Originator: HSCA
From: HSCA
Document date: 03/23/1977
Document type: PAPER-TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Agency Information

Date:

10/13/20

AGENCY: HSCA

RECORD NUMBER:

180-10114-10183

RECORD SERIES:

NUMBERED FILES

AGENCY FILE NUMBER: UNNUMBERED

Document Information

ORIGINATOR:

HSCA

FROM:

HSCA

TO:

TITLE:

DATE: 03/23/1977

PAGES:

73

SUBJECTS :

HSCA, ADMINISTRATION

DOCUMENT TYPE: TRANSCRIPT

CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified

RESTRICTIONS : Open in Full

CURRENT STATUS: Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW: 08/13/1993

OPENING CRITERIA:

COMMENTS:

Unnumbered document follows #014635; meeting re: reconstitution of HSCA. Box 265.

v9.1

DocId: 32265557

Page

1

---

## Page 2

Stenographid

Transcript Of

HEARINGS

Before The

AL

SENSTINE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EXECUTIVE SESSION

DocId: 32265557

Page

2

Washington. D.C:

March 23, 1977

Alderson Reporting Company,

InG.

Official Reporters.

300 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C.

554-2345

SENSITIVE

---

## Page 3

LaFrance/dog

ols Bultman

louse

Assisn.

4/23/77

EXECUTIVE SESSION

AFTER RECESS

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

--18

19

20

21

23

.24

25

(The committee reconvened 2:00 p.I., Hon. Louis Stokes,

chairman of the connittee, presiding.)

Present:

Representatives Stokes, Devine, Preyer, Burke,

Fauntroy, Dodd, Fithian and Edgar.

Also Present: Al Lewis; Staff Member; Bob Tanenbaum,

Staff Member; Richard Sprague; Staff Member; Jim Wolf, Staff

Member; Bob Lehner, Staff Member; and Thomas Howarth, Staff

Member.

The Chairman. The meeting will come to order.

sie

First, I might advise the members of the committee that

we have been in touch with the Rules Committee. We are advised

that in all probability, we will go before Rules at 2:00

o'clock on Monday and it will go to the. Floor Tuesday or

wednesday.

The format at this point has been discussed and it was

suggested that perhaps we might just go in with the presenta-

tion by myself and our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Devine,

with Mr. Preyer and Mr. Fauntroy ready if they fire any ques-

tions in regard to the investigation and with the other

members just in a supportive back-up position. The thinking

being that in light of the briefing that took place the other

day and the highly sensitive nature of the investigatory

material that was given to them in all probability they are

DocId: 32265557

Page 3

---

## Page 4

1og 2

2

3

4

5

8

1O

11

• 12

=13

14

• 15

16

÷ 18

1.9.

20

÷27:

22

23

- 24

25

2

not going to want to get into very much questioning on that

aspect.

so the less said about that in all probability is going

to be, they think, the best approach.

MI. Devine.. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr.. Devine.

Mr. Devine. I am not sure it will be a problem, but

Mr. Anderson of Illinois mentioned this morning that one of

the 19 water projects that President Carter deferred or

eliminated happens to be in his district and there is a pub-

lic hearing in his district on Monday. I wish it were possible

for MI. Anderson to be at the Rules Committee when we appear

because he is very articulate and on our side.

I don't know

whether we can persuade him to neglect his constituency or

not, but we might keep that in mind in scheduling.

The young lady from Mr. Anderson's office, do you know

whether he is scheduled in Illinois on Monday?

Ms. Brown. I believe so, yes. I don't know how long

he will be there.

The Chairman. I agree with you, I think it is important

to try to have Mr. Anderson be here.. We will try to work

that out.

Do they have proxies in the Rules Committee?

Mr. Devine. I don't know whether they have proxies in

the Rules Committee or not.

DocId: 32265557

Page 4

---

## Page 5

3

1og

3

2

3

MI. Dodd. Absolutely not. No proxies.

The Chairman. The Chairman can't vote for Anderson,

then?

5

6

8

10

11

12

+ 13

14

: 15

•16

-17

18

19

20

2T

22

23

.24

25

Mr. Dodd. No, he has to be there.

Is there a problem?

Mr. Devine. His water project has been eliminated by

the President and he is having a meeting in his district.

Mr. Dodd. You can't use the proxy, I can tell you that.

I would like to see him there.

Mr. Devine. I would, too.

The Chairman. We will have to try to work that out.

Let us get back to the discussion of the report and

other matters

relating to the report.

Is everyone provided with a copy of the draft report?

We are open to discussion relative to this draft report. How.

much time do we have, Mr.. Sprague, in terms of being able to

revise and extend this report and prepare for final prepara-

tion?

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I asked before we recessed

for lunch if I could have that time to take up with the

Printing office the matter of the printing of the transcripts

that have been turned over to you and the matter of the

printing of this report.

We have been advised that if we get to the Printing

Office by 6:00 p.I. this evening the transcripts, as corrected,

DocId: 32265557

Page

5

---

## Page 6

dog 4

2

3

4

5

6

:7

8

10

11

12.

: 13

14.

• 15

.16

117

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

4

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.I. 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

supplemental or additional views to submit in the report, also.

I assume they will prepare those.

Mr. fithian.

Mr. Chairman, will we need to take action

in the committee when we have a quorun to dispense with the

usual three days for minority views or for separate concurring

views?

The Chairman. I would imagine that we would have to,

in light of the time constraints here.

Mr. Fithian. I have no separate or dissenting views,

but I wanted to make sure we don't get tripped up on a techni-

cality.

The Chairman. I don't know whether everyone has suffi-

cient time to be able to get through these or not; to discuss

them.

MI. Preyer.

Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr. Preyer.

DocId: 32265557

Page 6

---

## Page 7

dog 5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

: 13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20 .

21

22

23

-24

25

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 sone 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.

