I am not prepared in any way to vote to accept this material given these conditions.

The other day I voted with the 10. I have diligently attempted to support the Chair because I think the Chair has been logical, rational, and very courageous and clear thinking in this matter.

In this particular issue today, I find myself in a position where I probably will be in opposition to the Chair because I think our position is clear. I think our position is clean. I think our position can and will be sustained by the House of Representatives. In that regard I think we ought not attempt to resolve these large questions as a select. committee. Let's find out whether the House wants to handle it for all time, one way or the other.

I think it probably premature for us to back off in this situation. I think the executive branch knows there is some validity to our argument; otherwise, they would not be coming here with a modification to a degree in their position. I think we should not back off.

Chairman PIKE. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am constrained to make a statement because the last statement characterized my position as a member of the majority. I do not feel there can be any withdrawal from the premise that a congressional committee is entitled to the information that it needs to have to conduct its investigation. But I think any examination of the law will objectively require one to acknowledge the publication of sensitive material; and who will declassify it is something that is a gray area of the law. It is not that clear. The submission of the material subject to the letter of September 30, 1975, signed by Mr. Colby, is in essence in agreement with the position taken by the committee earlier as to the publication of sensitive material.

I find nothing offensive about it and nothing wrong with it. I intend to continue to insist on the right of this committee or any committee of Congress to get the information it needs to do its work. Whether or not it will subsequently declassify those documents is something that can be worked out, and should be worked out, at this point with the executive branch because the law is not clear. I find this committee meeting degenerating into a political harangue. I don't want to have anything to do with this kind of talk.

As far as I am concerned, the resolution has been complied with. The committee subpena relating to September 12 has been complied with. The other subpenas have not been complied with. If we want to take action with respect to the subpenas which have not been complied with, let's do it. But let's not start talking about this administration versus some other past administrations. I personally have a great interest in various assassination attempts which have occurred in previous administrations. Covert activities which have occurred during previous administrations are of great interest to me. If we let this thing degenerate into a political harangue, then we are really good to miss the point-which is, in my judgment, an opportunity to make a contribution to the intelligence-gathering activities of this country and to remove the nefarious, clandestine covert activities which have occurred and which I personally am ashamed of. I would like to see us direct our attention to the real guts of the commission of this committee, and that is to do something and not make political issues and harangues.

If you want to go on and provide in your resolution that we will enforce the other subpenas which have not been complied with, I will vote for you. But if you are moving toward making it a political instrument indulging in this name-calling process we seem to be degenerating into today, I don't want to be any part of it. I don't want my vote characterized.

Chairman PIKE. Mr. McClory.

Mr. McCLORY. I move the committee accept the materials which the committee has received and which you have explained on the conditions contained in the letter from Mr. Colby. I ask for a rollcall vote. Chairman PIKE. Mr. Stanton.

Mr. STANTON. I move the previous question.
Chairman PIKE. Mr. Dellums.

Mr. DELLUMS. I would simply like to make a brief comment in response to my distinguished colleague.

Ĉhairman PIKE. Will you withhold your motion?

Mr. STANTON. Yes.

Mr. DELLUMS. I am not involved in any kind of political harangue. I think it is tragic that we would even indulge in those kinds of labels. I am not interested in campaigning against Gerald Ford. He wouldn't get many votes in my district anyway. He wouldn't get many votes in Berkeley, so I think it is absurd to make that statement. I am not doing any name calling. I am saying that Congress, one, has a right to get any material that it needs in order to pursue an investigation. I frankly believe that we ought to come down on a side where we can publicize any material that we choose to publicize if we, in our judgment and within the framework of a democratic. process, decide to do it. That has nothing to do with political harangue; it has to do with a statement of principle and a statement of judgment. You and I may disagree on those judgmental questions. It has nothing to do with politics or with Gerald R. Ford. It has to do with what we perceive as our rights as a committee.

Chairman PIKE. It is the position of the Chair that we understand the issues.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are talking about is congressional intent, and I think the committee is unanimous in its feeling that it does not want to be bound by a precedent.

Perhaps we can be bound by this letter in this specific instance. It should be made clear that we are not establishing future policy. Chairman PIKE. I would like to agree with the gentleman, but I don't think I can. I am afraid that if we accept these documents under these conditions, we are in effect setting a policy for no committee other than this committee. But I do think we are setting a precedent and a policy for this committee.

Mr. ASPIN. Can we make it clear we do not want this to be established as a precedent anywhere else?

Chairman PIKE. Let the record so stipulate.

Has anyone objection to that?

Mr. McCLORY. Without prejudice, we are receiving it.

Mr. STANTON. I move the previous question.

Chairman PIKE. The clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Giaimo.

63-746-765

Chairman PIKE. Mr. Giaimo votes no by proxy.

The CLERK. Mr. Stanton.

Mr. STANTON. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Dellums.
Mr. DELLUMS. No.
The CLERK. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. MURPHY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Aspin.
Mr. ASPIN. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Milford.

Chairman PIKE. Mr. Milford has left me his proxy and I think it would be fair to state that would want me to vote it "aye."

The CLERK. Mr. Hayes.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr Lehman.
Mr. LEHMAN. Ave.

The CLERK. Mr. McClory.
Mr. MCCLORY. Ave.

The CLERK. Mr. Treen.

Mr. TREEN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Kasten.

Mr. KASTEN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Ave.

The CLERK. Mr. Pike.

Chairman PIKE. Aуe.

The motion is agreed to by a vote of 10 to 3.
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PIKE. Yes.

Mr. ASPIN. What is the intention of the Chair now concerning our resolution?

