Agency: SSCIA
Originator: SSCIA
Document date: 03/17/1976
Document type: TRANSCRIPT

## Page 1

JFK Assassination System

Identification Form

Date:

7/7/2015

Agency Information

AGENCY :

RECORD NUMBER:

RECORD SERIES :

AGENCY FILE NUMBER :

SSCIA

157-10014-10124

MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE

07-M-30

Document Information

ORIGINATOR:

FROM:

TO :

TITLE:

SSCIA

DATE: 03/17/1976

PAGES: 58

SUBJECTS :

Released under the John

F. Kennedy

Assassination Recorde

Collection act of 1992

144 USC 2107 Notel.

Case#:NW 53244 Date:

06-14-2017

SSCSGO, METHODOLOGY

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

DOCUMENT TYPE: TRANSCRIPT

CLASSIFICATION: Declassified

RESTRICTIONS: 1B; 1C

CURRENT STATUS: Redact

DATE OF LAST REVIEW: 03/22/2000

OPENING CRITERIA :

COMMENTS: CCBOX 324

v9.1

HH 53244

DocId: 32423512

Page 1

---

## Page 2

Date : 08/07/95

Page

1

JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM

IDENTIFICATION FORM

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : SSCIA

RECORD NUMBER

: 157-10014-10124

RECORDS SERIES

MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF THE CHURCH COMMITTTEE

AGENCY FILE NUMBER

.: 07-M-30

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR

:SSCIA

FROM

TO

TITLE

DATE

: 03/17/76

PAGES

: 58

SUBJECTS

:SSCSGO, METHODOLOGY

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

DOCUMENT TYPE : TRANSCRIPT

CLASSIFICATION : TOP SECRET

RESTRICTIONS: REFERRED

CURRENT STATUS

: POSTPONED

IN

FULL

DATE OF LAST REVIEW

: 01/05/99

OPENING CRITERIA

, COMMENTS : CCBOX

324

[R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED

HH 53244

DooId: 32423512

Page 2

---

## Page 3

NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Unauthorized Di

closure Subject

to Criminal Sanctions

1UP SECRET Vol. 2 0F 3

Or Anitri States Bruate R2804

Report of Proceedings

Hearing held before:

Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental

Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities

Wednesday, March 17, 1976

Washington, D. C

(Stenotype Tape and Waste turned over

to the Committee for destruction)

HH 53241

DocId: 32423512 Page

WARD & PAUL

410 FIRST STREET, S. E.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20003:

(202) 544-6000

TOP SECRET

---

## Page 4

Liter trit in a

WARD/smnl

1

COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, March 17,

1976

-

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

United States Senate,

Select Committee to. Study Governmental

Operations with Respect to

Intelligence Activities,

Washington, D. C.

• The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 o'clock

a.m:, in Room S-407, the Capitol, the Honorable Frank Church

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Present:

Senators Church (presiding), Mondale, Huddleston,

Hart of Colorado, Tower, Baker, Mathias and Schweiker.

Also present: William G. Miller, Staff Director; Frederick

A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Chief Counsel; Curtis R. Smothers, Minority

Counsel; and Joseph diGenova, Pat Shea, Al Quanbeck, William

Bader, Rick Inderfurth, Elizabeth Culbreath, Michael Madican,

Joseph Dennin, Charles Lombard, Margaret Carpenter, Elliot

Maxwell, Walter Ricks, David Aaron, Jan Orloff, Rhett Dawson,

Bob Kelley, Anne Karalekas, Molly Dillon and Burt Wides.

TOP SHERET

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 4

---

## Page 5

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

PROCEEDINGS

The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.

Our purpose this morning is to commence the consideration

of the findings and recommendations on the

foreign and military

intelligence aspects of the investigation.

Knowing that members have read the Subcommittee's report,

I suggest that we commence by simply asking if any Senator has

any suggestions or amendment to propose to the general

findings' and conclusions which begin on page 1 and extend througr

page 5.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, may I make a preliminary

remark?

The Chairman. Yes, of course.

Senator Baker. I think that the Subcommittee has done a

good job.

There are a number of points that I would like to

discuss. I think none of my concerns are irreconcilable. I

think some of them are even as small

as matters of language,

but there is one that I have already mentioned to Mr. Miller

and I do feel strong about, and that is if we are going to

submit the. set of recommendations to the agencies, particularly

the CIA in this situation, that we do it before we take

Committee action.

I am perfectly willing for that to be done as quickly and

even as informally as possible, and Bill Miller suggests that

he might be able to meet with Rogovin yet today and have some

TOP SECRET

NW 53244 DooId: 32423512

Page 5

---

## Page 6

3

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

sort of reaction to it, if possible. But my concern, frankly,

MI. Chairman, is that if there is going to be an Agency input,.

that they have it, because I am called on to make any approval.

So with that understanding, I am prepared to go ahead.

The Chairman. All actions of the Committee will be taken

tentatively.

I have discussed your proposal with Bill Miller

and he will take up these recommendations informally. He will

make a report back of the committee's views -- of the Agency's

views or objections to any particular recommendations, so the

Committee can then consider that at the end of the road before

final vote and approval is taken.

Senator Baker.

Do you plan to vote on each separate one

or just simply try to establish a verbal consensus, because

Iwould be -- I would not like to vote on the particular sections

until I hear what the agencies say.

The Chairman. Well, the vote is tentative: I see no

problem with it. We can always reconsider it if the Agency

offers a strong objection.

Senator Baker.

Well, it is not quite the same, but if

you

are going to go that way, I'm going to withhold my vote

until tomorrow, but

if we want to discuss it separately and

arrive at a general consensus, that's a little different.

Senator Huddleston. I would just like to make this point,

MI. Chairman, that each agency has had a considerable oppor-

tunity to make input, and has in fact made some input because

TOP SECRET

HH 53241 DocId:32423512 Page 6

---

## Page 7

4

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

the witnesses have been questioned in many cases on specific

recommendations that we might make. So there has already been

that degree of input from the agencies.

The Chairman. I would hope that we could proceed so

that the Committee considers and at least comes to a tentative

vote. It is always subject to a final revision, and I think that

is the only way we really can make progress. But I will see

to it, Howard, that any objection the Agency may raise to any

of

these recommendations, or any strong feelings they express

concerning any of them, are reported to the Committee by

MI. Miller, and the Committee will have an opportunity, then,

to review its work in the light of any such evaluation:

Senator Baker.. I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. That

certainly is an improvement. That doesn't quite meet my

concerns, which were that we have the input from the CIA, the

White House and the Justice Department before we make any

Committee action, but I

suspect that is as good as I can

probably do.

But it is understood, I

suppose, that I may in fact

withhold my vote until we have heard a reaction, at least from

the results of Bill Miller's meetings.

The Chairman. I would hope that we could move along in

most cases.by consensus, Howard, anyway. You know, we have

been able to do that most of

the time, and we will come to

votes only in those cases where they are necessary.

TOP SECRET

NW 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 7

---

## Page 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Fritz, may I ask before we proceed

when you think you

will be ready with your

final recommendations for consideration

by the Full Committee?

Senator Mondale.

The 25th or 26th Mr. Schwarz tells me.

Mr. Schwarz. That is the day

we are scheduled for,

and

we are well on schedule

The Chairman.

well, if they could be distributed to

members by the 24th.

Mr. Schwarz. Can do.

The Chairman. If you could do that, we could take that

up and we can work on them on the 25th.

Senator Mondale. I think we can just vote them out.

The Chairman. All right.

Now that Senator Tower has arrived, we will commence these

proceedings.

Calling the Committee's attention to the first section,

general findings and conclusions, running through pages 1 through

page 5, does any memberiof the Committee have any amendment to

offer or suggested change to make?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have one on page 4.

The Chairman. On page 4?

Senator Baker. In the second paragraph, the third sen-

tence:

"The recent proposals and executive actions by the

President are an important step in this process and a useful

point of departure. They are not, however, adequate in

TOP CHERET

HH

53244 DocId:32423512 Page 8

---

## Page 9

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1,3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

themselves."

