TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING HELD IN DIRECTOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ON 8 JANUARY 1954

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 25, 2000
• Sequence Number: 4
• Content Type: TRANS

Approved Foielease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP9`101172R000400150004-9
AD HOC IAC COMMITTEE (WATCH)
Transcript of Meeting Held in Director's
Conference Room, Administration Building
Central Intelligence Agency, on 8 January 1954
Mr. Huntington D. Sheldon
Presiding
Mr. William C. Trueheart, Office of the Special Assistant,
Intelligence, Department of State
Brigadier General John M. Willems, Deputy AC of S, G-2,
Department of the Army
Captain D. T. Eller (USN), Assistant Head, Intelligence
Branch, ONI, Department of the Navy
Brigadier General Millard Lewis, Deputy Director Intelli-
gence, Headquarters USAF, United States Air Force
Dr. Charles H. Reichardt, Intelligence Division, Atomic
Energy Commission
Colonel Neil M. Wallace, Joint Intelligence Group, The
Joint Staff
Mr. Meffert W. Kuhrtz, Special Agent, Liaison Section,
Federal Bureau of Investigation
25X1A
Colonel Howard D. Kenzie, United States Air Force
Lt. Col. James P. Barry, G-2, Department of the Army
Mr. Samuel S. Rockwell, United States Air Force
Secretary
25X1 A Reporter
Approved For Release 2001103 0
Document No. -`------- -------------
t:a Charge In Class. ^
^ Decl ',,:fled
Class. G:3 n?gad to: TS () C
. fl
ac d -a! ---------L a-y-
'a4DXa P. Bale: {'matt. I 70-3
-fit 19 TAy040015Q(W_ffj?~
 Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04F72R00RW6W4-9
MR. SHELDON: Well, gentlemen, I hope we are all in a forward going
mood here. Let's see if we can move along in good order. Any comments on
the last Minutes as circulated?
GENERAL WILLEMS: I have a correction that Dr. McKee asked me to
present. On page 3 of the Minutes at his last statement there he doesn't
know whether he misspoke himself or whether he was misunderstood, but he
would like to havethe last line of his statement in the Minutes deleted so
that his final sentence there reads: "He said that concern with actions,
or activities, that might undesirably affect the welfare of the country
would involve too broad a field but that the committee should expand its
consideration beyond strictly military limits." Even now he admits that
we are not considering or are not within strictly military limits.
MR. SHELDON: I think that is a most acceptable amendment.
MR. TRUEHEART: Really dropped "which now governed its activities"?
MR. SHELDON: That is right. Are there any other corrections?
COLONEL WALLACE: Simply a typographical error at the next to the
last word at the last page . . . I beg your pardon, page 6, the word
"broad". There is Just a reverse of the two letters there.
MR. SHELDON: Yes, I have mine marked. Right. Anything else? The
Minutes will stand as circulated with the amendments accepted in today's
meeting.
Just to start with a clean piece of paper for the new year, we had
prepared what we believe to be the status of how far we have gotten today.
In other words, recognizing that the paper is tentative, we thought we might
as well start with a clean sheet and go on from there.
MR. TRUEHEART: I had done exactly the same thing. I found I couldn't
really find where it was.
MR. SHELDON: Yes. During the holidays I ran across in The Washington
Post a leading article which probably many of you also saw. It kind of
underscores the importance of this Committee. One of the phrases is:
Approved For Release 2001/$/0:CIA R1T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Reuse 20 'W /07,: CIA-RDP91T0W72R000400150004-9
If more emphasis on the continental early warning system
would bring even two hours' notice, it might make the difference
between effective air defense and destruction of strategic planes
on the ground.
That is an article which appeared on the 4th of January in The
Washington Post, and the title of it is "Safeguarding SAC," but it par-
ticularly referred to the early warning problem and underscored it. I just
thought I would mention that.
Now I think.we have to decide whether we want to go back and tidy up
or whether we want to go forward and attack the balance of the problems which
confront the Committee. My personal suggestion would be that it would be
preferable to go forward and leave the tidying up to a later date. How do
you feel about that?
Just for a second to review it before we go on, just to review the
areas where we will have to go back and really tidy up. We still haven't
completely solved the military-paramilitary aspects of the mission, although
we have made aconsiderable step forward at the last meeting. I assume
that there may be some changes desirable in the Preamble, but I also class
that in the tidying up category. Naturally what we say in the Mission
paragraph will have to be carried over under the Functions. In other words,
there may be some language changes there to conform, but by and large those
seem to me to be the two areas where the major tidying up is necessary, so
that in effect we have reached a point where we should talk about and if
possible decide on how the Indications Center shall be operated. At least
that is my understanding of about the position we have reached now.
At an earlier meeting was submitted to us the G-2 concept of how the
Indications Center would be operated. General Willems submitted a paper
which we did not discuss in detail. Do you have that in front of you? It
starts out "The Watch Committee will maintain an Indications Center which
will", and then we go from a to i. Do we all have that with us?
GENERAL WILLEMS: Those were put out in the Minutes, weren't they?
MR. SHELDON: Yes.
COLONEL WALLACE: Which meeting was it?
MR. SHELDON: Frank, do you recall the date of that?
Approved For Release 2001Ip3I07 -CIA- -RDP91 T01 172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472R006W PI0 4-9
25X1A
GENERAL WILLEMS: It was the 11th of December.