DocId: 32265557

Page 7

---

## Page 8

dog. 6

5A.

Mr. Preyer. You were considering both of these reports

2.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9.

10

together?

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

of page 12, the question about Ruby and Oswald. You say,

"The Committee staff has spoken with a witness."

Maybe we have just spoken with a witness, but is there

more than one witness on that subject?

Mr. Tanenbaum. No, that was the young lady that indi-

cated.

Mx. Preyer. There was a witness there who said that.

The other comment I would make, and I think it is impor-

tant, is that we emphasize where we can what is new and what

is not just a rehashing of old evidence. Like that one at

the top of page 12, necessarily you have to be very cautious

in that case, but that is a brand new witness, as I understand

it.

..12

÷ 13

14

15

16

17

:.18

19

20

21

22

23

-24.

25

Mr. Tanenbaum. That is correct.

Mr. Preyer: I wonder there and in other instances where

you have a chance to emphasize that the staff came up with

this witness, he may have been known before but he never

testified before, if we could have emphasized he never testi-

fied, he is new and it is not a rehash, that would be good; I

think that makes

a good strong statement.

DocId: 32265557

Page 8

---

## Page 9

6

sog

7

2

3

4

5

The Chairman. MI. 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. I am a

little troubled by the wording of the first paragraph on page

2.

8

10

T.1

12

+ 13

14

• 15

16

17

18

. 19

20

*:..

22

23

.24

25.

• I

think we belabor that too much, going into too much

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. Iwould

read like this.

"For technical and administrative reasons, the committee

had some delays in the course of the investigation. For

example; the committee did not have access to certain files on

the assassinations.for approximately two months; telephone

service was disconnected for the same period, preventing the

staff from maintaining contact with witnesses and potential

witnesses; and other problems which severely restricted the

committee in its investigative efforts."

"I don't think we should lean on the budgetary restric-

tions, because that is one of the problems that we have to

overcome in both the Rules 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.

DocId: 32265557 Page 9

---

## Page 10

dog 8

2

3

4

5

7

8

10

11

12

: 13

14.

: 15

16:

117

18

19

20

21:

22

23

.24,

25

7

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 in a

thorough 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 staff will take that into consideration.

Is there anything else?

Mr. Devine. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I scanned it

during the luncheon period. By and large, I think it will

do the job.

The Chairman: I wonder if I can sort of react to the

"Investigation" part here.

I guess, Mr. Sprague, I will direct the question to you

and. to Mr. Tanenbaum. I 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 10

---

## Page 11

iog

9

8

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

1].

12

÷ 13.

14

: 15

16

117

18

19

20

2T

22

23

.24

25

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

some 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.

I 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

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

a label and not disclosing?

what we have attempted to do and really part of the

reason that this has not been submitted to you, as I indicated

It 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 been the comments and suggestions by

members of the committee.

DocId: 32265557

Page 11

---

## Page 12

9

dog 10

T:

2

3

5:

6

7

8

10

12

. 13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22.

23

-20;

25

MI. Devine. Mr. Chairman.

I think, Mr. Sprague, what concerns the Chairman and most

of us is that any material contained in this proposed report,

whether 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

material?

Mr. Sprague. Part of the problem, Mr. Devine, is that

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.

Ruby knew Oswald. What is new, in a sense here from out

standpoint, is that we have located a witness who apparently

says that. The allegation may be old and in terms of proof

that may be nil.

Obviously in this investigation, one of the things that

we are doing is looking into what has been alleged to be able

to prove or disprove so that to go into what we

are doing is

going to, of necessity, raise things that have been raised

right along.. That is one of the reasons that we are doing it.

The Chairman. Here is what I have in mind.

Fron the two

documents that were prepared, final documents, we were able

DocId: 32265557

Page

12

---

## Page 13

dog 11

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

. 13

14

• 15

- 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23.

_24

.25

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.

As a 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 now?

MI. Sprague.: Mr. Chairman, I really don't know what

else could be included.

I am struck by the fact that MI.

Preyer, in reading the Kennedy aspect, said it came out

stronger than he thought it would. From that standpoint, I

would assume that It would be somewhat helpful. To limit it

further raises the problem that if we are going to be attacked,

that we obviously 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

---

## Page 14

11

2

2

3

4

7

8

10

IT

12

. 13

14.

• 15

16.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

=24

25

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

statement before, substantive in nature, and so forth.

Mr. Preyer. I am wondering what is new, looking through

the Kennedy thing, and is not a rehash.

on page 11, second paragraph, "Oswald was associated

with anti-Castro groups." There is new evidence on this,

isn'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 I think can be defended as

new evidence.

Trafficante, I 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."

I think the news media would take you apart on that;

"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

DocId: 32265557

Page 14

---

## Page 15

1og 13

2

3

7.

8

9:

10.

11

12

..13

14

: 15

16

117

18

1.9.

20

22

23

.24

25

12

cross-examination or polygraph test or the usual test of

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. I think your point is well taken.

Possibly in the very beginning, I think we get ourselves

into a box where 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 15

---

## Page 16

13

log 14

2

3

4

5

7

8

10.

11

12

13.

14

- 15

16.

17

18

19.

20

21

22

23

.24

25

by saying "Sure, this is uncorroborated."

We will say it has raised questions and we have to run

it down.

Mr. Dodd. We don't want to get ourselves in a position

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

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

is not our intention in this report, to defend necessarily

that kind of evidence being fact.

The Chairman. It 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

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 say that some of

the leads and information that have come to us have never

before surfaced, without being sensational or wrong, but to

show that there is an ongoing progressive state of an

DocId: 32265557

Page 16

---

## Page 17

dog 15

2

3

4

5.

8.

10

11.

12

13

14

: 15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

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.