It is my view that the President did a rather extraordinary

thing in making

sweeping and comprehensive recommendations, and

it deserves probably better treatment from us than that.

think it is likely that we will suggest and urge the enactment

of additional legislative steps, but I think this particular one

diminishes

the importance of the President's recommendations

unduly.

The Chairman. well, it says "The recent proposals and

executive actions by the President are

an important step

in this process and a useful point of departure. They are

not, however, adequate in themselves." And it seems to me

that no executive action can be adequate in itself because it

is subject to immediate change, to change without notice, and

therefore is not a dependable standard, and I think this

Committee, in making recommendations that statutes be enacted,

attempting to establish definite and dependable standards.

That is not to criticize the executive orders the President

himself has issued, but it is to suggest that they are not

adequate in themselves.

Senator Baker. I think that is the way it would be read,

though.

This is what I had in mind when I said part of my

objections may in fact go to questions of style. I surely

doubt that the Committee tends to diminish the importance of

the President's suggestions. I would suggest that this style

IOD SFERET

HH

53244 DocId: 32423512 Page 9

---

## Page 10

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

be changed simply by saying "These tasks are urgent. They shoul

be undertaken by Congress in consultation with the executive

branch in the coming year, and the President's significant

recommendations in this respect are most welcome."

The Chairman. All right.

That's all right:

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. But I think we should add the final

sense, "They are not, however, adequate in themselves."

Senator Baker. No, I don't want to do that. I think if

you want to put that sentence in, then I want to diddle with

that one a little bit.

I would recommend

just leave that out.. There is no need

to say that.

Senator Tower.

Say,

"However, other steps should be

taken."

The Chairman. Or

we

steps are

also needed."

could. say, "However, legislative

Senator Baker.

weil, why not add "we especially note

the suggestion by the President that legislative action will

be required as well, and

we agree with that."

Senator Huddleston!

Well; I would just suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that if we are

going to accept the President's

action as adequate, we

can end the report right there on

page 4 and send it on döwn.

TOP SECRET

HH 53244 DooId:32423512

Page 10

---

## Page 11

8

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

Senator Baker. Wel, nobody is suggesting that. I don't

suggest that.

Senator Huddleston. Well, why not say it?

Senator Baker. Because. Don't say either one.

Senator Huddleston. Because as a matter of fact the

steps are woefully inadequate, Senator, if you look at it.

Senator Baker. I don't think they are inadequate. I think

they are very good, indeed. I think there are a lot of things

I would add to it, but I don't like to be doing a thing to

aid the legislative process by saying that the President did

a good job or a bad job, and that is a question of style that

we are addressing.

Senator Mondale. Why don't we just agree that the

President did a job on this issue.

Senator Baker. Why don't we have a vote on it.

Why don't we

just do that?

Senator Huddleston. Okay, but I don't really see any

criticism at all, here, of the President.

The Chairman. "It shall be undertaken by Congress in

consultation with the executive branch in the coming years."

And then what would you add to that, Howard?

Senator Baker. "The recent proposals and executive

actions by the" -- "The recent suggestions and proposals

by the President in that respect are most welcome," and I am

proposing we stop there.

TOP SECRET

NW 53244 DocId: 32423512 Page 11

---

## Page 12

BETHEL

9

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

The Chairman. Then I would say we add "They are not,

however, sufficient in themselves.".

Senator Schweiker.

How about, "But further action by

Congress

is necessary.". Wouldn't that get us over the hump

here?

The Chairman. All right.

Senator Mondale. Clearly necessary•

Senator Baker. How about putting, "And as the President

indicated, further action by Congress is also needed."

Senator Mondale. Wait a minute.

The Chairman. After all, Howard --

Senator Mondale. Let's not be political here.

The Chairman. You've gotten enough out of that, Howard..

Senator Mondale. We'll call the President and say you're

working like hell.

Senator Baker. The only right I've got is to vote or to

note vote; and to make a separate statement.

Now, seriously, boys, we need to just decide what we are

going to do, and I propose that we just stop it after that

statement, that the recent proposals by the President in that

respect are most welcome, and then what Schweiker said, whether

Congressional initiative is required.

The Chairman. What did you say?

Senator Schweiker.: After his I said, "but further action

by Congress is necessary," which I think says that we've got a

TOR SECRET

HN 53244

DocId:32423512 Page 12

---

## Page 13

1.IN DECKE

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

job to do.

The Chairman. All right, we will adopt Howard's first

sentence and Schweiker's second sentence on that.

Senator Huddleston. The Baker-Schweiker amendment.

The Chairman. All right.

Are there any other proposals to be made in connection with

this section?

Senator Tower. Yes, page 5, Mr. Chairman, the last

sentence in the first paragraph, "The Committee believes that

covert action must be enployed only in the most extraordinary

circumstances."

What are extraordinary circumstances?

The Chairman. Well, they are extraordinary. That's a

good word.

Senator Huddleston. I'm sorry. What page are we?

Senator Tower.

Page 5.

The Chairman. Last sentence on page 5, "The Committee

believes that covert action must be employed only in the most

extraordinary circumstances."

Senator Tower. I think probably on the Committee there

are varying degrees of support of opposition to this whole

idea of covert action anyway. I happen to believe in it

pretty strongly. I respect the views of those who don't think

we should use it at all. That is a policy matter.

Mr. Miller. I think the idea that was intended there,

TOP CHERET

HN 53244 DocId:32423512 • Page 13

---

## Page 14

}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

Senator, was that it is a technique that should be used when

overt means have been exhausted and it is the only way to

achieve your goals.

The Chairman. In other words, extraordinary is the opposite

of ordinary. We could say the Committee believes - you could

turn that around and say the Committee does not believe that

covert action should be employed in ordinary circumstances, but

this

is a positive way of saying it.

senator

Tower. Well, my view is that extraordinary.

circumstances is when there is imminent threat of the Soviet

invasion of a small country, for example, or a European country.

Senator Huddleston.. That is a good enough example for

me.

The Chairman.. Well, I think we don't define it, and since

we don't attempt to define it more precisely, I don't see

any problem with it. You and I might have a different notion

of what constituted an extraordinary circumstance.

Mr. Miller. That is the Agency's view.

Senator Huddleston. Mr. Chairman, we also have further

reports and recommendations where we can get into that matter

in substance, whether or not the Committee wants to -- we

didn't resolve it at the Subcommittee level - but whether and

to what extent the Committee wants to impose some kind of

restriction on covert action, I think there is a better place

than dealing with it that specifically here. I think we

TOP SECRET

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 14

---

## Page 15

₽ ...

12

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

just want to indicate here that something that is somewhat.

of a usual and everyday operation --

Senator Baker. Excuse me, John. I am not sure I would

like to leave it that way.

I think we are touching now one of

the vitals of this whole thing, and frankly I don't know what

I think about it.

I do know that my general feeling is that there is a

need,

certainly a conceivable need for some sort of covert capability

action. I know that in my view it has been abused in the

past, but I think that abuse is just one of neglect as

anything else, and that is in anyone neglecting to watch what

was going on.

My own personal view is that rather than restrict the

scope of action, the scope of covert action, that there ought

to be an escalating requirement for accountability reaching.

to the President himself, in the case of any significant

kind of covert action. I know that I would like to have

the Agency's comments on this point in particular, and I

would withhold my vote until Bill Miller has his meeting.

Senator Mondale. To me this is a pretty central point.

Senator Baker. It is.

Senator Mondale. And. it is hard to define a standard

that is mechanical, and we all accept that, that what this

word means is that in effect we think covert action has been

used in too many circumstances and unwisely frequently in the

TOP SECRET

HH

53244

DocId: 32423512

Page 15

---

## Page 16

BE SECRET

13

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

past, and we would like; to say that much more caution and

restraint should be applied in its exercise in the future, and

I know there are some who think there should be no covert

action. I am not willing to walk that line.

Senator Baker. I think I would take what you just said.

The Chairman. Well, Why don't we go to the statute by

which Congress has already enacted into law the test, which

is a hell of a lot stronger than "extraordinary," for

Christ's sake.

Senator Mondale. Is that the Hughes Act? What does it

say?

The Chairman. It says when the President determines

that the national security, is imperiled -- what is the Hughes

language?