Chairman PIKE. It is the intention of the Chair to proceed with the resolution in the Rules Committee, if we do not get from the other agencies that which we have gotten from the Director of Central Intelligence.

It is going to be the committee's decision as to what we do with our resolution, but I do think that it remains there as our leverage. In my judgment, we have not given away all of our leverage. I think what we will do with it depends on what happens for the rest of this dav.

Mr. KASTEN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PIKE. Mr. Kasten.

Mr. KASTEN. I didn't understand, Mr. Chairman, what you said. You said that the resolution would remain in the Rules Committee, but at the same time you said that what happens to the resolution is dependent upon the action of this committee.

Chairman PIKE. I think that is still a fair statement. It seems to be a contradiction of terms. What will happen eventually is that I will go to the Rules Committee and they will have a hearing. I expect that Mr. McClory will go to the Rules Committee. While it is very clear that section 2 of our resolution is no longer operative, section 1 of our resolution is still wholly operative, and I expect that if we get from the other agencies of the Government this flow of information which is

always "just around the corner," section 1 would not be operative. I think that is where we are today.

Mr. KASTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCLORY. If the chairman would yield, I assume we have no time limit on filing a report at this time, and if a report is to be filed we will be given ample notice.

Chairman PIKE. We have the time limit set forth in our rules. It is 5 days.

Mr. McCLORY. You intend to follow that time limit?

Chairman PIKE. I do.

Mr. McCLORY. Then I think the members should be guided. Those who want to file separate views

Chairman PIKE. Let's make it very clear the members have until Monday to file any dissenting or additional views.

Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask unanimous consent if we could extend that to Tuesday afternoon-1 more daysince the rush doesn't seem to be as great now. Could we have it Tuesday afternoon?

Chairman PIKE. No; I am not going to extend the time on that. I don't see any reason to extend the time. You say the rush isn't that great.

Mr. TREEN. It was just a request.

Mr. DELLUMS. May I ask you a question?

Since the committee, in its judgment, has decided to go forward as a result of this vote on the material we have, what do you consider a reasonable amount of time for the administration to respond with respect to the balance of the material we have requested in our subpena? Chairman PIKE. I am not going to try to determine what a reasonable amount of time is. I think if they are in good faith we will get some pieces of paper today. I think if they are playing a game, we

won't.

STAFF BRIEFING ON CYPRUS

Chairman PIKE. The next order of business is a briefing from Mr. Field and Mr. Boos on the subject of the interview that Mr. Boos had with Mr. Henry Tasca, who was our Ambassador to Greece at the time of the Cyprus coup.

Now. Mr. Field, you may proceed.

Mr. McClory?

Mr. McCLORY. I wanted to ask this question: When is Mr. Boyatt coming back?

Chairman PIKE. I haven't asked Mr. Boyatt to come back. Under the restrictions imposed on Mr. Boyatt's testimony by the State Department, I see nothing much to be gained.

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to you-and I think what the questioning of the witness really brought out-Mr. Boyatt would feel free to correct any inaccuracy in any statement by any

senior officer.

Chariman PIKE. Mr. McClory, that procedure which is acceptable to you is wholly unacceptable to me. The whole concept of being told that we can question a witness on a document but can't have the document itself doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't know how to question a witness on a document that I don't have, and they have refused to give us the document.

Mr. MCCLORY. I think the only question is whether testimony with regard to policy should be testimony coming from the junior officer or the senior officer, and the senior officer will testify, as I understand it, with respect to the policy subjects.

At least I would like us to try that. If we run into any kind of an impasse, I think that would be an appropriate time to suspend the hearing.

Chairman PIKE. We ran into all the impasses I needed yesterday. Mr. McCLORY. The impasse was that the witness said that he was unclear with respect to his ability to correct any misstatement or any misrepresentation.

Chairman PIKE. That was not the impasse. The impasse was that Mr. Boyatt had prepared a memorandum of dissent. Mr. Boyatt did not have the memorandum of dissent with him. I believed that I had assurances from the State Department yesterday that the memorandum of dissent would be made available to the committee. I was told through counsel last night, and then directly, that the memorandum of dissent would not be made available to the committee. If we can't ask questions of the head of the Cyprus desk on what happened in Cyprus, I think we are wasting our time.

Mr. JOHNSON. I move we issue a subpena for that particular document, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PIKE. Mr. Johnson, I am obliged to say your motion will be entertained; but under our rules I think I am also obliged to give notice to the members of a vote on a motion to issue a subpena. I will simply say that we will vote on your motion tomorrow.

Mr. Field, would you go ahead?

Mr. FIELD. Mr. Chairman, this morning we would like to give the committee a briefing on some of the Cyprus material. I think the best place to start would be with the post mortem. When we have finished with that, I would like to move on to Mr. Boos, who can discuss his interview with Ambassador Tasca.

The part of the post mortem I will read has been declassified. It is entitled "Post Mortem Report and Examination of the Intelligence Community's Performance Before and During Cyprus Crisis of 1974." Chairman PIKE. Mr. Field, I just want to get something very clear. The document that I am reading from is classified "Top Secret." Are you going to give us a classified version of this document?

Mr. FIELD. No, Mr. Chairman, I am giving you the unclassified version. It has been declassified.

Chairman PIKE. It is a declassified version of the document which we have in our possession?

Mr. FIELD. That is correct.

Chairman PIKE. Thank you.
Mr. FIELD. Principal Findings.

THE RECORD OF PERFORMANCE

1. Like most international crises, the Cyprus crisis of 1974 consisted of a series of interlocking events, each, in sequence, presenting new problems for U.S. policymakers and posing new challenges to the U.S. intelligence community. Seen, as it is here, as a test of both the sagacity of intelligence analysts and the ingenuity