MI. 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 impossible

to predict whether the information will be provén 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

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

credibility of this committee at the highest level; and even

though 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 17

---

## Page 18

од 16

2

3

5:

6:

8

10

11

12

: 13

14

• 15

16

17

18.

19

20

21

22

23

-34

25

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

raising here.

Mr. Dodd. I 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.

I 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 is going to have the weight of

this committee behind it and it ought not have that where we

are not able to say that definitively.

The Chairman. Mrs. Burke.

DocId: 32265557

Page 18

---

## Page 19

109

17

16

2

3

4

8

9.

10

11

12

.. 13

14

÷ 15

16

$17

18

19

20

21

22

23

-24

25

Mrs. 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 "Is 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 is and 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 things. If 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 criticizing our

intelligence agency.

The statement, for instance, in here that Hoover tried

to mislead the Warren Commission. From my experience, and my

own experience relates to appropriations where we reviewed,

for instance, the CIA budget, where we took a vote there and

DocId: 32265557

Page 19

---

## Page 20

dog 18

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

12

÷ 13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

..24

25

17

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 criticizing those agencies.

So, I just want to raise the question, realizing that

maybe the people who feel that way would never vote for us

anyhow, which is a possibility, but I am not sure, and I

would just throw

that out, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I think the gentlewoman's observations

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 like that, he used the FBI in his objections the last time.

He opposed the

resolution.

I think that is something we might rethink, in light of

that knowledge. What we wind up doing is one thing, but it

might not be necessary for us to telegraph it.

Mr. Sprague.

May I respond, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Burke?

We put it in, and it is on page 14 really dealing with

"The 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 20

---

## Page 21

dog

19

2

3

4.

5

6

10

11

. 12

.: 13

14

÷ 15

16

17

:18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

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

in the investigation, if there is a 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

actual 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 already been corroborated or there have already been

statements before connittees that Oswald had a link with the

CIA. If we have it in the public domain, I think it should

be specifically stated.

The Chairman. Mi. 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

Indicates that he had links to the CIA, that we have, namely,

DocId: 32265557

Page

21

---

## Page 22

19

dog 20

2.

3

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-

ing Inquiry as to whether Oswald was one of their agents or

not.

5

6.

7

8

g.

10.

11

12

=13

14

: 15.

16

17

18

19

20

21.

22

23

.24

25

Mr. 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 if, on page 14, we might not want to do

it slightly 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

wording, if that is the case, and then I am wondering if we

might not drop the rather accusative paragraph which follows

involving the CIA, et cetera, "must be fully scrutinized."

It does seem to cast this whole inquiry and investigation

'into sort of an investigation of the FBI and CIA. Some

aspects of those two agencies obviously have come into review.

I am wondering if 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 22

---

## Page 23

dog 21

20

z

3

4

5

6

7.

8

10

11

12

÷ 13

..14

• 15.

• 16.

.17

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

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

that is jumping the gun — but it does seem to me to be 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-

jative 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

if this investigation demonstrates a breakdown in the normal

process, then it might well be the responsibility of this

committee to recommend some legislation correcting the process.

and that is not necessarily digging up the bones of J. Edgar

Hoover; It is looking down the road ahead to prevent some

breakdown in the process.

I am wondering if we might not want to drop words like

"scrutinize," et cetera, and recast that in such a way that

it simply indicates we are going to review all of these

DocId: 32265557

Page 23

---

## Page 24

1og

22

2

3

4

5

6

8

12

= 13

14

• 15

16

:17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

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 CIA are véry

significant. In fact, J. Edgar 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 24

---

## Page 25

22

dog 23

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

11

12

:13

. 14

• 15

16

17

.. 18

19

20

•21

22

23

.24

25

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 strengthen

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.

If 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

DocId: 32265557

Palue 25

---

## Page 26

30g 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

• • 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.34

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.

-Mr. 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 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 26

---

## Page 27

24

dog 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

• • :.

10

11

12

13

. 14

• 15

16

÷17.

18

19

20

21

22

23

_24

25

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."

MI. 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. I thought the Speaker was in

favor of $2.5 million" -- bang.

DocId: 32265557

Page 27

---

## Page 28

25

dog

26

2

3

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

.19

20

21

22

23

.24

. 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 forsalaries,

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.

MI. 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.

DocId: 32265557 Page 28

---

## Page 29

dog 27

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

. 11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

.24,

25

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.

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 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?

MI. 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. It is 1l0.

DocId: 32265557

Page

29

---

## Page 30

27

dog. 28

2

3

4

5

8

10

11

12

13

14

• =15

16

17

18

19

20

•21

22

23

"24

25

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 find 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.

I am 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

DocId: 32265557

Page

30

---

## Page 31

dog

29

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

: 13

14

• 15

16

17

• 18

19

.20

21

22

23

_24

25

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, Z 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.

I 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 31

---

## Page 32

29

dog 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

services, so that it did not sound like it was a sludge fund

for consultants, knowing the way the House operates.

MI. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I have gone through the report

and have a bunch of little technical changes and some that

are a little more substantive.

I wonder if we might start with some of those.

The Chairman. Sure.

Mr. Dodd. On page 1, second paragraph after the words

"Martin Luther King, JI.," for clarity's sake you talk about

"despite the eight years since these final conclusions were

reached" and so forth.

On page 2 at the very bottom this language might go

toward the front. "The investigations are in their infancy

and, therefore, the committee cannot submit verifiable con-

clusions with respect to the assassinations."

I would change the language to read, "Before all the

evidence is gathered, tested and corroborated, and inquiry is

completed."

"---***

Page

three, I have a question on the very first sentence,

"While the committee is pursuing new information, it has also

undertaken to initiate an exhaustive de novo investigaion of

the assassinations."

It seems to me from the Rules Committee discussion and

others is this to be a de novo investigatation or are we going

to be relying on testimony, evidence and so forth? Maybe I

DocId: 32265557

Page 32

---

## Page 33

dog 31

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

14

• 15

16

17.

