people throughout this country who know that their representatives in Congress are aware of these inequities and illegalities, to learn that we are not prepared to take action. I wonder if our own constituents are really going to understand that we are not going to do anything effective here because of what we call jurisdictional problems or rules of the Senate?

I might say if the barnacles on our own institution have become so thick that even when we see illegalities and injustices we are not prepared to act, there is no doubt our citizens will lack confidence in us and with good reason.

Our rules are our creations of the Senate. They are not written in stone. They can be changed.

I would appreciate having your comments about what you think this country's attitude is going to be, having gained this information, if this body simply sits by and takes no action; no effective action?

Senator CHURCH. I concur wholeheartedly in everything that you have said, Senator Clark. I think it would be a national tragedy if this body were to fail to take effective action in the light of the tremendous numbers of abuses that we have uncovered in our investigation, a systematic disregard for the law, and arrogance of power that is enhanced by the secrecy which leaves those involved unaccountable. Despite all the violations of the law, I see the Executive taking no action, bringing no cases to court, issuing no indictments and holding no one responsible. This is the corruption of a lawful society that ultimately needs a commentary of Government. It is the Congress which must protect the constitutional system if the President can't lead. If Congress fails in that responsibility, then I think the outlook is bleak to this Republic.

Senator CLARK. Thank you. No other questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Church. You have been very helpful to the committee. We will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and hopefully proceed with some of our colleagues who have been so patient as to sit here and wait.

[The committee recessed at 12:35 p.m. to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, April 2, 1976.]

69-450 0-76-9

PROPOSED STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

ACTIVITIES

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1976

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in room 301, Russell Senate Office Building, at 10:05 a.m., Hon. Howard W. Cannon (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Cannon. Pell. Allen. and Griffin.

Staff present: William McWhorter Cochrane, staff director; Chester H. Smith, chief counsel; Hugh Q. Alexander, senior counsel; John P. Coder, professional staff member; Dr. Floyd M. Riddick, professional staff member; Jack L. Sapp, professional staff member; Ray Nelson, professional staff member; Larry E. Smith, minority staff director; Andrew Gleason, minority counsel; Peggy Parrish, assistant chief clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We will have as our first witness this morning Senator Barry Goldwater.

Senator Goldwater, we are happy to hear from you today.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARRY GOLDWATER, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE SCIENCES

Senator GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, my statement is not long.

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to testify before your

committee.

Before going into the details of Senate Resolution 400, I would like to make some brief general comments.

In the last few years, the Congress has attempted to exert greater influence on the nature and conduct of our foreign policy.

What are the results?

Two good allies, Greece and Turkey, have been alienated.
Jewish immigration from Russia has been reduced.

The hands of our President have been tied in the day-to-day conduct of foreign policy.

U.S. intelligence is demoralized and its effectiveness greatly diminished.

Our allies seriously question America's reliability, if not our collective sanity.

Our adversaries take comfort in watching us tear ourselves apart. And just in the interest of the committee, I have the front page of

the Washington Post of January 7, 1976. Three headlines paint a picture of American foreign policy today.

The left-hand column is entitled, “CIA Giving $6 Million to Italian Centrists."

In the middle, below the picture, "CIA Agent Welch Buried" with the subtitle, "Ford, Kissinger Among Mourners at Arlington."

On the right, the headline reads, "Two Soviet Ships Head for Angola."

Taken together the headlines describe an impotent giant-our Nation.

Disclosure of covert aid to Italy is the direct result of the Hughes amendment to the foreign aid bill adopted by the Senate on October 2, 1974.

Under its provisions, six committees of the Congress are required to be informed of any covert action. This means approximately 50 Senators and over 120 Congressmen may receive highly sensitive information on a covert action. It also means public disclosure is almost in

evitable.

Worst of all, it gives a personal veto to any Member who disagrees with a covert action-with the veto coming in the form of subrosa release to the Washington Post or the New York Times.