MR. TRUEHEART: Minutes 7.
MR. SHELDON: It would seem to me appropriate that we should tackle
that paper and go at it paragraph by paragraph unless anybody has any
serious objection to that. Is that what the Committee wishes to do?
I have a couple of extra copies of those Minutes if anybody
doesn't have it.
MR. KUHRTZ: I will take one. Thank you.
MR. SHELDON: How do we feel on a? Any comments on a?
CAPTAIN ELLER: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment on the word "functions"
there, the last word. It might be that you mean "mission" instead of
"functions". The mission is a little broader term, and that would be what . . .
relative to the mission would be really what . . .
MR. SHELDON: I have no objection to that. Does anybody?
MR. TRUEHEART: "mission"?
MR. SHELDON: Does it bother you, Bill?
MR. TRUEHEART: Not the mission, no. I was frowning at the three words
here "continuously screen all". Does that "continuously" mean 24 hours
a day?
MR. SHELDON: Sure, why not?
MR. TRUEHEART: I wanted just to ask the question. Does it mean that?
Do we have a three-shift operation here?
MR. SHELDON: Well, I don't think that is necessarily implied.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Well, it would depend on the situation, wouldn't it?
MR. SHELDON: It might have to at some point, but I hope that never
occurs, but . . . I mean if we are going to call this a watch function, you
can't:"just watch part of the time. It is implicit, I think, that you con-
tinuously watch whether physically you have three shifts or one, and a Special
Duty Officer, or whatever the proper technique is. You are in effect screen-
ing whether it is a staff screening or whether one individual is screening.
That function is inherent in a watch function. And if you didn't say
continually, what would you say . . . certainly not from time to time, I
trust.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07_ 9lA-RDP91 T01 172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T072R000400150004-9
MR. TRUEHEART: No.
COLONEL WALLACE: It seems to me if an Indications Center is set up it
will operate on certain hours as directed by the proper authority, and if
a critical situation seems to be developing, we might be told to go on a
24-hour basis, and for a general directive type paper like that I should
think the word "continuously" here would be adequate.
MR. SHELDON: I think it is inherent in the function.
MR. TRUEHEART: I don't think I raise any objection to it.
MR. SHELDON: All right, that settles a. then.
MR. TRUEHEART: No, but the "all". I still want to talk about the "all".
Do we mean by this, and most of this is just clarifying in my own mind what
is intended here . . . do we mean by this that . . . well, of course, the
word "pertinent" is the key to it, I guess. You do mean a selected body of
material?
MR. SHELDON: It can't be otherwise. Otherwise you would completely
usurp the functions of all of the intelligence agencies in the community.
It has to be selective. I think the word "pertinent" is that all right?
MR. TRUEHEART: I wonder if we shouldn't in that case say instead of
"received by" the words "or furnished by all national intelligence agencies"?
MR. SHELDON: Well, isn't it again inherent that it i transmitted to
the Indications Center?
MR. TRUEHEART: It is inherent, but I just thought was there any reason
why "furnished by"' wouldn't be what we are trying to say here? It conforms
as I recall to the Functions thing here in the Terms of Reference in C.2., you
recall, "furnished by the IAC Agencies".
GENERAL LEWIS: Paragraph c takes care of that, I believe, Bill.
MR. TRUEHEART: Yes, it does.
GENERAL LEWIS: Look at c down here under this a you were just reading.
MR. TRUEHEART: I think it is taken care of there, and I think it is also
covered by the Terms of Reference paper. I just don't see why we don't con?
form this paragraph to the other to what is the clear intent.
MR. SHELDON: What are other people's views on that?
CAPTAIN ELLER: I feel also tie it together and we would be saying
Approved For Release 2001/03/9.7__,, IA-RDP91701172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For R&I ase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T0' 72R000400150004-9
the same thing in both sections.
MR. SHELDON: Does anybody have any objection to the word "furnished"
in substitution for "received"?
GENERAL WILLEMS: I rather favor the "received" here, and maybe I am
being inconsistent here, but here we are talking about the functions of the
individuals in this Watch Secretariat or Working Group. One of the things
we have tried to do is point up the fact that they must be active in acquiring
all of the indications that come in to their agencies. To me this sort of
continues to point that up. Really if I had my choice I would rather see
us leave "received" in here in this place.
MR, SHELDON: Reading this subjectively in the sense that it puts an
additional and quite proper responsibility on the staff of the Indications
Center to see to it that there is a constant stream and nothing is omitted
from the flow.
GENERAL WILLEMS0 Yes, these are the instructions that the Working
Group should read carefully and follow.
MR. SHELDON: That is right.
MR. TRUEHEART: But I think the most they are going to screen is what
they get under c., as General Lewis says, and that is the place to --
MR. SHELDON: They have got to holler too. It is not a passive
function. It is an active function.
GENERAL LEWIS: I agree with you, General Willems. I think it is a
good idea to make it clear that there is a close tie-in there and that they
can't just sit there on their haunches and wait, and they have to get to-
gether with the Home Office and help stimulate the flow of this stuff. I
agree. I rather prefer "received" myself.
MR. TRUEHEART: Well, I will be glad to give in to that.