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

30

still unclear. I thought this was not going to be a completely

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 out

to reestablish that evidence.

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield to me?

MI. Dodd. Sure.

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

DocId: 32265557

Pale

33

---

## Page 34

dog

32

31

might engender some discussion. We still can do what we have

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

to .

10

. 11

12

13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

.20

•21

22

23

=24

. 25

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 eut off from the FBI 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

DocId: 32265557

Page

34

---

## Page 35

dog 33

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

.13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25•

32

new and unpursued leads. I would hope that we hold to the

idea of doing the investigation but having in hand when we

do it, when we go to sit down at ground zero and say that we

are at the Rainbow Motel, we know everybody else who was

there and where they are.

i....

The Chairman. You would agree with Mr. Dodd's reasons?

Mr. Fauntroy. Make it de novo.

Mr. Dodd. The last paragraph on page 3,

"Now that the

committee has adopted rules of procedure and proposed a bud-

get, we are ready to continue."

I am changing the word "concentrate" to "continue." I

think the concept should be woven through the entire report

that this is a continuing function we are undergoing and not

something we are concentrating on. Change the word

"concentrate" to "continuing."

On page 4 -- and this was raised by Mr. Fithian in part --

at the beginning of that Section II A, I would like to

+--+-=---

include here and anywhere else the staff may find helpful,

this restated concept of legislative action at the conclusion

of this inquiry:

Again, from a Judiciary Committee standpoint, one of

their major concerns is that our resolution and our efforts

be designed ultimately to result in legislation to come out

of this committee, not just a criminal investigation. The

language I have added here is, "The task of investigating

DocId: 32265557

Page 35

---

## Page 36

dog 34

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

-13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

•21

22

23

-24

25

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, because

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

DocId: 32265557 • Page 36

---

## Page 37

dog 35

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

34

immediately saying "and they did not even mention his name."

Mr. Doda. .

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."

In other words, we can point to both their resolutions

as being the fathers -

Mrs. Burke. That is not true.

Mr. Fithian. I am not suggesting that we put anything

in that is not true.

MI. Fauntroy Explain: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

DocId: 32265557

Paire

37

---

## Page 38

dog 36

35

1

2

3

5

6

8

11

12

13

14

• =15

16

17

:.18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

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 resolution?

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

DocId: 32265557

Page

38

---

## Page 39

36

dog 37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

.24

25

Floor that is not understood, but that is the fact.

Mr. Fauntroy. I did attempt to explain to the former

chairman when he cut off access to the FBI materials by the

staff that he was overlooking the fact that the only reason

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

chairman by the Speaker of the House of Representatives

succeeding Henry B. Gonzales."

Strike out "and" and start the next sentence, "Immediately,

the committee was again reorganized."

The Chairman. Would

it not be better, Sam, if we said

this: "After February 2, 1977." "Upon adoption of this

resolution, Henry B. Gonzales was appointed chairman of the

committee." Then thereafter "on March 8th.".

Mr. Devine. Either way.

The Chairman. It follows a more logical sequence.

Mr. Devine. Either way.

The Chairman. Does that sound okay?

All right.

Mr. Dodd. The next paragraph on page 5, beginning with

the language, "One of the first actions was adoption of the

rules of procedure" and then this next sentence I have added

language, "This item was a major requirement of the House and

DocId: 32265557

Pare 39

---

## Page 40

dog 38

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

-21

22

23

-28,

25

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 become 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 cormittee, 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

DocId: 32265557

Pare

40

indee

---

## Page 41

dog

•39

38

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

. "1

12

- 13

14

• 15

16.

17

..18

19

20

21

22

23

-24

25

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

DocId: 32265557

Page

41

---

## Page 42

dog 40

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

..18

19

.20

21

22

23

.24

25

39

the King subcommittee and Mr. Preyer the chairman of the

Kennedy subcommittee."

I 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 imnediately 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 coma and adding the following lan-

guage: "including ballistics testing of the alleged rifle

used to murder DI. 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

Amenament.

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.

DocId: 32265557 Page

42

---

## Page 43

dog 41

2

3

4

5

7

8

10

11

12

14

- 15,

16

17

...18

19

20

28

22

23

. 34

25

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 I have changed the language,

"been fully briefed" to "discussed at length."

Mr. Edgar. Going back to page 7 where the American

Civil Liberties Union letter is noted, I have noted in a

number of reports they do include letters from the Administra-

tion and letters from other people.

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?

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that?

The 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

---

## Page 44

41

dog 42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

13

14

= 15

17

..18

19

20

:21

22

23

" 24

25

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.

Mr. 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

of the members.

MI. 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

to Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, " has that been

DocId: 32265557

Page

44

---

## Page 45

42

1og 43

1

2

3

5

6

7

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

•27

22

23

.34

25

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 introduced to Oswald by Ruby.

One is corroborated.

MI. 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

DocId: 32265557

Eage

45

---

## Page 46

dog 44

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

•—-→-----

10

11

12

13

14

÷ 15

16

÷17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

43

accusation later that we are blowing smoke. If 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.

MI. Sprague. I do not want to give that implication.

He was not yet corroborated. We don't have corroboration at

this time.

Mr. Fithian. Could we get out of it by striking the

words "not yet" and put in the word "uncorroborated"?

The Chairman. Before the word "information"?

Mr.. Fithian.

Yes. That is even better.

MI. 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 informant?

Mr. Tanenbaum. To

Dan Rather.

Mr. Sprague.

My problem there in stating that, I would

DocId: 32265557

Fage

46

---

## Page 47

dog 45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

÷13

- 14

• 15

16

117

18

19

20

:21

22

23

"24

25

44

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."

Mr. Sprague. I don't want to say reliable source, either

Mr. Devine. You can say publicly stated.

