Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of Central Intelligence, accompanied by Anthony A. Lapham, General Counsel; George L. Cary, Legislative Counsel; and Donald Massey, Assistant Legislative Counsel. - Hon. William Proxmire, U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin.. William Colby, former Director of Central Intelligence. --- Hon. Michael J. Harrington, Representative in Congress from the Sixth 63 Gerhard Casper, Max Pam Professor of Law and professor of Political Science, the University of Chicago--- Ralph S. Spritzer, professor of law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Thomas I. Emerson, Lines Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale School of Law. Gen. Daniel Graham, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency- Robin Berman Schwartzman, attorney--- Ray Cline, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies and former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence___ David Phillips, President, Association of Former Intelligence Officers--- John Shattuck, Director, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington Morton Halperin, Director, Project on National Securities and Civil APPENDIXES Appendix I.-"Fiscal Oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency: Can Appendix II. -“Cloak and Ledger: Is CIA Funding Constitutional?” by Appendix III. "The CIA's Secret Funding and the Constitution," by Appendix IV.-Disclosure of Budget Information on the Intelligence Community, excerpt from the Final Report of the Senate Select Com- mittee to Study Government Operations With Respect To Intelligence Appendix V.-"Open Budget: Pros, Cons, and Relevant Statements," Appendix VI.-United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)_ Appendix VII.-Affidavits of Morton H. Halperin and William E. Colby, 243 Appendix VIII.-Statements of Past Directors of Central Intelligence..-- Appendix XI.-"The Central Intelligence Agency: Oversight and Account- MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD Prepared Statement of Hon. Birch Bayh, U.S. Senator from the State of Letter and Statement from David Cohen, President, Common Cause, concerning Public Disclosure of Budget Figures for U.S. Intelligence The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:46 a.m., in room S-407, The Capitol, Hon. William D. Hathaway presiding. Present: Senators Inouye (chairman of the committee), Hathaway, (chairman of the Subcommittee on Budget Authorization), Huddleston, Biden, Morgan, Hart, Goldwater, Chaffee, Lugar, and Wallop. Also present: William G. Miller, Staff Director; and Audrey Hatry, Clerk of the Committee. Senator HATHAWAY [presiding]. The Intelligence Committee will come to order. I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for allowing me to preside over these hearings which are peculiar to the budget situation. This morning the committee begins 2 days of public hearings on the question of whether any portions of the national intelligence budget should be publicly revealed. The committee is required to look into this question by the terms of Senate Resolution 400. That resolution requires, and I quote, that "The Select Committee shall make a study with respect to the authorization of funds for the intelligence activities of the Government and whether disclosure of any of the amounts of such funds is in the public interest." Senator Inouye, who is chairman of the full committee, has asked me, in my capacity as chairman of the Budget Subcommittee, to chair these hearings as the final step in our budget authorization process. For the past several months, the top officials from each of the intelligence agencies have testified before our subcommittee, presenting their plans and programs for the coming fiscal year. We have gone over their presentations with great care. The work of our subcommittee and staff has included line-by-line review and analysis of the agencies' operations. We know in detail how each of the agencies proposes to spend its money in the coming year. Much of what we have examined involves the most sensitive activities of our Government, and much of what we have studied involves operations which are intimately related to our national defense. We now reach the end of our committee's work on this subject for this year, and we must soon report to the full Senate a budget authorization bill for these agencies. At this juncture, many people are urging us to share our end product with the public, in short, to publish the amounts of money to be authorized. Some say that such public accounting is required by the Constitution. Others say that it is not. Many are concerned that revelation of these figures might impair our intelligence efforts. Others disagree. The purpose of these hearings is to solicit and receive the best advice and counsel on this question. We have invited past and present leaders of the intelligence community to give us the benefit of their experience and their insight. We have asked the Nation's leading constitutional scholars to tell us what in their view the Constitution requires. We have sought the guidance of several public interest organizations to better understand what the American people expect and want. And this afternoon, other members of the Congress who have addressed this same question before will also give us the benefit of their advice. I think that none of us should underestimate the importance of the fact that this proceeding is itself being held in public. It means that no matter what the ultimate outcome on this question, the committee has decided that this issue of secrecy must be debated in a public forum. Whatever the result, we will do our best to reconcile all of the competing interests which are involved, and I trust that our judgment will be sound. Are there any other opening statements by other members of the committee? Senator INOUYE. There is one by Birch Bayh you can put in the record. Senator HATHAWAY. We have a statement by Senator Birch Bayh who was unable to be here, and without objection, it will be made a part of the record at this point. [The prepared statement of Senator Birch Bayh follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BIRCH BAYH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA Mr. Chairman, Admiral Turner-I want to make a few opening remarks because I believe we should have the constitutional issues clearly in mind before we begin. The Constitution of the United States is more than a body of law applied by the courts. It speaks directly to each branch of government. Where the courts fail to decide a question because it is not suitable for judicial determination, the other branches must make certain that their own actions conform to basic constitutional principles. This is the case with the issue before us today. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled in the Richardson case that an individual taxpayer did not have standing to raise the question of intelligence budget disclosure in the judicial forum. Chief Justice Burger said that the subject "is committed to the surveillance of Congress" and ultimately to the voters if their "elected representatives are delinquent in performing duties committed to them." United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 178-179 (1974). Therefore, the Congress has to decide whether it has been "delinquent in performing duties committed to" it by the Constitution. Article I seems clear. Congress is directed "from time to time" to publish "a regular Statement of Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public money." Article I, section 9, clause 7. |