'MR. SHELDON: I think the majority is in favor of "received". All right,
b. then. One question arises in my mind on b., and that is it depends to
some extent on the strength which we are going to be able to afford to put
into the Indications Center. If we have adequate strength, and I hope we will
be able to do that, there would be an evaluating function inherently in that
-5-
Approved For Release 2001/03/07,: CIA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(w)-T-9
Approved For Rase 2001103/07 : CIA-RDP91 T04+172R000400150004-9
staff per se it would seem to me, and I would like, if possible, to get the
thought in that while they would get evaluations from the Home Office, so to
speak, that the Staff itself should be sufficiently substantively competent
also to engage in the evaluating techniques, here again referring to the fact
that it is an active function rather than a function of a more passive nature.
In other words, if every time something comes in you immediately call up the
Home Office so to speak, or run over there, or ask somebody to come over and
talk to you, you are not doing the job on the spot to the maximum extent that
I think is desirable.
DR. REICHARDT: I was wondering in that line whether the request should
not imply or perhaps be changed to some term which would indicate coordinate,
a coordinating thing which would cover your thing at the same time and
not leave it open because I think --
MR. SHELDON: How about something like develop promptly? You develop an
evaluation. Whether you do it yourself or whether you ask for help in the
developing of it, you achieve an evaluation. It is that thought I am
trying to get in here where the substantive personnel of the Center would be
able to take the initiative be it on their own hook or be it assistance from
the Home Office.
DR. REICHARDT: Perhaps we might, getting the two thoughts in,"develop
promptly through coordination with the intelligence agency or agencies best
qualified to deal with."
MR. SHELDON: That is the idea. The word "request" per-se to my mind
is a little passive and not quite active enough.
DR. REICHARDT: I would see a danger in some fields at least in allowing
a group a chance of interpretation in which they do the evaluation alone. I
mean this has happened in my own field to some extent. People have come up
with things which for one reason or another have had to be squashed a little
bit because they have tended to go overboard.
MR. SHELDON: Well, we want to prevent that to be sure.
GENERAL WILLEMS: I like your wording, Dr. Reichardt.
DR. REICHARDT: I mean, in other words, following your thing I wasn't
-6-
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91TO4072R000400150004-9
completely happy with "request" either -- "develop promptly, etc., all
reported indications in coordination with the intelligence agency or agencies."
I throw this open as a suggestion again.
MR. SHELDON: I think that is constructive. How do you feel?
GENERAL LEWIS: Yes.
MR. TRUEHEART: Would you read it?
DR. REICHARDT: "Develop promptly" . . . I haven't thought this out . . .
"an early evaluation analysis of all reported indications in coordination
with the intelligence agency or agencies beat qualified to deal with the
field, etc."
MR. SHELDON: I would buy that.
DR. REICHARDT: I think that reads all right. Now the thing that bothers,
again you see you are getting back to the problem you had before in this
word "reported" that we were discussing pertinent to c., "receive" and
"furnished", etc. In this light to my own idea, and it is my own sort of
conception of the Indications Center, it has been that, and I am not sure
that this can work operationally, but just something that I have in the back
of my mind, is that the people in the Center would also -- this is also
more or less in line with Mr. Trueheart's suggestion be a part of their
own Center, so they would actually have two homes and would act as a . . .
well, I hesitate to use courier, liaison officer, but act as a channel, just
a means of coordination between the two so that all of the information in
the Agency gets to the Center and that the leads of the Center get back
informally to the Agency without having to go up and down there; in other
words, it is just a little bit more than just liaison function.
MR. SHELDON: You are thinking of it in terms of an extension in your
particular case, an extension of your office?
DR. REICHARDT: That is right. This has been my own feeling, and I
got somewhat the same idea from Mr. Trueheart, somewhat in the same line that
he anticipated that these people would have two dual roles.
MR. SHELDON., Well, my own view is that there must be continuous inter-
change of opinions, ideas, and policy as between the individuals working in
Approved For Release 2001 /03/07 :ttA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472R000400150004-9
the Center and their home offices; however, if it is a shuttle game, it is
less desirable and it would be simply a question of lack of personnel rather
than anything else that would require that.
DR. REICHARDT: I wasn't thinking necessarily of a shuttle game, but in
my case, andy example would be a little bit more literal, but in the other
cases at least one of the members of both, one of the members on the team
from any one particular agency in the Center would also have the dual role
there. This can be the top man, or it can be two. I mean one, or two, or
more depending on the number of people in your . . . Again I am not . . .
and this was just my own feeling on it. We have not discussed this operation.
I just mentioned it, so with that background the "reported" seems to be out
of context with "received by" and the question Bill and Captain Eller raised.
MR. SHELDON: Is the word "available" any help there?
DR. REICHARDT: I leave it to the rest of the people. I have said too
much already.
MR* TRUEHEART: I am not sure I understand where you are.
MR. SHELDON: On line 2,b.
DR. REICHARDT: Line 2,b, "all reported indications", you see. I mean
following through your thought on "furnished", "received", etc.
MR. SHELDON: The word "available" might have some use there on the
theory that it has also the implication of depth; in other words, something
may come along which triggers a whole file of material, the file being avail-
able, and then you go forward with an evaluation of the entire material
available as a result of a new piece of evidence or a new item coming in
which acts as a catalyst to previous items which have not taken shape so to
speak.