Mr. Dodd. It is a question I 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 wants

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."

The Chairman. In talking with him, did you consider that

àn interview or just conversation?

Mr. Sprague.

I would call it an interview.

The Chairman.: If that is a fact, then you could say

"The witness, interviewed by our staff" or "witness we have

interviewed."

DocId: 32265557

Phre

47

---

## Page 48

dog. 46

2

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

:13

14

22

23

_24

25

45

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."

MI. Lehner. We have one expert, Mr. MacDonald, who has

stated that. We also have Mr. Haines who stated that, who

was a former FBI agent. I don't think we would characterize

him as an expert. That is why we left it with that vague

"others."

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" of "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.

DocId: 32265557

Page 48

---

## Page 49

10g 47

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

11

12

. 13

. 14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

_24

25

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.

I 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.

I 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, Mr. Dodd?

MI. 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,

DocId: 32265557

Hage 49

---

## Page 50

47

dog

48

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

. 11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

•21

22

23

=24

25

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 the 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.

MI. 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.

DocId: 32265557

Pige

50

---

## Page 51

dog 49

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

: 13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24,

25

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.

I 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. If they are not that.

interested, they should not see it, anyway.

If they are interested, they can come over to our office

and look at it.

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.

DocId: 32265557

Hage

51

---

## Page 52

49

dog

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

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

YOU.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

• 16

17

..18.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25.

Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

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, I

would suggest a topic sentence to begin on page 14.

After you say "Development 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.

"The investigation into the assassination of Martin Luther

King, Jr., is proceeding along two lines of inquiry. The

committee is first investigating new and previously unpursued

leads in the assassination of DI. King. Second, the

committee 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

DocId: 32265557

Page

52

---

## Page 53

50

1og 51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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.

12

• 13

14.

: 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

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

basis of our information, now it may be. I think that some-

how has to be the top of the reference to the ballistic test,

because the ballistic test does not make context until you get

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

DocId: 32265557

Page 53

---

## Page 54

dog 52

2

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

÷17

...18

19

.20

21

22

23

_24,

25

51

then having the people looking for the six.

We don't have

them here. But just that statement, look at six people who

have never been interviewed before whom we have identified

with whom we have talked, who give witness to pre-assassina-

tion activity, several witnesses about conspiracy against Dr.

Ring's life.

Is it a problem for you to quantify that, saying five?

Mr. Lehner. The problem is that some of these witnesses

have spoken before to the FBI. The FBI has given in at least

two instances, I think, a short investigation of it.

Mr. Fauntroy. It is that category. Sartor, his family;

there is Beard, McFarren, Zapp, Davis. We can't detail that

in the report, but it seems to me that the impression ought to

be given and it is a fact that we have identified and are

pursuing potential witnesses on that.

It may not be necessary to even rearrange this language

except to just give a little topic to that.

The Chairman. Will you field for a moment?

Mr. Fauntroy. Yes.

The Chairman. I think you could rework this on page 16.

Your second sentence really does not say very much. You say

"The information furnished by some of these witnesses has the

potential to provide independent corroboration for the infor-

mation received by the committee from others of these

witnesses."

DocId: 32265557

Page 54

---

## Page 55

dog 53

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

. 11

52

To me, this is a rather awkward construction there. You

might sort of reshape it in terms of hitting upon what he is

talking about; information relating to pre-assassination

conspiracy?

Mr. Fauntroy. Once you have done that, then I think you

can go into questions not answered by our review of available

documents

and investigation of state, local and federal

officials. Under that, it seems to me you could list first

the funds question and tie it to the FBI - I think you have

done that - to the FBI task force report. The passport is

a question, the escape from the penitentiary, the removal of

the security surveillance. The radio diversionary announce-

ment and the one family member, the question raised by the

FBI.

13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24,

25

These are questions left unanswered that we are pursuing,

that they all happen to be related to the question of assis-

tance; whether we have assistance both with the fund, pass-

port, escape from the penitentiary, and the radio diversion

and the one family member question which Mr. Bell mentioned,

and then finally, it seems to me that there ought to be a

paragraph -- and you essentially, do that -- which mentions

the task force report of the Justice Department and makes

reference to the fact that we have already mentioned the

Justice concern about funds. I think they are concerned about

one family member

DocId: 32265557

Page 55

---

## Page 56

dog 54

53

2

3

4

5

6

In the previous report, you said three questions

remain from the task force report. One was the fund; they

said it was a mystery, the fund was a mystery.

They said one family member and didn't explain had been

involved.

end

LaFrance

McCarthy

fols.

8

10

11

12

÷ 13

14

÷ 15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

DocId: 32265557

Page

56

---

## Page 57

start

55

MeCarthy/dog

54

2

3

fols LaFrances

dog

continuing

blind

numbering

6

8

10

. 11

12

13

14

= 15

• 16

17

..18

19

20

21

22

23

..24

25

Before Di. King pointed to conspiracy, that could be

among the unanswered questions.

Mx. Chairman, in short, I am not recommending any speci-

fic language at this point because I have not had a chance to

do it carefully, but I do note it would be very helpful to

have a topic sentence. that gives us those two areas for which

members can scan quickly to find the basis for those state-

ments.

The minute they see new

and unpursued leads, they will

wake up. If you just start reading about Ray willing to

testify, they are not going to wake up.

The Chairman. Page 15, the third paragraph down, third

line we have a typo, "bullet." On page 17, second paragraph

where he said "The committee intends to investigate the

source of Ray's funds in general and of those $20 bills in

particular." I would end that sentence with "funds."

Mrs. Burke.

Mrs. Burke. Mr. Chairman, the first memo that we

received on the Ring investigation is made up of two parts.

This is sometime back. One was a series of questions that

were raised. The second memo, I believe, set forth cities.

Of the things that we have received during this time,

those two documents, to me, raise more question and appear to

go into areas that had not been pursued by most of the writers,

more than anything else.