Mr. Aaron. The Hughes language is that unless there --

well, no funds be appropriated, et cetera, unless and until

the President finds that such operation is important to the

national security and the scope of such operation, and so forth

and so forth.

Senator Mondale.

No, I think this "extraordinary" is

better.

The Chairman. Well, I agree that that's kind of weak.

remembered it differently.

Senator Baker. Well, I disagree. I think this is

pretty clearly in accord with what I just said. That is, it

TOP SECRET

HW 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 16

---

## Page 17

SECRET

14

1.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

•14

15

16

17

19

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

isn't a question of whether you ought to restrict covert

activity or not. We should rather escalate the level of

responsibility to the point where if you are going to use

significant covert action, it requires direct and express

written approval of the President of the United States, and

that is, in effect, what Hughes said.

The Chairman. Well, we do have that in the recommendations,

but even the Agency, even the Agency that we are supposedly

investigating has not argued, to my knowledge, that covert

actions ought not to be restricted to extraordinary situations.

MI. Miller. That is correct.

The Chairman.

And why we cannot say what the basic --

the Agency itself basically agrees with -- I personally think

that these covert operations have been a national catastrophe.

for the United States, and I think the last 25 years is damned

good evidence of just what has happened to us by your notion

that we have to imitate the Russians in the treatment of

foreign people and adopt their methods and techniques. I am

against it, and

I will say so in a separate, personal statement.

But I should think that at least the Committee would be

willing to say that covert operations ought not to be taken

in ordinary circumstances, and that is what this sentence

says.

Senator Tower.

May I suggest this, Mr. Chairman, if

we

HH 53241

DocId: 32423512 Page 17

---

## Page 18

15

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

repair to Dee's original recommendations in that we take

up this matter later on,

that we reserve the right to return

to this after we have taken up the other aspect of it later

on..

Senator Baker. That is all right with me.

The Chairman. All right, we can

do that. Tentatively we

will pass over it.

Senator Baker.

SO

,tentatively we are going to pass over

it.

The Chairman. Yes.

And I think we have got to make some -- let's take our

decisions, as I indicated to start with, and I would like

to hold

I the roll, let's take our decisions tentatively, but

let's make them. It is always open --

Senator Tower. With the understanding that we can

reconsider it.

The Chairman. Yes,

that's right.

Senator Tower. That's okay.

The Chairman. All those in favor of leaving this sentence

as it presently stands, raise their right hands.

Senator Tower. Why don't we just leave it and not raise

the issue of striking it, but with the right to come back to

it.

Senator Baker.

Well, I don't want to quarrel with my leader

but I am about to.

TOP SECRET

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 18

---

## Page 19

16

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

Senator Tower. Who is your leader?

Senator Baker. Well, you are running for it.

I was just trying to get your attention.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Please, boys, not here.

Senator Baker. But I would be prepared to pass this, in

my view, until the Agency has a chance to respond through

the Miller-Rogovin route. My preference is not to tentatively

or otherwise approve it or disapprove it, but if we are going

to put the question I am going to vote against it or not

vote.

Senator Hart of Colorado. There's no motion to strike.

Let's adopt the Tower position.

Senator Tower. I just want to be able to come back to it-

and then revise it if we feel like we want to.

The Chairman. It is always open to the Committee to do

that.

Senator Tower.

I see. No vote is required.

The Chairman. All right.

Then the language stands as it is, subject to the right

of the Committee to return to it at a later date.

Senator Tower. I have got another one.

The Chairman.

On page 5?

Senator Tower.

Yes:

"The Committee finds that the Constitution requires public

disclosure and public authorization for an annual aggregate

TOD

SECRET

NW 53244 DocId:32423512

Page 19

---

## Page 20

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for United States national intelligence activities."

Would Counsel give me the appropriate Constitutional

mandate on that?

MI. Aaron. I would like to turn to Elliot, who has done

the essential analytical work on it.

Mr. Maxwell. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 provides that

"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence

of

appropriations made by. law; and a regular statement and account

of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall

be published from time to time."

Since the establishment of the CIA, NSA, DIA and particularl

NSA and CIA, there has been no publication of the funds

appropriated to those agencies, and the paradox has been that

accounts in the Defense Department budget have been increased

by the amount which would then go to CIA and to NSA. Those

funds have been voted by Congress as

a whole, but without

any knowledge on the part of Congress as a whole that those

funds were going to NSA, CIA or tle national programs of the

Defense Department.

We have taken a considerable amount of testimony as

to the effect of the publication of the aggregate figure, and

both -- all of the DCI's that we have taken testimony from

have indicated that publication of a total figure would not

jeopardize national security and objected to it primarily on

the grounds that if that figure were published there would be

TOP SECRET

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 20

---

## Page 21

T SECKET

18

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

greater press. for detail in regard to other activities, but

the

constitutional analysis essentially is that unless there is

a countervailing constitutional interest, i.e., national

security, that would prevent publication, then there is a

constitutional obligation to publish.

Senator Tower. Well, actually, how do you arrive at an

aggregate figure for national intelligence activities when you

have got them ongoing in many, many agencies of one kind or

another.

The Chairman. With the establishment of an oversight

committee, we are reconmending that all of that will be brought

together and an aggregate figure can be presented to the

Congress when the authorization bill comes up, just the way

the Joint Conmittee on Atomic Energy presents a figure, and

the Constitution will

then be complied with.

Senator Huddleston.

We had a very excellent presentation

on the budget of the intelligence community before our

Committee or Subcommittee. I assume it has been reduced to

writing and is in some form that would be available to the

Committee:

And the figure that we anticipate as an aggregate figure

is still not near the total figure that can be at least

ascribed to intelligence in some manner, but is one that, as

the Chairman has pointed out, there have been indications by

people involved that it would not pose any great problem.

TAN GECRET

NW 53244 DocId: 32423512

Page 21

---

## Page 22

19

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

Senator

Mondale.

If you put out the aggregate figure.

What would the

aggregate figure be now, approximately?

What would it be?

Senator Huddleston. This figure we are talking about is

only about $4.7 billion.

Mr. Maxwell. The CIA has defined it, as the DCI makes

the presentation, he has defined the National Intelligence

program figure as approximately. $4.7 billion

a year.

It would consist of the budgets of CIA,

NSA, DIA, and of the National Reconnaissance program.

Senator Tower. It would not include the FBI and its

counterintelligence program.

Mr. Aaron. Well, that is an issue for your oversight

committee.

Those are small amounts of money, and one can

include the INR, which

is $10 million.

The Chairman. John, that could be included in, under the

proposed oversight committee, the intelligence, the State

Department intelligence is included in the authorization.

Senator Schweiker.

Well, the House figure came up with

$10 billion.

Where are we off s6 nillion?

Senator Huddleston. That is for a lot of support activity

that you couldn't necessarily eliminate. If you eliminated

intelligence you'd still have to have a part of that activity.

Mr.. Maxwell.

And it includes tactical.

The Chairman. Gentlemen, what are -- let's not

net into

TOR GECRFT

1N 53244

Doc1d:32423512

Page 22

---

## Page 23

HIP SECRET

20

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

• 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a long discussion of what the figure is. What we are recommendi

is that the aggregate. figure be published, and that in the

future, the oversight committee establish the aggregate

figure in the appropriate way, and that it be made known to

the Congress when the Congress approves the authorization

bills.

Senator Mondale. Public disclosure,

too.

The Chairman. Right, with the public disclosure, and that

is really the policy matter that is before us rather than the

discussion of whether

the

figure is $4.1 billion or $10 billion,

and depending on how it is broken down and how future committees

act upon it, but it is

the policy question that prevails.

Senator Mondale.

¡Does this approach meet the constitutiona.

standard?

Mr. Schwarz. In my judgment it does not. It is not..

sufficient to put only the aggregate figure out, but the problem

is, understanding the conversation with Bill yesterday, that

the record of the Committee does not perhaps go quite far

enough to iron out the national security implications of going

beyond the aggregate figure. There may be a way of resolving

that tension between what the Constitution apparently requires

and the record of the Committee, would be to say something like

as a matter of principle the Committee believes the

Constitution requires disclosures beyond the aggregate figure,

but the oversight committee should hold hearings on the argument

TAD BIrPET

HN 53244

•DocId: 32423512 Page 23

---

## Page 24

TOP SECRET

21

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

• 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

against doing that to see if there is a convincing case on

national security grounds to go the other way.