CAPTAIN ELLER: Mr. Chairman, that word occurs throughout -- "furnished
by", "received by" -- and it has caused trouble each time. Now we accepted
it under a., but with reservation on my part because we are saying there
very clearly "continuously screen all pertinent intelligence information
received by all National agencies." In other words, we are saying something
which we have agreed that we don't quite mean, I feel. In other words, we
ar a t to t at his articular ou in the Indications
p"e' 'f`or efease 1 ' /0 : C A-MP91 T01172 080400150004-9
 Approved For ReJ ase 20-01J03/p,7. -CIA-I DP91 T01*72R000*0*604-9
Center will be energetic in getting the necessary information. I think we
would be better to state it a little more along the line of 2,c and then
indicate in a statement here that they would actively pursue and insure
that the necessary information was furnished -- something along that line.
MR. SHELDON: How would you propose it read then?
CAPTAIN ELLER: Well, I was still back on a. there.
MR. TRUEHEART: You have the language and the Terms of reference?
CAPTAIN ELLER: Yes, which goes back to 2,c, but I would have no objection
to putting another statement in here to indicate that it should be an
aggressive effort on the part of the Indications Center people to insure that
the important function was not allowed to sit idly by and rest.
GENERAL WILLEMS: I don't understand what the objection is to a.
CAPTAIN ELLER: Well, we tell them to "continuously screen" -- that means
on a 24-hour basis -- "all pertinent intelligence," which is very broad. And
then we don't say "received from all National agencies." We say, "received
by". In other words, every word in there is extremely broad in its directions
to what I have considered up to this point as a group rather small in size.
MR. TRUEHEART: I would think you could interpret that to mean that
somebody from the Center ought to be sitting around in every Message Center
reading everything that came in to see what was pertinent that came in.
CAPTAIN ELLER: Well, we are saying that, and it could be almost directed
at any time.
GENERAL WI : I don't think that is what was intended, and I wouldn't
get that out of reading this. I would like to say this that a. represents
an attempt that results from experience to try to force all of the agencies
to provide all of the pertinent indications which we are not getting today.
The Watch Committee is stymied because it doesn't get all of the indications
that come into the intelligence agencies in Washington. I think we ought to
insure that that committee that we set up does receive them because again to
say something self-evident, there are a number of indications that may not to
one agency have the ultimate significance. It is dangerous to permit the
present system to continue I think.
CAPTAIN ELLER: Well, I thought in our paragraph 2,E we went around, you
Approved For Release 2001/013/07-: ITIA-RDP91 T01 172R000400150004-9
 Approved For R ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04&72R00
know, at some length, and it seemed to me that that is one of the key points
in the functioning of the Watch and the supporting committee.
GENERAL WELEMS: Well, we have to translate it seems to me. Here we
are going to come out with the instructions as to what the Indications Center
will do. We have to translate the functions into more definite and clear-cut
instructions to the Working Group.
MR. TRUEHEART: I don't see how just by this word you will accomplish
what you are talking about, but, as I said before, I don't object to the
"received by". I think it is a pity really not to follow the language we have
in the Terms of Reference or to conform the one with the other, either put
this language in the Terms of Reference . . . because I can see that this will
raise questions for the future when people start reading this . . . which
did they mean, "received by" or "furnished by"? In one place they say
"furnished by" and in the other they say "received by". For the same reason
I don't like this phrase, "National intelligence agencies". I think we ought
to go back to IAC agencies wherever this occurs because that means something
very specific whereas National intelligence agencies is not a word of
It might mean the Bureau of Narcotics for all I know. It might include them.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Yes, I sure wouldn't object.
MR. SHELDON: I think I agree with that aspect of it.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Yes, and I agree that this one word in here is not
going to accomplish, but what we were trying to do was to keep the whole tenor
of our comments. here along that line. It isn't just in this one paragraph
that we carry that thought.
MR. TRUEHEART: c. is the paragraph in which you lay down an injunction
on the Center to get out and make arrangements to get the information you
need from the intelligence agencies.
DR. REICHARDT: To get around my problem so I can get out from under on
this thing a little bit, why don't we just drop the "reported" in the second
line of b. or, if necessary, substitute by the word such as "significant"?
GENERAL Wes: How about "acquired" -- "all acquired indications"?
- 10 -
Approved For Release 2001/.3/07 -CIA-RD P91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For RJase 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T0M72R0064 t1 4-9
DR. REICHARDT: "Acquired". of course, "acquired" goes back to you . . .
reflects on your "received" and "furnished by" too, and I was trying to either
clarify it or remove that problem completely. I mean it seems we are just
adding one more. Here is at least one case where we can probably get out
from under the difficulty of "received" and "furnished by" in b., that is,
you see.
GENERAL WILLEM: Unless we do want to. We have attempted to keep
reiterating this approach.
MR. SHELDON: I think acquired is a good solution to that. It has the
connotation of both receiving and furnishing, and I think that is a happy
solution. Will you buy that, Bill?
MR. TRUEHEART: In a. or b.?
MR. SHELDON: b.
MR. TRUEHEART: "all acquired indications"?
MR. SHELDON: Yes.
MR. TRUEHEART: I don't object. It doesn't sound very well somehow to
me; I should think of acquired characteristics or something like --
GENERAL WILLEMS: What national document have you been working on? Your
ear is tuned to something on a very high level.