DocId: 32265557

Page 57

---

## Page 58

dog 56

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

: 13

14

• 15

16

17

: 18

19

20

21

22

23

"24,

25

55

I just wonder if some of those things could not be em-

bodied in this report? The kind of things that were raised in

those memos, do you have those available now?

Mr. Lehner. Let me see if I do.

Mrs. Burke. They were in the notebook you put here at

one of your early meetings, and it had a list of questions.

The Chairman. That was the analysis the staff did of the

Justice Department's task force.

Mrs. Burke. No, I mean some time ago.

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, it was one of the first

committee sessions.

The Chairman. I remember.

Mr. Sprague. We just gave it to Mr. Edgar.

Mrs. Burke.

We turned them in at that time.

Mr. Sprague. We still have them.

Mrs. Burke. I see here, this is it, that Mr. Edgar has.

There are many things here I think would move in a direction

of bringing before members of the House concrete issues.

have not seen this for a long time, so I am not sure of the

details, the kind of things I am thinking about, but one of

those - let me see if I can find the kind of thing I was

referring to. It is this whole area of questions that have

not been answered.

Mr. Sprague. Mrs. Burke, I think when we prepared that,

we are not saying there were questions that had not been

-DocId:32265557

Page 58

---

## Page 59

dog 57

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

14

- 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

56

answered. I think we are suggesting they were questions

that would have to be addressed, The answers may have in

some instances existed and in others they may not have. We

are not sure.

Mrs. Burke. I know what I was trying to think about.

The circumstances immediately surrounding the shooting; the

location of the room, the determination of what hotel Dr.

Ring would register in, the change of hotel, the change of

room; if, in fact, these things did take place.

These are a number of questions, and I believe there

were a series of questions on Ray's immediate issues, under-

standing they have not been pursued.

My reaction to this section was that it was very, very

general, and in trying, I could get something I could present

to members that would be persuasive of what I have been trying

to do rather than using this approach as to review some of

these questions that had been raised in the past.

So I would really hope we could bring some of these

a little bit more into this

section, a little bit more detail,

even if it is only questions. I recognize we are at a dis-

advantage more on Ring because you have a body of material,

so many writings on the Kennedy assassination; you do not have

that in the case of the King assassination. You do not have

all the documents that have been reviewed, and all that sort

of thing.

DocId: 32265557

Page 59

---

## Page 60

11410183

Follows 014635

RG:

233

ENTRY:

BOX:

TAB #:

COPIES/ PPS.

/CLASS.

pp. 57-58

ACCESS RESTRICTED

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:

File Designation

Date

From

TO

In the review of this file this item was removed because access to it is

restricted.

Restrictions on records in the National Archives are stated

in general and specific record group restriction statements which are

available for examination. The item identified above has been withdrawn

because it contains:

WITHD

A W

NOT IC

Security-Classified Information

x. Otherwise Restricted Information

MLK

Authority

08/22/93

Date

Withdrawn by NSCA

John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-526)

DocId:

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

22625206 Paue 260 2e.2a.a

NA FORM. 14000 (1-86)

---

## Page 61

59

dog 60

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

: 13

- 15

16

17

•. 18

19

20

21

22

23

-24

25

investigations. This is really a reemphasis of what Mr.

Fauntroy has said with regard to the King investigation.

I am wondering if, at the very beginning on the first

page or two, you cannot use that in the introduction as well

as in the conclusion.

Other than that, I am ready to vote on it.

Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the

proposed committee report, as amended, and I think under the

rules, it is necessary to have a roll call on that.

The reason I make the

motion at this time, I am due at

my office at 4:00 o'clock on an important matter. I would

like to vote for myself and my proxies, if we have a quorum

present.

Mr. Dodd. Under the Rules of the House, any time a

committee reports out legislation, you have to have a majority

present when reporting out from here.

MI. Devine. If we call the roll and leave it open for a

few minutes, I think we can beat the problem.

Mr. Dodd.. That is a long count.

The Chairman.

The clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk. Mr. Stokes.

The Chairman, Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Devine.

Mr. Devine. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Preyer.

DocId: 32265557

Page

'61

---

## Page 62

60

dog 61

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

12

13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

=24

25

(No response.)

The Clerk. Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Devine. Aye, by proxy.

The Clerk.

Mr. Fauntroy.

(No response.)

The Clerk. Mr. McKinney.

Mr. Devine. Aye, by proxy.

The Clerk. Mrs. Burke.

Mrs. Burke. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Thone.

(No response.)

The Clerk. Mr. Dodd.

MI. Dodd. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Ford.

(No response.) .

The Clerk. Mr. Fithian.

--=

Mr. Fithian. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Edgar.

Mr. Edgar. Aye.

The Chairman. We have to hold until the rest come.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, may we go off the record for a

minute?

The Chairman. Off the record.

(Discussion off the recora.)

The Chairman. Back on the record.

DocId: 32265557

Page

62

---

## Page 63

dog 62

61

Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, I move a roll call on the

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

: 13

14

• 15

18

19

.20

21

22

23

24

- 25

report.

The Chairman. The clerk will call the roll again of

those members who did not answer to their names.

The Clerk. Mr. Preyer.

Mr. Preyer. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Fauntroy.

Mr. Fauntroy. Aye.

The Clerk. Mr. Thone.

(No response.)

The Clerk. Mr. Ford.

(No response.)

The Chairman.

Would you announce the vote.

The Clerk. The vote is 10 aye, none nay, two by proxy.

The Chairman. Accordingly, the report is adopted, as

amended.

Are you satisfied, Mrs. Burke?

Mrs. Burke. Is there going to be someone available --

The Chairman. Mr. Sprague.

Mr. Sprague. To respond to Mrs. Burke, the answer is

absolutely yes. The two people who are available are Mr.