But

really, the Constitution is not going to be satisfied

by an aggregate figure which lumps together a lot of agencies.

The Chairman. But you see, what we do here in this

report, gentlemen, is we take the first step of publishing an

aggregate figure. It has not been done before. Then we

• recommend that the oversight committee in the future not only

repeat that process, but examine the extent

to which a more

detailed

figure could be presented, breaking down the various

components in conformity with the necessary national security

considerations.

So we leave that properly, I think, to the oversight

committee that will exercise jurisdiction, now, on the issue.

We break the ground, we make the recommendation, and I think

it moves toward the satisfaction of the constitutional require-

ment.

So for that reason I would hope that we could just.

leave the sentence the way it is.

Senator Huddleston. The sentence to be accepted would

be more accurate to say

that the Constitution requires at

least the public disclosure of an aggregate figure.

Senator Tower. In fact, we tend to disclose aggregate

figures rather than line items anyway.

You don't bother with

every nut and bolt you buy off the shelf.

The Chairman. Yes.

HW 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 24

---

## Page 25

1

?

end i

rin 2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

Why can't we adopt this suggestion and say the Committee

finds that the Constitution. at least requires public disclosure

and public authorization for

an annual aggregate figure of --

for the United States National Intelligence activity, and then.

later on, the permanent committeé can look at that matter

further and see the extent to which --

Mr. Schwarz. And you do discuss that later on.

The Chairman. We discuss it later on.

Senator Baker. Could I make one minor suggestion?

Although the issue presents: substantial constitutional questions

and requires further thought in general, which we hope the

oversight committee, if created, will give it, we recommend

on the basis of the present record that -- and then go ahead.

All I want to do is signal to the permanent committee

that we are still troubled by this, we would like to take a

look at it.

The Chairman. Howard, we do that later in the report, do

we not?

Senator Huddleston.

We might flag that.

The Chairman. This is just a summary of our findings.

Senator Baker. But if they are going to

be published in

this form, I would like that flagged, you know, so the people

can understand.

The Chairman. Well, I don't see any objection to that.

Senator Baker. I don't think it'd change it.

REAPET

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 25

---

## Page 26

23

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

The Chairman. Well, why don't we say this --

Senator Huddleston. Constitutional and security problems.

Senator Baker. That's better.

The Chairman. Why don't you make that just a short opening

phrase on that sentence,

and then say "The Committee finds

that the Constitution at least requires public disclosure and

public authorization of the annual aggregate figure."

Senator Baker. All right, or "is of the opinion."

Mr. Aaron. I am not too sure what the fragment is that

will precede the sentence.

Mr. Schwarz. You're saying that there is a

. tension

between the Constitution and national security, just an.

announcement of the --

The Chairman. Howard, how did you put it?

Senator Baker. "Although there are substantial

Constitutional and security issues unresolved, the Committee is

of the opinion that" --

The Chairman. Unresolved as to the extent to which

the figures should be revealed, the Committee at least believes

that an aggregate figure is required by the Constitution.

Senator Baker. And if it can be done without being

too awkward, I would say "and to which we invite the attention

of any future permanent committee."

The Chairman. All right.

Well, no, I think thai should come here, too, because that

TOP SECRET

HH 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 26

---

## Page 27

IN SECRET

24

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

puts it all together in one place.

Why can't -- well, let's have an understanding with the

staff that that provisions be rewritten in accordance with

Senator Baker's suggestion so that it says three things:

one,

that there are of there is a question as to the extent to which

the Constitution requires it, an unresolved question as to

the extent

to which the constitution requires the publication

of, how much publication of figures; and that

this is a matter

that we would call to the attention of the permanent committee

to settle.

Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the

Constitution clearly requires or at least requires the publi-

cation of an aggregate figure, and then the rest of the

paragraph.

Is that all right?

Senator Baker. All right.

The Chairman. Does that

satisfy you, Senator Baker?

Okay.

Senator Tower.

Could I ask one question of counsel?

The Chairman. Mr. Maxwell?

Senator Tower. Has there been an adequate court test

of this issue?

Mr. Maxwell. No.. The courts have found in the only

tests that have come to it that the plaintiff did not have

standing.

There is

another test case coming now in which the

issue is the publication of the CIA budget, the aggregate CIA

TED CIET

NW: 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 27

---

## Page 28

DRENCI

25

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

budget. It was filed about six months ago, and there has been

substantial amount of material produced in conjunction with

the case. There is a longer piece that would be part of the

Foreign and Military Subcommittee report which deals with that

case

and with the deposition of Mr. Colby in connection with

it, and his views on disclosure of the aggregate budget, but

there has been no court case

because of standing problems.

Mr. Schwarz. It is basically political

problems. The

language of the Constitution seems to lodge with the Congress

the issue..

The Chairman. All right.

Can we then turn to page 6, the. 1947 National Security

Act and related legislation.

I have some

stylistic changes that I will give to the

staff. They are purely stylistic, on page 6.

Is. there any suggestion for changes on page 6, I mean

substantive changes.

Senator Mondale. We have two suggestions that would, I !

think, bring the Domestic and the Foreign and Military

Subcommittees

recommendations together.. One

on

the bottom of the first paragraph on page 7, at the end

of the first paragraph you would

say "Recommendations of the

Committee which are intended to protect the rights and

liberties of Americans have been set forth in the Committee's

domestic recommendations," so it just refers to that.

TOP CHERIT

HIH

53244. DocId:32423512

Page 28

---

## Page 29

RET

26

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

The Chairman. Do you add that? Where?

Senator Mondale. Just add that as an additional sentence

after

"order."

And then on page 8, following the sentence on Item 4, you

would say "These have been spelled out in the recommendations

of the Domestic Section of the Report." That way they track.

MI. Aaron. May I just make a point in regard to 4?

You will have to sharpen that to say those that affect

the domestic aspects, because there are other limitations that

are proposed, and it goes to 4.

Senator Mondale. That's all right. This is just

stylistic, to make it track:

The. Chairman. All right.

I believe my changes here are all stylistic. I just

called them to the attention of the staff.

Any other suggestions here?

If not, can we go to Section 3, beginning on page 9?

Mr. Miller. There is one small point on the word.

"mechanism," and we

need a bit of expansion, but it is the

idea of the degree of control and accountability.

Mr. Smothers. Well; there is something here that appears

to be out of order.

What appears here at page 120 at D

probably should come up to page 8 because we are talking

about the Act, on the secrecy and authorized disclosure.

TO

make this track, since ve are making the recommendations. on

TAD GIERFT

HH

53241

DooId: 32423512 Page 29

---

## Page 30

27

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the act here on page ?, it appears to me that D should come

up to join that as a No. 5, the substance of what it says, and

that we may have to work with it.

Mr. Miller. Well, understand that the recasting, it is

only that portion of the 1947 act which affects intelligence.

Most of the National Security Act affects the organization

of the Defense

Department.

Mr. Smothers. But on the secrecy disclosure, it appears

that what we have at 120 would track that, and since we are

talking about the act here early on on page 8, we have -- we

would add this 5 early on and pick up what

is at D on 120.

Senator Mondale. Mr. Chairman?

Senator Huddleston. I think Bill Miller's point was

that the recommendation, beginning on page 13, refer only

to the National Security Council portion of the Act. This

section would refer to any secrets in the intelligence community

as I understand it.

Senator Mondale. And I was wondering if for that reason

we could hold it until the last, because the Domestic

Committee will be interested in this, too.

The Chairman. But this is a matter that relates

directly to

the liberties of individual Americans. Any kind

of a secrecy act that imposes criminal penalties goes to the

heart of the question of individual liberties, and I think in

accordance with the decision reached yesterday, matters of

TOD SECRET

WW 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 30

---

## Page 31

28

1

2

3

.4

5

6

8

9

10

this kind should be taken up when we consider the domestic

reports, that we

consider them together.

Mr. Smothers. I am not necessarily endorsing them, Mr.

Chairman.

What we are saying, apparently, however, is here

are

defects. in the 147 Act in terms of flagging these big

ones.