MR. TRUEHEART: Where I think the "acquired" would really be a good
compromise is in this a. -- "information acquired from all National intelligence
agencies" or "all IAC agencies". That has the active sense.
MR. SHELDON: That is altogether too passive for my money. Don't we in
any event want to take an "s" off of "belongs"?
GENERAL WILLEMS: I think that is rather awkwardly phrased. After you
read it enough it sounds . . . "to deal with the field" . . . "the field of
intelligence".
MR. SHELDON: Technically --
MR. TRUEHEART: The "s" comes off of "indications" does it not?
GENERAL WILLEMS: .-Yes, I think that would be --
MR. SHELDON: I have to get one of those s's out of there.
- 11 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/th ? ClA.RRtP9 101172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04'72R000400150004-9
COLONEL WALLACE: Or else off the "belongs". one or the other. You have
a plural in the first place. You ought to knock it Off the "belongs" I
would think.
MR. SHELDON: I think "the indications belong" is right.
DR, REICHARDT: I mean the "reported" just bothers me a little bit
because who is doing the reporting? In fact, who is doing the acquired? I
just wonder why we worry except for the emphasis which General Willems wants
to place on the receiving of intelligence. I mean it is just a little out
of context here.
MR. SHELDON: We are back on "reported"?
DR. REICHARDT: Back on "reported".
MR. SHELDON: I thought we had put in "acquired" for the time being.
DR. REICHARDT: Even with "acquired" -- "reported" or "acquired" -- it
just . . . I mean are we . . . ?
MR, SHELDON: Must we qualify that? How about "all indications" because
if you haven't got them you can't do anything with them.
MR. TRUEHEART: That suits me.
MR. SHELDON: All right.
DR. REICHARDT: With that I am happy with b.
MR, SHELDON: Now any other comments on b.?
GENERAL WILLEMrS: It still reads awkwardly, it seems to me, if you
take the "s" off of "indications".
MR, SHELDON: " . . . to which an indication belongs." I think that is
an improvement. Are we ready to go on to c.? Or do we want to get back to. . .
we want to get back to IAC here, don't we?
COLONEL WALLACE: You mean that is up in a., sir?
MR. SHELDON: No, I am down in c. now. We have the "National Intel-
ligence Agencies" here capitalized in this instance, which we want to put
lower case to I assume. Do we have to put the word "Intelligence" in when
we use IAC? That doesn't seem to me right.
MR. TRUEHEART: What is that?
Approved For Release 2001/03/07;: GIA7R.DP91 T01 172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W -T-9
Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04+172R0004001 0004-9
MR, SHELDON-. It was your point we substituted IAC. You don't like the
word "National", and I think quite rightly, so we substituted "received by
all IAC". My question is it doesn't seem to me we want to put the word
"intelligence" in there.
MR, TRUEHEART: I don't intend that that should be in IAC agencies.
MR. SHELDON: Yes, and then we make the corresponding change in c.
GENERAL LEWIS: Wait a minute now. Did we put IAC in place of National?
MR. SHELDON: That was the suggestion.
GENERAL LEWIS: Is that right?
MR. SHELDON: Well, the point was raised that what is a National intel-
ligence agency. Does the Bureau of Narcotics fall under that category?
DR. REICHARDT: As I recall, in support of General Lewis, when we were
discussing this we meant to in this Center insure that not only the intel-
ligence or information be received by the IAC.agencies, but the intelligence
or information received by any other National agency not necessarily intel-
ligence should be gotten over.
MR. TRUEBEART: That is all very well. I agree it would be just fine
to have everything from everywhere, but as a practical matter we can't
legislate for anything but the IAC, and I think we want to consider what is
in the New York Times also, but . . .
GENERAL LEWIS: You have to provide for it.
MR. TRUEHEART: You have to provide for it, but --
GENERAL LEWIS: You may not be able to order it, but you can make
provision for it, and I don't think this should limit the utilization or the
arrangement for intelligence from any source. All departments of the Govern-
ment may -- and maybe some activities of the Government are not departments --
be able to provide some valuable information, and I don't think you want to
limit this to IAC only.
MR. TRUEHEART: Do you want to say "all Government agencies"?
GENERAL LEWIS: I think what you got there is all right. I don't see
anything wrong with it. That may even be too narrow if some intelligence
activity that has any relationship to the United States Government might not
consider themselves national.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07-:4( -RpP91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For R ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91TOV72ROOt&6bW060'4-9
MR. TRUEHEART: Well, General, I have no wish to limit this if you want
to put "all agencies of the Government" or any phrase at all. I Just think
as a practical matter we ought not to lay down anything in here which we
can't deliver on.
GENERAL LEWIS: In a. it says that you screen everything you get from
all sources.
MR. TRUEHEART: No, it doesn't say that because we just argued that out.
It says we screen everything received by all agencies.
GENERAL LEWIS: All right, received by.
MR. TRUEHEART: So we will screen everything received by the Treasury
Department would be what would be meant if we put this thing in the way you
say.
GENERAL LEWIS: I am thinking about receiving information from every
possible source, and I don't think we ought to limit ourselves to receive
it from some and not from all.
GENERAL WILLEMS: But shouldn't that intelligence be acquired through
one of the IAC agencies? Aren't we shoving up the Watch Committee a bit too
high?
