a play that may be called sometime in the future. This isa | 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.; . : - rf they etild wish ‘to vote ) against ‘us, | knowing that we have documentation about significant major importance, power- ful nisrepresentations and cover-ups, then let the record be $0 stated that they voted against: it knowing that, rather than just simply saying that we are going to carefully
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. Y 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. a, ‘ 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. -. er mee Sprague. “Mr. Chairman, we can omit that second paragraph. 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 inflanmatory 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 : Docla: 322766787 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 anid 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, | watch includes the funds." | Mr. Fithian. _ 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. Ir thought the Speaker was in o ‘ favor of $2.5 million" -- bang. Docld: 32266787 Page 27 __
log 26 . 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 n 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 I 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, I 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 suagestion has. been that we put the — ‘| buaget 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 f Record. I think your point isa good one. Docld:32266787 Page 28
jog 27 DocId:32266787 Plge 29 ' follow through on that. or Watergate? | and I was trying to get the correct figures. | | 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 The Chairman. ‘Mrs. 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 stafé payroll. I think it is in our ori- ginal report. . oo Mr. Sprague. - Are you talking about Warren Commission Mrs. Burke. Watergate. Mr. Sprague. Watergate, I do‘ not know. 7 Mrs. Burke’. ‘The Judiciary anguizy, Inpeachnent Committee ite, Sprague. I have a. recollection somewhere of 120. Mes: Burke. This is one of the things that was raised with me by some of the ‘people who served on that committee, | Mr... . Sprague. We can ‘get: that. Tt is 110.
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 dividea 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 find to read this thing, because te 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 mach 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: 32266787 Page 30