I don't see that it is inconsistent with, if

we arrive

at the use of a secrecy provision, that further discussion of

that later, but that we are going to flag it because it appears

to be a point.

MI. Schwarz.

As an organizational as opposed to a sub-

stantive point.

The Chairman. Organizationally, yes, I agree with that,

but let us simply flag it here, and then when we reach our

decision at the proper time, we will insert whatever that decision

is.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Smothers.. Thank you, Mr. Chairman:

The Chairman. All right, let's go on into 9.

Any proposed changes on page 9?

(Pause)

The Chairman. I have one question on page 9. When you

get down to, in the second paragraph on the bottom where it

says "The National Security Council's principal vehicle for

dealing with clandestine activities, the 40 Committee and its

predecessors, were not only a mechanism for reviewing and

making

recommendations with regard to the approval of covert

TOP SECRET

HH 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 31

---

## Page 32

HOCKLI

29

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

action projects, but served until 1974 to insulate the President

from apparent involvement in the approval process." And then

you've got an asteris, on 1974, and then down at. the bottom

you have "Cite and explain Hughes-Ryan Amendment."

I didn't quite understand the relationship of the Hughes-

Ryan Amendment to the insulation of the President from the

approval.

Mr. Aaron. The Hughes-Ryan Amendment requires a

President

to certify.

The Chairman. I understand that.

Senator Mondale. And we don't change that..

Mr. Aaron. And we don't change that. It just means that

from then on his deniability was gone.

MI. Miller. You might add one word and say "apparent

involvement and accountability."

Senator Schweiker.

And requires reporting.

The Chairman.

well, all of that can be explained in the

footnote. I just needed that explained to me:

It's all right,

I understand it now.

Any proposed changes on page 10?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Yes, Senator Baker.

Senator Baker. I don't think so. I was about to suggest

that we cast this page mostly in the past tense, in view

of the apparent effort by the white House now to upgrade the

TAP GEFDET

HH 53244

DocId:32423512 Page 32

---

## Page 33

30

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

staffing and skills for the group at the White House, but

that is important enough to go into this section.

The Chairman. I have a couple of stylistic changes just

for clarification. I have nothing substantive.

Do the members have any recommendations or amendments to

offer on page 10?

(Pause)

The Chairman. If not, let's move on to page 11.

(Pause)

The Chairman. Do the members have any proposals or

changes to make on page 11?

Mr. Schwarz. Just one minor thing, the "or directed to

United States citizens," relates to some of the things that

we are going to table there, domestic counterintelligence, but

it is just a parenthetical. There are later some recommen-

dations that we would propose to table.

The Chairman. But you have no objection to this.

Mr. Schwarz. No, this is just a statement of fact.

The Chairman. Very well. Let's turn to page 12.

Senator Baker. I have one here, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. All right.

Senator Baker. The same thing before. I think you are

taking a shot at the President in the language there and I

don't think it's necessary.:

The Chairman. Where?

TOn SECRET

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 33

---

## Page 34

THI JERKE

31

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1.9

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Baker.

"The language of the Presidential.order is

ambigious," and, "'Manage'

and 'coordinate' are inherently slip-

pery."Now, surely you can say it better than that. Even if

you disagree with it, you don't have to use that language.

•I don't want to even put in "ambiguous."

Senator Mondale. You can say "manage and coordinate are

general words."

Senator Baker.

Requireing further inquiry and definition.

The Chairman. Are --

Senator Hart of Colorado: Are vague.

The Chairman. Are vauge words.

Senator Baker. I like "general" better.

Senator Tower.

I always

thought that "manage" is. a

slippery word.

The Chairman. We're taking out slippery words. We

are taking out instead of inherently slippery, we are putting

in vague.

Senator Baker. Well, what do we have?

The Chairman. "Manage and coordinate are vague words

and have proven to be so in matters of intelligence. Questions

remain about the öperation of the CFI and its relation to the

current responsibilities of the DCI," and so forth.

They are. vague words:

Senator Baker. Well, I think that carries an implication of sorts

Why don't we say "general in nature?" Humor me a little.

TOP CHERFT

HH 53244 DocId: 32423512

Page 34

---

## Page 35

32

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

The Chairman. All right.

All right, "manage and coordinate are"--

Mr. Smothers.

-- "terms which are inherently general

in nature."

The Chairman. All right, "terms inherently general in

nature."

Senator Baker. All right.

The Chairman. All right.

Senator Baker. What are we doing about the "ambiguous?"

The Chairman. The way we have it now, "However, the

language of the Presidential order is ambiguous and much will

depend on how it is in fact implemented. 'Manage' and

'coordinate ' are terms inherently general in nature."

The two sentences go properly together:

Senator Baker.

I don't think "ambiguous" could be

uncertain. I think "ambiguous" implies conflicts.

Mr. Schwarz. How about saying, "whose meaning depends

on their application."

The Chairman.

Well, make that a whole sentence.

Mr. Schwarz.

"Are general words whose meaning" --

Senator Baker. We are up to ambiguous.

The Chairman. "However, the language of the Presidential

order --":

Mr.. Aaron.

"Is such that much will depend on how it is

interpreted. "

TOD SECRET

NH 53244

DocId: 32423512

Page 35

---

## Page 36

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1&

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Senator Huddleston:

Does anybody want to object to the

word "commended" there?

Senator Baker. I hadn't planned on it.

The Chairman.

"Is such that much will depend on how it is

in fact implemented," and then we will go on as agreed.

Anything else on this page?

Then let's turn to page 13.

Do the members have any recommendations or suggestions on

page 13?

I have a number of stylistic changes.

Senator Baker. Charlie brings out the question on page

12 of what "kitchen cabinet" means. I guess we all agree it

means an unofficial group of advisors who confer with the

President from time to time, sometimes in the kitchen.

Is that what we are talking about?

The Chairman. You know what kitchen cabinet means.

Senator Baker. I know

what kitchen cabinet means.

I just

wanted to make sure you have the same understanding.

The Chairman. All right.

If there are no suggestions for changes on page 13,

let's turn to page 14.

Senator Mondale. I would like to add at the end of

Recommendation 6 the following language: "The Attorney

General, as the Committee set forth in its domestic recommen-

dations, should have ultimate responsibility for ensuring

that

TOR SECRET

HH 53244

DocId:32423512 Page 36

---

## Page 37

HI DECKET

34

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

such actions taken within the United States or affecting u.s.

citizens comply with the Constitution and laws of the United

States. As to all other matters, he shall function as an

advisor to the NSC on questions of law."

The Chairman. That appeals to me.

Senator Baker. Where are you putting that?

Senator Mondale. That would be the last, following 6.

Mr. diGenova. Do you want to strike the last part of the

sentence that's already there that says he's there to protect

the Constitution?

Mr. Schwarz.

No, this is to add to that. The theory

is under our recommendations he is given new and greater

responsibilities to make sure that happens.

Mr. diGenova. Well, it already exists. That is what

it

says.

Mr. Inderfurth. He is to be made an advisor under that?

Mr. Schwarz. It is to make sure that he doesn't function

solely as an advisor.

The Chairman. The importance of Senator Mondal's

suggestion is that he would serve as an advisor in matters other

than the treatment given to American citizens within the

United States, in which case he would be the final authority

as to its constitutionality.

Senator Mondale. That is correct except that it would

also involve the treatment accorded to U.S. citizens abroad.

TOP SECRET

14 53244

DocId:32423512

Page 37

---

## Page 38

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The Chairman. Nell, the Constitution extends to them

abroad. I think it is a very good addition.

Is there any objection to it?

Without objection, it is adopted.

Is there any other suggestion on this page? If not,

let's go to page 15.

Senator Schweiker. The only question I have on 15, and

I don't feel strongly about it, is does the Director of OMB.

really belong on

that Committee, and what is the reason for

putting him on there?

Mr. Aaron.

Well, let me say first of all the President

has now placed the Director of OMB on that Committee as an

observer and our discussions with OMB I think indicated that

that was a helpful thing. I might ask Rick to speak to it.

Mr. Inderfurth. The financial considerations are apparent

That is one reason he is placed on it.

Senator Schweiker..

He is on there now?