GENERAL LEWIS: In general it would be, but I don't think there is any
need for us to specify that it has to be because it may not be. As a matter
of fact I believe we are going to find that if we broaden this thing enough
we are going to find some activities that are not directly connected with
IAC members that can contribute.
GENERAL WILLEMS: But would we want the Watch Committee to go out after
that, or would we want some --
GENERAL LEWIS: Probably would, but I don't see any reason for --
MR. TRUEHEART: So it reads "continuously screen all pertinent intel-
ligence information relating to the Watch Committee mission." That doesn't
put any limitations on it at all.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, I am happy with it the way it is, but I certainly
don't want to limit it in any way.
-14 -
Approved For Release 2001/03147-.: CIA-RDP1T01172R000400150004-9
4 -c
 Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP91T04.1i72R000Mf 9-9
25X1C
ARR. TRUEHEART: I don't want it limited, but I don't want terms in here
which don't have any meaning such as "National intelligence agencies". I don't
know what that means, and I want to have something in here which I do under-
stand. I think that is very important, but I don't want to limit it to IAC
agencies if you meant to include other things in here.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, I would be willing to take out "National" if you
wanted to and say "all".
ARR. SHELDON: That is more limiting. Then you still have an intelligence
agency as your possible source whereas Commerce might provide something
which might be of considerable value.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, I presume that any information that is received
or that is passed by anybody or received by anybody that an intelligence
agency will be actually the one to pass it to you, but maybe that is not so.
We maybe ought to say . . . no, I think we are getting away from it. I think
we are getting away from it. I think it is probably better to leave it.
ARR. KUH2TZ: I think the IAC agencies will apply because if you go
back to Functions is "to develop and operate on a current and continuing
basis an Intelligence Plan for the levying upon IAC members" a collection
and priority system which, if there is something in Commerce, develops a
plan there for an IAC member to arrange for it. For instance, in the economic
field your people will have various controls in Commerce in picking up such
data.
MR. SHELDON: In effect your requirements from the Watch Committee or
the Indications Center would pass immediately to a member of the IAC who in
turn would then do his best to route out any information that was outside of
the IAC. That would include what have you -- all kinds
of other material.
GENERAL LEWIS: Yes, but, of course, your serving of requirements doesn't
necessarily cover all of what might be received, you see.
MR. SHELDON: Yes.
GENERAL LEWIS: I personally don't see anything particularly wrong with a.
MR. SHELDON: Well, I think the trouble is that Bill doesn't . . . we
15
Approved For Release 2001./03/07,_: CIA-IRDP91 T01 172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T0*f72R000400150004-9
haven't given him a definition of national. I think that is his trouble.
DR. REICHARDT: "National intelligence agencies". My conversation, the
way it was developed, I was getting back particularly to what we are down
in our Functions paragraph which get back to Bill's suggestion on IAC
agencies. If we understand by that that the IAC agencies will be the ones
that levy the requirements and make arrangements for screenings in the
other agencies such as thought necessary --
MR, KUHRTZ: Don't you think it has got to work out that way? The other
agencies can't very well be knowledgeable of a Watch Center when you have
got Special Intelligence involved there, etc., and that has got to be handled
through an IAC agency.
MR. SHELDON: What we are doing is mixing channels and ideas here.
COLONEL WALLACE: I believe somewhere in one of the NSCID papers, NSCID 1
or whichever it is, it provides for any agency other than an ?AC member to
bring intelligence to the attention, I believe, of CIA, and sometimes the
representatives of those other agencies will be called to sit with the IAC
when some matter in their pertinent field is being discussed.
MR. SHELDON: I think you are correct on that score. Well, the question
is shall we use the word "by all IAC agencies" or shall we leave it "by all
National intelligence agencies"? You don't feel inclined to buy "IAC
agencies"?
GENERAL LEWIS: That is generally correct, but I don't think it is
exclusively so.
MR. SHELDON: You think it is too limiting?
GENERAL LEWIS: When you are talking about receiving information. Now
when you get down to c. and say exactly what we are going to arrange
specifically for I think that is different.
MR. SHELDON: That is a different question.
MR. TRUEHEART: I have three alternatives any one of which would suit
me fine. One is to eliminate this section altogether, that is, from
the word "received" through "agencies". It couldn't be broader than that.
Secondly, I would be willing to buy just "all agencies" or "all Government
agencies". Finally I would be willing to buy "all IAC agencies". Now anything
Approved For Release 2001/03/07-: MA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Raase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91TO4472R000400150004-9
which has a meaning which is understood I will buy, in other words, on this
point because I don't think it makes too much difference, but I don't like
to put in here a new term, "National intelligence agencies" which, so far
as I know, has no definition. Finally I will even buy "National intelligence
agencies" if you will put a footnote down here and say what those agencies
MR. SHELDON: That couldn't be fairer.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, I think we are generally talking about U. S.
Government, aren't we?
MR. SHELDON: Well, Bill, I will buy any one of your four.
MR. TRUEHEART: I think I got about six before I got through.
MR. SHELDON: If we are looking for a big basket, then the suggestion
to eliminate "received by all intelligence agencies" is the biggest basket.
Now does anybody have any objection to a big basket here? It seems to me
the bigger our basket the less chance we have of missing an item from
the peripheral suppliers of information. I don't see. That can't hurt the
functioning of the Indications Center to have a big basket to dip into.
MR. TRUEHEART: It has the added advantage of sticking to one subject
in a. You are really getting into two different fields in there.