Tanenbaul and Mr. Lehner for any briefing that any member of

this committee wants, or member of Congress, at any time.

Mrs. Burke. I can give you the names of two people, if

the appointments can be set up. One is Mr. Danielson. The

DocId: 32265557

Page 63

---

## Page 64

dog 63

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

- 15

16

17

18

19

20

-21

22

23

.24,

25

62

other person is MI. Krebs, Mr. Lloyd, and it could be done if

someone could take over a memo to Martha Keys of Kansas. She

voted against the first time. She might change her vote.

Mr. Sprague. The only question I have with regard to

this is the staff is under instructions from me, and I am

under my own instructions of what I think are the instructions

of the committee that we do not make and have avoided making

any contact on our own with any members of Congress other

than the members of this committee and what this committee

sets up for us with any members of Congress.

If you are saying to us for us to make this contact and

set it up, we will do so. What I would frankly prefer is if

a member of this committee who wants to do so would just set

up the appointments, we will comply with them.

The Chairman. Mr. Fithian.

Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, this brings me to the point

I wanted to make before we break up.

Starting in about 30 or 45 minutes, I will be contacting

each member to get from them some time, hopefully before 7:00

this evening, in any case by noon tomorrow, a final tally of

how we stand on our entire whip count.:

Included in the tally I would hope would be the names

of individual members whom we, as members of the committee,

believe could or would want to be briefed. At that point

then, to make more expeditious use of time, I would like to

DocId: 32265557

Page 64

---

## Page 65

dog 64

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

÷ 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

arrange taking all the names from every member of the

committee who needs briefing.

I would like to arrange then a series of maybe three,

four, five times when we might get four or five of the members

together so that one briefing would accomplish four or five

members at

a time until we exhaust the list of those who are

persuadable but need some kind of briefing, and that is one

of the purposes of this whip count.

The second purpose is to go back to all members that

any individual member here wants to go to with a computerized

letter; included in the letter a paragraph or paragraphs that

we are devising now and which I would like to have some review

by the staff so that we can go back to the individual members

of any member of Congress that any member of this committee

wants us to follow up on.

We have the capacity to do that with a computerized

letter. All it will take is some individual letterhead from

your office and the individuals you want us to send the letters

to .

We will process them and have these ready for signatures

of the members of this committee prior to any vote.

We will also report to you,. Mr. Chairman, as to where

we stand on this thing, specifically in terms of count.

I just spoke to Mr. Devine. His man has been sick, but

he is hoping to have a Republican count sometime tomorrow.

I will get with you no later than tomorrow afternoon. I would

DocId: 32265557

Page 65

---

## Page 66

dog

65

64

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

. 11

12

13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

22

23

.24

25

hope all the members of the committee here would make every

effort to contact people on their list, because we have to

have a hard count by tomorrow at 2:00 in order to put the

rest of the mechanism in motion that we have.

Mr. Dodd. If the gentleman would yield, it has got to

be before that. We have a whip meeting tomorrow morning at

9:15 in the morning. I would like at that meeting to be able

to take our accumulated count, even if we do not have the

sponsors, and turn a good portion of that responsibility over

to the normal whip operations. That, I think, would increase

our possibility of success.

If the leadership of the Congress is pushing this as a

whip item, it can be counted in the remaining three or four

days. If you can give me that information before 9:15

tomorrow, at least what you have --

Fithian. I will give you what I have up to that

point. I would raise no objection to the regular whip

system handling this. - I think it is crucial, from my exper-

ience today, those of us who are members of the committee, to

talk personally to some of these people.

There were two members today that I talked with, and all

we really needed was about five or sixminutes of discussion

in which I could simply tell them, nothing that is really

classified, but just tell them it was my judgment, based on

these things, that this thing ought to go forward, and both

DocId: 32265557

Page 66

---

## Page 67

dog 66

65

2

4

5

6

7

8

of them made a commitment today to vote for it.

We have a very long way to go on this matter.

The Chairman. Let me ask for a point of clarification,

Mrs. Burke. The briefing that you want is not the executive

briefing?

Mrs. Burke. It is going to take almost that with some

of them.

But let me turn the list of those over to Floyd of those

who need briefings.

The Chairman. It needs to go all the way.

Mr. Sprague. Mi. Chairman, we have not the slightest

objection, as long as it is set up with members of the

Congress by members of the committee for an executive brief-

ing.

10

11

12

13

14

• = 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

=24

. 25

The Chairman. But I agree with the procedure of the

staff not contacting any member unless so directed. I talked

to Al yesterday and instructed him to call a couple members.

I assume that was done. I know it was done, in one case.

Mrs. Burke. These are people who asked for briefings.

But it could be done by this method. We will try this first.

Mr. Sprague. We would be happy to have the executive

type, full, complete, and let them know what it is.

Mrs. Burke. In the case of one, he is a whip, and it

might not hurt --

The Chairman.

You ought to get to him tonight. The whip

DocId: 32265557

Hage

67

---

## Page 68

66

dog 67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

is leaving us tonorrow.

A couple matters. With the committee having voted out

this report as amended, when can we anticipate that this

report will be ready to file with the House?

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, we should have the type-

written draft of this with the

amendments suggested here to you

tomorrow by noontime, so that we can get it over to the

printer tomorrow. They told us the printed copies of that

would be ready Monday morning.

The Chairman. Mr. Preyer.

Mr. Preyer. Does that have to be ready by noon? I

know Mr. Anderson made some comments to Mr. Fithian about the

budget provision.

I was not sure whether tomorrow is clear

or what those changes are going to be or whether it is going

to involve -- that will take some writing and refiguring of

that.

12

. 13

- 14

• 15

16

17

..18

19

20

21

22

23

.24

25

I am wondering if we can get that done by noon tomorrow.