Mr. Inderfurth. Yes, he is being placed on there by

Executive Order.

Senator Schweiker. Well, then, I have no problem.

Mr. Inderfurth.

Also, there is one other thing. You

get an outside observer, somebody not involved day to day in

clandestine activities, and that should be a healthy

addition.

That's why he was placed on.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have a general question.

TOD CECRET

NW 53244 DooId: 32423512

Page 38

---

## Page 39

TEN SECRET

36

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

We know what the situation is. Now we have a pretty good

idea what it has been in the last two decades, but we ought to

think about how much we are restricting the actions of the

future Presidents. Presidents traditionally have changed these

groups. Kennedy, for instance, brought his brother in,

obviously because he trusted him and knew his brother and

didn't have to get acquainted with somebody else, and I

wonder if by statute we aren't severely limiting the flexi-

bility of future chief executives by designating so many to

constitute. And later on, for instance, we say down here

the Chairman of the group shall be the Administration

spokesman.

Senator Hart of Colorado. Are you worried that too many

people are on there, or that he can't add others?

Senator Baker.

That he cannot add others -- well, both

things.

Senator Hart of Colorado. But the recommendation doesn't

prohibit him.

Senator Baker. I suppose not, but you are going to get

a pretty good sized crowd.

One thing I might say in context while we are discussing

this, the question of Senate confirmation. Ne are also digging

down pretty deep into the bark, into the number of people

we are proposing to be confirmed.

Senator llart of Colorado. He has already proposed that

TOP SFERET

HH 53244 DocId: 32423512

Page 39

---

## Page 40

37

1

though, hasn't he?

Senator Baker. The President, yes, but I don't agrée with

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it.

The Chairman. Well, when you consider this as a group,

Howard, as I understand it that would replace the 40 Committee

in that function. If you are going to undertake to subvert

foreign governments and spread false propaganda, and bribe

and coerce and abduct and do those things that are now thought

to be necessary and proper for this country, this group

• is

pretty important in deciding how far we go in matching the

Russians from place to place.

So I would think that we ought to have it established

by statute, and that they ought to be subject to confirmation

in this role.

I take it that the President could add additional.

members if he felt the need to do

so, so his hands

are not

really bound in that respect. As Kennedy added his brother,

future Presidents could add to the membership, and the

President designates the Chairman.

Senator Schweiker. I think one of the problems, Howard,

has been we don't have management prerogatives defined and

pinned down in a stable way, and be able to move them around,

whether it is your brother or the Attorney General or his

campaign manager, etc. This is where you get the problems that

creep in there.

TAP SFERET

HH 53244 DocId: 32423512 Page 40

---

## Page 41

38

1

2

5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1&

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I would like to see them institutionalize responsibility

on something as critical as that, and it seems to me the.

Secretary of State and Defense, etc. ought to be in there for

institutional balance: I'm more concerned about them playing

a shell game, and as long

as they can add to it, it gives them

flexibility.

But it seems to me that we are asking for management

indiscretions and for abuses by not having a straight flow

line of command, of responsibility.

Senator Baker. I don't think it makes a lot of difference

because I'll bet you that whoever occupies that office will

either use or not use that board, depending upon his

preference or hers as

President, and if they don't like it,

they will

set up some informal kitchen cabinet to operate.

So I don't think it makes much difference, but I think

we are getting awful rigid in saying

who is going to be on

it, but I won't press the point. But

I do want to press the

point about Senate confirmation.

The Chairman. Senator Hart.

Senator Hart of Colorado. As I recall, that missile crisis

group was completely ad hoc, and whether he was adding to

of subtracting from or just putting a bunch of people together,

as I recall, some people from even outside of the government,

and I don't think the statutes or recommendations would prohibit

that from happening. I think this is a very crucial

NN 53244 DooId:32423512 Page 41

---

## Page 42

HIGH DICKET

39

1

2

and 2

regin

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

recommendation because it directly.confronts, let's say,

secrecy with accountability, and obviously the fewer people

who are on a key thing, the better at keeping it secret.

On the other hand, the fewer the people, the better the

chance of avoiding accountability.

Senator Baker. I agree with you, but the way I have met

that threat is to suggest that every significant action that

must be taken in this field should be a decision of record, so

it is retrievable, it can be found, it is in writing.

Senator Huddleston. That is a recommendation that occurs

later.

The Chairman. Well, now, we have an option. We were

originally given an option by the staff on Item No. 10 on

page 15, in which two recommendations were made. One was

that the Secretary of State should be designated as the

Administration spokesman for the Congress on the policy and

purpose underlying covert action projects.. The revised

recommendation is that the Chairman of the group should be

designated as the Administration spokesman.

Senator Baker.

My recommendation is that you let the

President decide that.:

Senator Huddleston. I was about to make that recommenda-

tion, too.

The Chairman.

well, considering the members of the

group, do we invite the problem of executive privilege? If he

TOP SECRET

NW 53244 DocId: 32423512 Page 42

---

## Page 43

TOLERAT

40

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

were

to designate say his assistant, you see, the Assistant

President for National

Security Affairs is the President's

own

man and in years past, we've known from painful experience

on the Foreign Relations Committee, we could not get him to

tell us anything. The only way we could do it was to have

little informal party around Bill Fulbright's fireplace, and

after about three rounds of sherry, he would let us in on a

little inside information that he thought would mollify us

and not tell us too much. And the only one we could get to

come to the committee on the ground of congress's own right.

to demand an accounting was the Secretary of State, because

he was a cabinet officer. He was not a personal lieutenant

on the President's own cadre, and therefore could not invoke

executive privilege as an excuse for not appearing.

Senator Mondale. And he now says he was not told about

this covert activity, he was kept out of the group probably

because of that.

The Chairman. Well, I think if we recommend who the

group should consist of, the group has charge of covert

activity, we should designate, or we should recommend also

that the Secretary of States be the spokesman for the Congress,

or otherwise you are inviting the same problems that I have

lived with for years, and I just throw that experience out

as a red. flag.

Mr. Inderfurth.. Recommendation 9, saying that if the

TOD AFFOET

-

HW 53244 DocId: 32423512

Page 43

---

## Page 44

41

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

President did appoint his Assistant for National Security

Affairs as Chairman, Recommendation 9 would

make him subject to

Senate confirmation for that purpose.

The Chairman. But confirmation alone does not necessarily

remove the easy application of executive privilege for anyone

who just sits in the White House as a Presidential lieutenant.

Senator Baker. To be lawyer-like, neither does cabinet

officer guarantee that he is not available for the President

can

always call him, a cabinet officer serving in his capacity

as assistant to the President.

The Chairman. I know, but tradition stands on the

side of cabinet members appearing, because it has

always been

so, and they don't come so easily within that cloak as

anybody who is a special assistant

to the President himself.

Senator Huddleston. Well, now, we do give the President

he does designate the Chairman of this group. So in effect he

is

designating the spokesman.

•The Chairman. Sure. But if he designates the Assistant

to the President for National Security Affairs, we could be in

problems for accountability.

I just think that while we are making recommendations,

one of the recommendations ought to be that it is the

Secretary of State -- after all, he is in charge of overall

foreign policy direction, both overt and covert. He is the

better spokesman.

TOR SECRET

53244 DocId: 32423512

Page 44

---

## Page 45

THE DEGRIT

42

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

Mr. Aaron. I think the important experience we even had

here when we went into the question of Angola was that the

Director of Central Intelligence is not the person to speak

to the policy.. They can tell you what they are doing, why

they are doing X or y activity, but when we were to ask, to

define our strategic -- when he was asked to define our

strategic interest in the area, he really sort of punted.

The Chairman. Certainly, and referred to the Secretary

of State.

I certainly think it denigrates the role of the Secretary

of State that he not be that spokesman, and furthermore, I

see less problem in making him the spokesman than leaving it

up in the air.

Senator Schweiker. Frank, the only problem I have with

that is doesn't it put him in a rather difficult position to be

Secretary of State and also to be accountable to Congress on

covert activities?

In other words, it just seems to me that that really puts

him right in the meatgrinder a little unncessarily.

The Chairman. Well, that's where he ought to be, and that

has been part of the problem up until now, the Secretary of

State pretending that he has nothing. to do with something being

operated by the CIA.

