U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND ACTIVITIES: COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room 2222, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Otis G. Pike [chairman], presiding. Present: Representatives Pike, Stanton, Dellums, Murphy, Aspin, Hayes, Lehman, Treen, and Johnson. Also present: A. Searle Field, staff director; Aaron B. Donner, general counsel; and Jack Boos, counsel. Chairman PIKE. This meeting was called to make policy decisions. Senator Church and I have discussed this and agreed not to hold hearings on the same subjects. We also agreed that the most useful thing we could do would be to go from the cost of intelligence-gathering operations all the way to the other end of the spectrum-the results of our intelligence-gathering operations. We decided that the best way to look at the end results of intelligence-gathering operations was to examine certain situations which have already taken place. You may recall, I asked for input from the committee as to which particular situations we would look at, and we have, at least for the time being, chosen four: The Tet offensive, the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, the invasion of Cyprus by the Turks and the coup in Portugal. We propose to look at what the intelligence community was saying about each of those particular situations immediately before the events took place. In the final analysis, our intelligence may be worth a certain amount of money if results are good and a lesser amount if they are poor. You can't evaluate without looking at results. We have tried to make very clear to the intelligence community precisely what we are going to do, so there would be no question about where we are going next. We asked for certain information. We wrote letters. I concede that our requests were much broader than what we needed, simply because we did not know the names of particular documents which we were seeking. It has been difficult. We received a response to my letter of August 17 only yesterday. What we asked for is this: We wanted the briefings which were given to the President during the week before each of these occurrences. It is a very simple and limited request. Mr. Colby referred to these documents when he testified before us-the briefing given to the President, called the President's briefing document and referred to as the PBD, the specific report of the Watch Committee and Central Intelligence bulletin. Without running down the list, what we want are the top level analyses put out by each of the intelligence agencies for the use of the policymakers in the week before each of these events occurred. In fairness to the intelligence community, we are getting some of the information. But we have not by any means begun to get all of it, and the information we have received is not specifically what we requested. We want the original pieces of paper disseminated, for without them we are unable to make an objective evaluation. I have convened this meeting this morning to request that the committee authorize me to issue subpenas-there would probably be four or five addressed to the CIA, DCI, NSA, et cetera-for those pieces of paper. În fairness to the executive branch, I have just met with Jack Marsh of the White House and he suggests the committee authorize but withhold serving the subpenas until 2 p.m. today and they will try to get the pieces of paper to us prior to that time. I have assured him we will do that. I don't enjoy having these subpenas served, but I will not put up with not getting the necessary information. [COMMITTEE NOTE.-The subpenas referred to in all of the proceedings are printed on pp. 1469-1494 of the appendixes.] Mr. TREEN. Are you going to propose a special motion? Chairman PIKE. I would simply ask that Mr. Stanton move that the chairman be authorized to issue subpenas for the end products of the intelligence community, to be complied with within 1 week following the date of the subpena. Mr. TREEN. You indicated you wanted the original papers-the papers actually given to the President in these instances; is that correct? Is it your intention the subpena would result in our getting the copy lodged at the White House? Chairman PIKE. I would be happy with a copy. Mr. TREEN. You want the end product for the President and the next level below, and all of the documentation leading up to that? Chairman PIKE. I am not asking for all working papers leading up to that I want the end products. Mr. TREEN. By the "end product," do you mean having something leave a desk is the end product? Chairman PIKE. There is going to be a little discretion left with the Chair as to the language of the subpena. We are now after material requested back on August 17. Learning some of the words of the art and the manner in which the executive branch works is a specific art in itself. Mr. TREEN. I agree you need some discretion; but we don't have the actual subpenas before us, and I for one will vote present in the absence of the actual subpenas. Chairman PIKE. I, myself, would prefer to have the actual subpenas, but this meeting was called in a hurry just for this purpose. Mr. TREEN. Is it the intention of the Chair that subpenas would be returned to the committee in closed or open session? Chairman PIKE. They would be returned to the committee. The hearings in the future will start in open session and they may be closed. from time to time. Mr. TREEN. The subpenas are returnable to the committee and they will be delivered to you or Mr. Field. And, they will be kept under our tightest security until the committee decides if they should be released. Has anything been refused? Chairman PIKE. Here is what we run into-and Senator Church said we would run into this: Nothing is ever refused; things are just not delivered. They very carefully do not refuse and their language is always the language of cooperation; but the fact is the fact of nonproduction. That may be too strong; we do get some information. Mr. TREEN. Has the chairman received any information from the intelligence community that complains it would be damaging to national security? Chairman PIKE. I don't think they ever claimed that giving the committee information would be damaging to national security. Mr. Stanton? Mr. STANTON. I move that the chairman be empowered to issue subpenas dealing with the Arab-Israeli war, the Greek-Cyprus invasion, the coup in Portugal, and the Tet offensive, and the briefing papers for the President and those below him, be sent. Mr. MURPHY. This is the first information that other members of the committee and I have received since we returned. I would hope that, in the future, members of this committee are advised of all committee action. We don't have to sit in on your discussions with Senator Church, but I would like to make a request that the members be brought up to date and told what we are asking for. Chairman PIKE. First of all, as a matter of procedure, the manner you suggest is infinitely preferred. It has been the intention of the Chair not to have a meeting such as this, but we can't hold the hearings we have planned without the data. My choice would be to have an executive session and discuss this with the members of the committee, but I have already announced I am going to hold open sessions as often as possible. Mr. TREEN. I want to concur in the remarks of Mr. Murphy, and I don't want to delay the activity of the committee; but we are getting into some extremely important subjects, and I assume they are for the purpose of the actions taken by the President or others of authority but that we are ineffective in getting the analyses, et cetera. At the same time, I think we should let the executive branch have the opportunity to respond without the subpenas but have the chairman address a letter to the departments concerned specifically requesting this information. Chairman PIKE. That step has already been taken. I have written every letter I know how to phrase. They didn't respond to letters written in general terms, so how do we get specific? Mr. TREEN. You have done that under your signature? I did not understand that. Chairman PIKE. The letters which I wrote are quite general and we will certainly show them to you. Mr. TREEN. I will vote present on the motion, but I think it has been handled on a rush basis and without the opportunity to get responses from persons who could indicate what the dangers and risks are. Chairman PIKE. In one case, I wrote a letter as early as August 17 under my signature and we just got a response yesterday. Mr. DELLUMS. With respect to the other information we received, which was requested before the recess-where we asked precise questions-is that available? Chairman PIKE. We are getting some information. I cannot make any effort to quantify it. We do have a good library downstairs. Most of the members have already taken advantage of it to look at information which has been delivered. What has not been delivered, I cannot tell you about in detail. We will now vote on the authorization of the subpenas. [The roll was called as follows:] The CLERK. Mr. Giaimo? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. McClory? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Stanton? Mr. STANTON. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Treen? Mr. TREEN. Present. The CLERK. Mr. Dellums? Mr. DELLUMS. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Kasten? [No response.] The CLERK Mr. Murphy? The CLERK. Mr. Johnson? The CLERK. Mr. Aspin? Mr. ASPIN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Milford? [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Hayes? Mr. HAYES. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Lehman? Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. The CLERK. Mr. Pike? Chairman PIKE. Yes. The CLERK. Seven yeas, four absent, and Mr. Treen votes present. [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee adjourned.] |