Mr. Chairman, I shall oppose any general legislation dealing with the intelligence community which fails to provide for:

One, a repeal or severe modification of the Hughes amendment.

Two, criminal sanctions against any member of the intelligence community who releases classified information having voluntarily entered into a secrecy agreement.

Three, the same sanctions against any Member of Congress or staff who releases classified information.

And four, a flat prohibition against any intelligence agency revealing the name or identity of any foreign agent employed by the United States to the Congress or any of its committees or Members.

These vital matters need attention now, if we are to restore confidence in our intelligence services.

Here are my specific reasons for opposing Senate Resolution 400: (1) The Senate needs one more standing committee about as much as the Nation needs more inflation. We are merely adding another layer on the cake.

Let me state that I rechecked the figures on "Hill" employment I had been using as late as yesterday. Instead of 17,000 staff members on the Hill, there are now 22,500 and we are not turning out any more work than when I first came here.

(2) The ratio of committee membership is 6 to 5. By longstanding precedent the majority party is entitled to a ratio on the standing committees equivalent to its ratio in the entire Senate. Moreover, requiring five minority members put an added burden on the minority party when the total number of slots is considered.

(3) Limiting the tenure of Senators to 6 years on the proposed commitee is an assault on the seniority system and, more important to me, inhibits the development of expertise.

(4) At variance with the practice of other standing committees, the proposed committee would have a chairman and a vice chairman. Also, unlike other standing committees, the chairman would be appointed

by the proposed committee instead of the entire Senate. The vice chairman, a member of the minority party, would have the authority to act for the chairman in his absence. This is contrary to Senate precedent where the ranking majority member acts for the chairman in his absence, or whoever is senior on the majority side. I believe the majority party should maintain control of any standing committee.

(5) No single committee of the Senate should be given legislative jurisdiction over all the intelligence activities of the U.S. Government. There is too much concentration of power. Moreover, this functional approach to jurisdiction tends to fragment the activities of the departments and agencies involved. The proposed committee would also have the authority to reorganize the intelligence activities of the U.S. Government and might do so without regard to departmental needs such as military R. & D.

6) The requirement that the proposed committee "shall make periodic and regular reports to the Senate on the nature and extent of the intelligence activities of the various departments and agencies of the United States" strikes me as being open ended. The Senate as a whole has a poor track record of being able to maintain secrecy.

(7) Limiting the tenure of professional staff members to 6 years is contrary to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which is quoted in section 271.1 of the Senate Manual as follows:

Professional staff members authorized by this subsection shall be appointed on a permanent basis, without regard to political affiliation, and solely on the hasis of fitness to perform the duties of their respective positions.

Moreover, the best Senate staffs have at least a few persons of long service thereby providing continuity and reducing the possibility of legislative error.

(8) The proposed new committee would have ultimate authority to disclose any intelligence secrets by majority vote. No matter how strongly a Senator may feel about a foreign policy issue to overturn a policy through the disclosure of secrets can only lead to peril for the Nation. Such a provision may raise constitutional questions; questions I shall leave to those who are experts in constitutional law. (9) Senate Resolution 400 states the following:

The Committee on Intelligence Activities of the Senate, for the purposes of accountability to the Senate, shall make regular and periodic reports to the Senate on the nature and extent of the intelligence activities of the various departments and agencies of the United States.

I submit that such regular and periodic reports will either be valueless or will compromise the Nation's security. If such reports are ever Issued, inevitably there will be demands for greater and greater detail. (10) On March 31 the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 109, creating a temporary select committee to study the Senate committee system in its entirety. I submit it would be folly for the Senate to create any new committees until the Select Committee on Jurisdiction has had a chance to do its work. If for no other reason, Senate Resolution 400 should be deferred during this session of the Congress.

(11) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Operations has yet to submit its final report. Under these circumstances, it seems strange to me that we should be creating a new standing committee before we have been provided with any justification.