MR. SHELDON: In c. you are talking about the channels to which you dip
into that basket, so it would make perfectly good sense to me to make the
basket large in a., and then you indicate how by channelization through
IAC you tap those baskets. Do you see any objection to that?
DR. REICHARDT: I think that probably defines what we want.
GENERAL WILLEMS: If I may present another point of approach to this.
I am a little concerned at the Charter that we are writing for this Watch
Committee when we allow them to indicate that they should seek indications
from too broad a group of agencies because then you put a responsibility on
the Watch Committee which I don't think they should have. I don't think
they should be responsible for acquiring essential intelligence in this
field. I think that responsibility rests with the IAC.
- 17 -
Approved For Release 2001/0,3/07 : CIA RDPP1 T01 172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04-172RO014WAONW-9
MR, SHELDON: I agree with that, but I think all we are saying is,
"Look, this gives the chance of your representative or mine in the Indications
Center to say, 'Look, Home Team, there may be some good information outside
of the IAC. Please see what you can do to smoke that stuff out."' All that
hasn't put a responsibility, I don't think, on the Staff Member in the
Indications Center. It simply permits him to goose the Agency that he comes
from.
GENERAL WILLED: But it does charge him to a certain degree with
looking around and exploring into let's say the Department of Commyerce, and
the Treasury, the Secret Service, etc.
MR. SHELDON: I don't think it puts an obligation on him to explore
except to have an idea there might be something there. "Please look into
it for us and see if we really dredged out everything that is pertinent to
the problem."
GENERAL WILLEMS: We were sort of getting back the same way when we
were deciding the matter of reviewing National intelligence estimates. There
is an implied responsibility there.
MR. TRUEHEART: I see your point, General. I think we want to avoid
giving the Watch Committee the responsibility for dealing with all agencies
in the Government,, but don't you do that in c? Can't you cover your point
in c? We can't get it all into this paragraph.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Well, what I am leading up to is you avoid this by
tying back into the IAC here and leaving the responsibility for the acquiring
of all necessary intelligence with the intelligence agencies. Anything in
Commerce that relates to this field it shouldn't be the responsibility of
the Watch Committee to ferret it out. It ought to be the responsibility of
an agency of IAC.
MR. KUHRTZ: That is right.
MR. SHELDON: I agree with that, but I don't think you put an obligation
on a member of the Indications Staff simply by indicating that there is a
bigger basket. He then simply asks his Home Agency Chief to look into that
basket. It is simply a reminder to be sure that all aspects are covered.
- 18 -
Approved For Release 2001/0,310T: : CIA-RDP9.1 T01172ROO0400150004-9
 Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472-R00 MM0 094-9
GENERAL LEWIS: What did you mean by National Intelligence Agencies
then as a result of what you just said? Did you mean IAC?
GENERAL WILLEMS: I think in substance we did.
GENERAL LEWIS: I think in general you probably did.
GENERAL WILLEMS: It is a common term that we use. I an surprised that
there is a question on it. We use it quite commonly over there.
MR. TRUEHEART: What do you mean when you use it? Do you mean IAC
agencies?
GENERAL WILLEMS: We mean any U. S. intelligence agency, and all of those
intelligence agencies are members of IAC aren't they? If not we ought to get
them in.
MR. TRUEHEART: Well, the Bureau of Internal Revenue has an intelligence
unit has it not? There are several in the Treasury Department.
MR. SHELDON: FOA has some intelligence bodies on its staff now.
MR. TRUEHEART: Commerce has an intelligence unit; USIA has an intel-
ligence unit.
GENERAL WILLEMS: But they are a National intelligence.
MR. TRUEHEART: They are not IAC members.
GENERAL WILIER: They are not gathering intelligence are they?
MR. TRUEHEART: USIA is, for example, as you know, and there are quite
a few who are gathering intelligence of one kind or another. It is not neces-
sarily intelligence relating to the national security.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps we used the term
loosely. That is why I favor IAC frankly. I think there you get back into
the field that we are trying --
MR. TRUEHEART: The only trouble I see with IAC is the NSA angle. NSA
isn't a member of IAC, but maybe we don't intend that the Center should have
any direct take from NSA but only through the agencies.
GENERAL WAS: Well, doesn't NSA provide a service to us? They
shouldn't develop intelligence.
MR. TRUEHEART: As I say, it may be quite right that they are not in-
cluded here, but I would think it depended in part on whether. you expected
- 19 -
Approved For Release 2001/0 : c1A--RDP$.4T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91 T01 WR0004 M *.
them to furnish material directly to the Center -- Indications Center -- or
whether that you don't always come through the Agency.
GENERAL WILLEMS: You should always come through the agencies.
MR. TRUEHEART: I really think that is the kind of question we ought to
deal with in c. and not in a. because I think we are trying to deal with too
many things.
MR. SHELDON: I can conceive of another problem here which perhaps
wouldn't be covered. We talked earlier about seeing what we could do to
tie in world-wide assets to assist in the watch function. Now let us assume
for a moment that SAC has certain assets in Europe where it might be desirable
to.have a direct channel on an alert basis. You then might receive a message
from London or Germany. It wouldn't be covered by the definition "IAC" or
"National intelligence agencies" unless it passed through A-2 first, and that
might be time consuming. It might be desirable to have a direct method
of funneling an alert right into the Indications Center.