Senator Schweiker.

Well, he can't pretend that

anymore.

Gre

H# 53244

DocId: 32423512

Page 45

---

## Page 46

43

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Aaron. That's right.

The Chairman. But we've had this problem in the past,

but

when it comes right down to it, it is and has to be the

Secretary of State that is directing both operations.

Senator Baker. Does that affect the Secretary's

standing with other countries, and the secretary's dealings with

other countries where the other countries say "We can't

deal with him. He's head of the American intelligence

community."

Mr. Aaron. Well, I think there are two parts. That,

as a practical matter, has been known to people for a long time

in terms of the President's Secretary, but second, the

problem of placing the President's Secretary and not one of

his own people on the operations group effectively puts him --

he has no deniability either.

Senator Baker. Again we have the question of tense.

I think that

is clearly so now and has been in the past, but

is it necessarily desirably so in the future?

The Chairman. Well, as long as we recommend that the

Secretary go in the group, I think he is the logical and the

best man to be accountable, both for the overt: and covert

policy, as spokesman to the Congress, and I just think it

follows, and we ought to say so as a recommendation. That

would be my proposed change, so that Item 10 would simply say

"By statute, the Secretary of State shall be designated

as

TOP SECRET

HH 53244. DocId: 32423512 Page 46.

---

## Page 47

44

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

the Administration's spokesman to the Congress on the policy and

purpose."

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what I will

finally say, but I will reserve whatever rights I have on

this.

The Chairman. I will modify it to this extent, however.

"By statute, the Secretary of State should be designated

as

the principal Administration spokesman to Congress on the

policy and purpose underlying covert action efforts."

Do you want to take a vote on that?

Senator Baker. You don't need to take a vote. I just

want; you know, to take no one by surprise.. I am going to thin

about

this more, if I may.

The Chairman. All right, if there is no objection to

that, then that will be agreed to.

Senator Smothers. Mr. Chairman, we have sort of

completed the scheme on the operations advisory group. I

wonder if I could just raise a quick inquiry on why it is.

necessary that we include the Director of the Clandestine

Service who is on the same committee, on equal footing with

his boss.

Is there some special thing we are shooting for here

that we feel we have to do that with the DCI?

Mr. Aaron. .

Well, I think the thought behind this was

that the DCI, having increased managerial responsibilities over

TOD SECRET

HH 53244

DocId:32423512 Page 47

---

## Page 48

45

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

• 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the entire community, and having, that for the purposes of

being able to have an in-depth discussion, to make it clear

that the Director of the Clandestine Service fully understands

the policy discussions that have taken place.

The Chairman. Note the Director can always bring his

assistant at

any time for the purpose -- I don't think the

assistant to the Director ought to be in the group.

Senator Schweiker. Hell, the only thing is, suppose we

have a guy, as we saw here, that didn't believe it is going to

work, that was told to do something, get it done, like Chile,

and do it, and here you have a belief institutionally that it

is a lousy job or what if the guy who is going to be held

accountable and is fired for whatever he does, shouldn't

be able to tell the group his opinion.

Mr. Kirbow. Mr. Chairman, later on we recommend that

those differing views be noted to the Committee:

The Chairman. Well, the problem I have -- and I think

Curt is right on this, we

are designating -- look who we are

designating for the group: the Secretary of State, the

Secretary of Defense, the Assistant to the President for

National Security Affairs, the Director of the Central Intelli-

gence Agency, and the Attorney General of the United States.

And then suddenly we have the Assistant to the Director of the

CIA in charge of Clandestine Affairs. He could come anyway,

if invited by the Director.

REPPET

NW 53244 DooId: 32423512

Page 48

---

## Page 49

46

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

'14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25.

MI. Smothers. He is going to be chopping on mighty high

cotton trying to convince these people that he deserves to be

there.

Mr. Dennin. Walt, I don't know if it was intentional, but

the composition of the group differs from the executive.

order, and it may be unintentional, in that the group, as we

include it, does not include the Chief of the Joint Chiefs, which

the Presidential order does include.

I don't know if that was intentional, but there's a couple

of changes we make from the way the order sets it up..

Mr. Smothers. I'd be in favor of putting him in.

Senator Schweiker.

Why don't we put the Joint Chiefs in

in there?

The Chairman.

Put him in there in the place of the

+.--.=

Director of Clandestine Services.

May I make this suggestion, that we put the Chairman of

the

Joint Chiefs in place of the Director of Clandestine

services?

Howard?

Senator Tower. Mr. Chairman, may I digress on another

matter for about two minutes, because I have to leave. It is

a matter of the press conference at the Agency.

We yesterday agreed to send a letter to George Bush. What

I am about to say will obviate the necessity for that letter.

I

have talked to him on the phone. He said, "I have assumed

TOP SECRET

HH 53241 DooId: 32423512

Page 49

---

## Page 50

47

1

?

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

full responsibility for it as any good naval skipper does when

his ship runs aground." But the fact of the matter is, he did

not know this was going on. He's got his IG working on it.

He said, "The IG report is on my desk. I haven't had a chance

to look at it. It came in last night. I will send you a full,

written report on what happened and why, and the measures we.

are taking to see that it does not happen again." He said,

"We are plainly guilty in this, we made a mistake."

So he has already said that.

The Chairman. Has he called a press conference to make

an announcement?

Senator Tower. lle said he would tell the press that.

Well,

he has already told the press: he will take full responsibility

The Chairman. All right.

Senator Mondale. But it really is, John, disgusting that

we have

to get on our knees and beg.

Senator Tower. That's precisely what he said. He said

the Congress has every right to be miffed about it.

Senator Mondale. And then they hustle some PR types in

thereand tell them everything.

Senator Tower. The point I'm trying to make is he is

going

to file a full report on it, including the steps he is taking

to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Senator Huddleston. Where is he going to file the report?

Senator Tower.

With

us.

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 50

---

## Page 51

48

1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

• 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

•21

22

23

24

25

So I just submit that the letter is not necessary.

The Chairman. Can we go now?

Senator Mondale. That isn't the only thing about that

story. It shows how the executive has

funds to create the

happy life.

Senator Huddleston. No, that -- they charged --

(Discussion off the record.)

The Chairman. We have to be out of here by 12:00 o'clock

because we have to move along.

Senator Mathias.

We have to be out of here in five minutes

because there is

a vote.

The Chairman. Well, let's go to page 16.

All right, on page 16, I have a question to raise about

Item 16, which I don't understand -- Item No. 1l on page 16.

"The Director of Central Intelligence should continue to carry

out the notifications required in existing law and answer.any

questions relating to the covert activity in question.

The

President also should continue to certify covert actions

projects, as provided by the existing statute."

Now, we have to decide whether we want to recommend

the continuation of the llughes Act. And I don't know how

that

is consistent with the recommendations we are making for

the establishment of a permanent committee that is going

to

be the repository of this information and is going to exercise

the supervision over this.

TOP SheR

HH 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 51

---

## Page 52

49

1

2

5

4

5

6

Senator Baker.

Not only that, but I don't see the need

for

it.

The Chairman. And you have perpetuated the chaos up

here which really makes it even impossible to keep legitimate

secrets.

Senator Baker.

I think we ought to change it and tell

nobody nothing.

Mr. Aaron. Can I just clarify something about the para-

graph? The paragraph itself is designed simply to continue

the procedure that the DCI inform the Congress, that the

President certify. Now, the phrase "existing law" could

apply to either revision in the current law or the current

law.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The Chairman. No, it couldn't. Existing law is

existing law.

Mr. Aaron.

The intention was to be neutral as to what

the law was except for the procedures that"

the DCI inform

and the president certify.

The Chairman. Well, what this is that the Director of

Central Intelligence should continue to carry out the notifi-

cations required in existing law.

Existing law requires that

he notify half a dozen committees.

Senator Mathias. "Required by law" is what

we mean;

isn't it, instead of "existing law?".

Mr. Smothers.

"Existing" is a little superfluous, because

_TADATEDET

HW 53244 DocId: 32423512

Page 52

---

## Page 53

50

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

if you are going to have "required by statute," which we do

in our subsequent recommendations, then why do we need to

say that again?