MI. Sprague. Mr. Preyer, as long as we can have the

typewritten copy of the report to the printing office by

6:00 p.m. tomorrow, we can neet that printing deadline of

Monday morning. I was just allowing a little time tomorrow

in case after it is examined by the Chairman, there is a

desire to have some more changes. We do have until 6:00 p.m.

tomorrow.

The Chairman. With that, you also have a matter of the

DocId: 32265557

Page

68

---

## Page 69

dog 68

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

- 13

14

• 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

"24,

25

67

members correcting the transcripts and ordering them to be

printed. Have you had someone following through with that?

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, if the members have no

amendments or changes to make, we can get them there by 6:00

p.M. today. They can be printed by Friday morning.

In the event the members are not in a position to say

that yet, as long as we know by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, that can

be completed by Monday morning as well.

The Chairman. I would suggest you have someone follow

through with each member to be sure that is compiled right.

There were a couple of other matters that I wanted to

get into tonight. Don Edwards' letter; did we have the staff

prepare a response to that?

Mr. Wolf. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman. His letter just

wants to make it clear that those rules that apply to the

committee staff will also apply to the individual staff person

on our staff, designated to be liaison.

For example, restrictions on revealing the names of

subpoenaed people, et cetera.. I think just to make that

clear, it would require an amendment to ourrules as to what

we are constituting.

The Chairman. Would you prepare a letter to him in which

you advise him that we appreciate that suggestion and that

the matter will be corrected by way of amendment after we are

reconstituted.

DocId: 32265557

Page 69

---

## Page 70

68

dog

69

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

•13

14

• 15

16

:17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Wolf. One point on the report to be filed.

On

my meeting with Mr. Collins, he requested that the Rules

Committee be given, even if it is only a typed version, of

the report Friday morning.

If the Chair would like me to provide a typed xerox

version which will be done by that time. The printed copies

will not be back until Monday morning.

The Chairman. What do you need from us?

Mr. Wolf. Just your authorization to provide him the

xeroxes of the typed copy.

The Chairman. That is on the budget?

Mr. Wolf. No, of the report.

The Chiarman. Of the report?

Mx. Wolf. Yes.

The Chairman.. I see.

All right, you have that.

One other thing. On Bruton and Baish, when we last met,

you were to check out the usual ramifications of our accept-

ing the resignation of Mr. Bruton as opposed to our firing

him.

Mr. Wolf.

That is correct.

The Chairman. And how it would affect the payroll status.

Can you give us a report on that?

Mr. Wolf. Surely. It is my recommendation that his

resignation as opposed to firing, the committee take the

DocId: 32265557

Page

70

---

## Page 71

dog 70

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

. 11

12

13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

=24

25

69

latter action. It is very questionable whether of not he was

fired at that committee meeting held in your office, I

believe, since the procedures of the committee itself were not

followed at that time.

There appears to be no difference. We have checked with

House Administration, for their purposes, for his back pay

claims for any other legal significance to

accepting, a resig-

nation as opposed to firing.

The only possible distinction might be for an unemploy-

ment claim that he would file with the District of Columbia.

If his resignation were for just cause, he would still be

eligible for unemployment.

The Chairman. Can we have then --

Mr. Wolf. Because of Mr. Fithian's amendment requiring

majority of the connittee to be present to terminate staff

member, I do not believe a majority is present, so I do not

think action can be taken at the current time either on Mr.

Bruton or Mrs. Baish, who also should be re-fired, if you

will.

The Chairman. The only thing is, I think you should be

in communication with him so he does not feel we are ignoring

his correspondence and advise him that the comnittee has the

matter under consideration and that he should be getting a

reply in just a few days. Explain it to him.

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with Mr. Wolf

DocId: 32265557

Page 71

---

## Page 72

đog 71

70

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

= 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

-24

25

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.

I 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 it 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

DocId: 32265557

Page 72

---

## Page 73

dog 72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

• 15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

23

-24

25

71

attention at that informal meeting. We would not be able to

say to him that it was done in a duly and legally consti-

tuted meeting of this committee.

Mr. Fithian. Mr. Chairman, since it was my amendment

that put the committee in this position, I would like to state

for the record that there was never any intention in that

amendment which would preclude anyone from resigning from the

staff.

I was talking abour forceable separation from the staff,

and that is what the amendment directs itself to. Therefore,

there is no problem with the comnittee, as far as I can see; no

violation of our rules in any way to accept his resignation.

If it is a forced termination, then it would be another

matter:

Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with Mr.

Fithian. The only issue is, can the committee accept his

resignation as of that same day? The answer is yes. I do

not think we ought to respond to his letter with any opinion

concerning the firing. He has requested we accept his

resignation. I think we merely ought to respond and say we

have decided to do so and that our record will reflect that.

The Chairman. There was another item, as I recall, to

the $40 office telephone bill which I had the impression, in

all probability, they were legitimate calls. But he was asked

to do something by way of substantiating, or something of this

DocId: 32265557

Fage 73

---

## Page 74

72

dog 73

1

2

3

4

5

6

sort.

8

10

11

12

... 13

: 14

• =15

• 16.

17

18

19

•20

21

22

23

,24

25

I am just wondering if that is something we do not need

to necessarily get involved in since we are talking about $40

and we are denying the claim of something in the neighborhood

of $2500. Maybe we ought to respond in that way, and we will

pay his $40 upon signing the proper vouchers, and so forth,

and then the other members and I will officially have the

committee do that.

Meanwhile, Jim Wolf, you call him and advise him of the

status of this matter so we do not encounter a lawsuit on

this point.

Mr. Sprague. I do not think there is any official

action required by the committee under the rules with regard

to a staff member resigning.

The Chairman. Probably not. We can check that. If

there is not, we can go ahead and reject that.

We will recess, subject to call of the chair.

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the committee adjourned,

subject to call of the Chair.)

DocId: 32265557

Page

74

---