Senator Huddleston. Well, in the first place you don't

have the statute yet. There is a statute now, and there may

not

be another. You know, this may not fly, so we don't want

to do anything that would indicate

that we want to lessen what

he is already required to do. If we do impose additional

requirements, that will be in whatever statute follows.

The Chairman. Well, then, what we should say is --

Mr. Smothers. Mr. Chairman, if we are actually calling

for a change in existing law, we might cite the objectives

being served by existing law, but we ought to come out and

say what the new recommendation is, to end that confusion.

stands.

The Chairman. Well, it is very confusing as it now

Maybe the best thing. to

do would be to strike this

entirely.

Mr. Inderfurth. Could I mention one thing here?

In the President's letter to Congress, he suggested or

recommended that his certification of the importance of the

national security interest would be knocked out, and so this

is addressing that, putting this Committee on record that the

certification. is important and necessary. He does not want

to continue certifying.

Mr. Dennin. But he says that as a follow-up sentence to

TAP READIT

HN 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 53.

---

## Page 54

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

sentence which says, in this context, "A Congressional

requirement to keep the oversight committee fully informad is

more desirable and workable, as

a practical matter than the

formal requirements of notification to the six other committees.

He says there ought to be.

Mr. Inderfurth. Hell, that's

notification and not

certification.

Mr Dennin.

Well, in the

next sentence it talks about

certification.

Senator Baker. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word.

The Chairman. Yes.

Senator Baker. As I said a minute ago, I think this is

another key and central issue. I think in our recommendations

you just have to face up to some hard facts: do you intend

to

keep these six committees on line, or are you going to

repeal the Hughes-Ryan Amendment? We haven't spoken to that.

I personally think you are either going to have to repeal it

or amend it so that you only report to the oversight

committee.

I have been told just now that there are someplace between

120

and 130 members of the House that are entitled to a

briefing under the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, and 50 Senators,

plus whatever staff. they choose to bring with them.

Now, I think if we don't do anything else, we have got

to decide to centralize that responsibility. So I think we

TAID GIPDET

IN 53244 DocId: 32423512 Page 51

---

## Page 55

52

1

2

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ought to strike this out, as you suggest, and I think later

on we ought to consider whether or not we recommend an amendment

to the Hughes-Ryan.

Senator Schweiker. Does

the new bill out of Government

Ops deal with this issue at all?

Mr. Schwarz. It is only a resolution.

The Chairman. It is only a resolution. It does establish

the jurisdiction that the Senate can, but it is not a statute.

Mr. Kirbow. It recommends only that there be a subse-

quent revision of the Hughes-Ryan Amendment.

The Chairman. Well, I think we should be consistent,

because the Government Ops came out with a bill that is

very close to the bill that we originally recommended.

Senator Baker. And I think a very good one.

The Chairman. I think it is a very good one, too.

Mr. Kirbow. May I suggest that we strike ll and substitute

new wording and bring it back to the Committee?

Senator Huddleston. Now, just one other point. I think

it is probably not all that important that it stay in there,

but if you read 10 where we designate the chairman of the

group as a spokesman, one

thing that we wanted to do was,

having done that, we didn't want to imply that the DCI was

in any way relieved of his continuing responsibility, because

the law is there and he is responsible under that law,

and it in effect does not nave to be said.

TOD SECRET

NW 53244 DooId: 32423512

Page 55

---

## Page 56

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2'5

The Chairman. It doesn't have to be said, but as long

as the law is there -- but I think this in effect endorses

the continuation of the present Hughes-Act.

It is incon-

sistent with the position that we have taken on an oversight

Committee, and is inconsistent with the recommendations made

by the Government Operations Committee:

Senator Schweiker. Well, the certification and notifica-

tion principle is not. I think we are talking two different

things here, and I hate to see us give up the one element of

control we have, certification and notification. So if

we

are going to take something out, take out the number context,

but I'm not sure we ought to be taking out certification and

notification, because if nothing else passes Congress, that's

all you have.

Senator Baker.

Well, I think that is true, but I think

that you ought to have both the certification and the

notification at a single point of responsibility, not to

six of them.

Senator Mondale. Well, Howard, the problem here is it

seems to me here is to existing. If you just say the DCI

should continue to carry out notification required by law,

and answer any question, and the President shall also

continue to certify that covert, you know, as required by law,

and then if the law is changed, it is changed, but the notifi-

cation, the certification and notification point would be

TAD CECRET

HH 53244

DocId:32423512

Page 56

---

## Page 57

51

.1.

2

4

5

6

7

:

8

9.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

.21

22

23

24

25

constant,. it seems to me, the question about which committees,

if only a single committee is going to be required to be

notified, it could be handled elsewhere without in any way

changing --

Senator Schweiker. If the

law is changed, it won't be

inconsistent.

Senator Mondale.

By using the

word "existing"

• we are

getting into trouble.

Senator Baker. Well, my problem, Mr. Chairman, is we

ought to just bite the bullet and say the law ought to be

changed, and that certification

and notification ought to be

in our proposed oversight committee.

The Chairman. Well; we can do that in the covert action

part of the report later on.

But for purposes of this particular provision, would it be

cured by just striking the word "existing" in both places?

Mr. Smothers. Doesn't 14 address the problem, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. Well, let's look at 14.

MI. Kirbow. 11 says we require prior notice, we require

certification by the President and a semi-annual report of all

these things anyway.

The Chairman. Well, maybe it does. Look at 11.

"Existing

procedures for notifying the appropriate Congressional

committees should be continued, except that Congress should be

notified prior to the initiation of such a covert' -- "Congress,

TOR SEERFT

HH 53244 DocId:32423512 Page 57

---

## Page 58

55

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

what does that mean?

Senator Huddleston.

We took it to mean the oversight

committee.

The Chairman. We think that the oversight committee insteac

of Congress. After all, these are recommendations. "Existing

procedures for notifying the appropriate Congressional

committee should be continued, except that by statute" --

Senator Mondale.

--"such notice" --

The Chairman. Except that the first sentence endorses the

Hughes Act, in 14.

Mr. Kirbow. You say "appropriate" only. You still have

to amend the Foreign Service Act.

Senator Huddleston.

well; there again you can take

the word "existing" out and you are all right.

"Procedures

for notifying the appropriate Congressional committees should

be continued."

Senator Baker.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my

rights on this one.

Mr. Aaron. Could I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that while

are voting we try to draft something that keeps the

principle of certification and notification, but does not

do so in the context of reaffirming one way or the other?

Senator Schweiker. That's what we ought to do.

The Chairman. Why don't we revise, take 11 and 14;

combine

them together with the following objectives: one, to

TOP SFERET

HH 53244

DocId:32423512 Page 58

---

## Page 59

HAN DICKET

56

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14•

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

maintain the requirement of notification and certification; and

two, to recommend that that information be. given to a permanent

oversight committee in lieu of the present provisions of the law

that require that it be given to six different committees.

Senator iluddleston. Let me suggest one point further, if

they have time. There are a number of instances in here

where we refer to longress being notified, and I'm wondering

whether

that ought to be changed to "the oversight committee."

The Chairman. • Yes.

Senator Huddleston.

If that is not inconsistent with

what we are saying.

The Chairman. Does the staff have that?

Senator Baker. I think, Mr. Chairman, I think that is

substantial, even a vast improvement. I generally agree

with that, and I probably will have some additional comment

to make on that, but I fully support the proposal.

The Chairman. All right.

Mr. Miller. David, how does that read?

Mr. Aaron. Well, I don't know how it will read. We will

read it when we come back from the vote.

The Chairman. We cannot come back. We'll have to go

over it at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow morning, and then will

you bring back a revision of these two provisions?

Mr. Aaron. Yes.

The Chairman. And we will take up on page 16

TOP SIERFF

NW 53244 DooId:32423512 Page 59

---

## Page 60

57

1

tomorrow morning.

2

3

4

(Whereupon, at 11:50 o'clock a.m., the Committee recessed

to reconvene at 10:00 o'clock a.m., Thursday, March 18,

1976.)

5

6

7

8

1

1

1

2

1

1

4

1

5

6

1

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

TOD SECRET

HH 53244

DocId: 32423512 Page 60

---