GENERAL LEWIS: Simultaneous distribution.
MR. SHELDON: Yes, so technically that would not be covered by anything
but a bigger basket. Hence in a. it would seem more appropriate to make a
bigger basket without I sincerely believe putting any onerous burden on the
future staff of the Indications Center. It doesn't seem to me that that is
an undue burden. Do you think, Millard?
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, the broadest possible . . . as I see it is to
change "National" to "U.S. Government" and I think you have got it.
COLONEL WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as if we stick to
the IAC wording that we have at the moment in a., we will then have the mem-
bers of the Indications Center screening this material, and very likely
from that at times they may develop or detect a need for intelligence from
some of the outside agencies. By that I mean outside of IOC. Their normal
day to day work would be the screening of material from their own parent
IAC units, and then if they did develop this need or note this need, then
they could go back.to the IAC and arrange for the securing of that additional
- 20 -
Approved For Release 2001/01/077-1 C]A-RDP9IT01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Re*ase 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T0M172R0004 0@6%-9
information from an outside agency which could be part of the function to
be expressed in paragraph c. here. It would seem to me with a slight reword-
ing perhaps of c. somewhere we could indicate that. The point I am trying
to make is I would hate to see the Indications Center be saddled with the
job of always looking for things in agencies other than IAC, and we don't
have a channel for doing that.
MR. SHELDON: Well, per contra supposing they were to receive a flash
from London emanating from a SAC source and they did nothing about it and
nothing happened. They still couldn't be charged with not having done their
job if you leave a. as it stands today because they would have received some-
thing outside of the IAC community. Now that is a little far fetched to be
sure*
COLONEL WALLACE: We would not be receiving that. I say we in the
Indications Center for a moment. The Indications Center would not be
receiving that except through an IAC member source ordinarily, would we?
MR. SHELDON: Well, that is the question I raise. I am not sure that
speed of handling it might not be advisable to have simultaneous receipts
of messages in Washington in which case --
COLONEL WALLACE: I believe the NSCID I mentioned sometime ago provides
that if any non-IAC agency receives any such information of the type you
indicate, then it is up to them to bring it to the attention of, I believe,
it is the IAC. I don't have that NSCID here before me now.
MR. TRUEHEART: I don't think it works quite that way, Colonel.
MR. SHELDON: I mean visualizing an alert situation developing in
Germany, and you have an outpost wherever it happens to be there, and you
have to get that back to Washington by the most rapid possible means. Now
if it has to pass through the CIA Message Center and what have you and then
be transmitted to the Indications Center, you have lost valuable minutes if
not hours, and you would in effect perhaps not be receiving that from an
"IAC source". I am looking --
CAPTAIN ELLER: This is exactly the problem that has puzzled me and
bothered me to the degree of attempting to end up with just what we would like
- 21 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/07,.,. G;I?A-RDP9f41T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T0 72ROOO 9i5 94-9
to have. For instance, incoming messages from various agencies throughout
the world addressed to the Watch Committee Indications Center would set up
I would judge, if it was a modest amount, certainly something as large as
the Navy has as far as the Communications Center goes, so that it would appear
that this Indications Center would with a Communications Center attached to
it, unless we are careful in determing just how we would word it, we would
end up with a very large organization. If that is the intent.
MR. SHELDON: No, that is not the intent.
CAPTAIN ELLER: I mean if that should be desirable. I feel we are
opening the door in our wording here, and if we continue along this line we
may arrive at that point. In paragraph C,2 we go back to the basic dis-
cussion that it would be material furnished by the IAC agencies which would
indicate that the intelligence agencies would do the bulk of the work and
bear the big personnel burden in their initial analysis, etc. I just raise
that point because it has bothered me in the wording in each one of these
paragraphs.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Might we leave a. as it is here somewhat with the
modifications that we have indicated and then have another paragraph that
develops, you might say, the off chance possibility of dealing with direct --
some direct -- message or some direct indication which has come to the
attention of the Watch Committee?
MR. SHELDON: As long as we leave that door open it seems to me it
doesn't make much difference how we handle it.
GENERAL WIILEMS: The intent of a* there is this intent to try to
indicate the necessity for screening all the indications that each agency
receives. I think if we do too much changing around we eliminate that. Now
whether we want to eliminate that or not that is something else. Assuming
that we do not.. I think we should leave a. somewhat as we have modified it.
GENERAL LEWIS: Now when you say modified, how do you consider it as
having been already modified?
MR. TRUEHEART: That is a good question.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Well, I believe if we approach it on that basis we are
somewhat hasseling over words. As we modified, I would say, accept U. S.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91TO1172ROO0400150004-9
22
 AHIC(w)-T-9
Approved For R49ase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472R000400150004-9
Government intelligence agencies, or the IAC, or anything of that nature.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, I will buy U. S. Government instead of National
or U. S., but I think IAC is a little too narrow there, and that is my only
worry. I don't care how we word it as long as we don't narrow this thing
down to simply what we get from a limited number. We want to open it up to
receive the information from all possible sources.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Would you agree to an attempt to put that in another
paragraph?
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, as long as we leave this open here. This to me,
the word "receive", just simply means that everything is received from
everywhere, and I think it is highly desirable to make it clear that we
expect to receive everything from everywhere. Now when you get into just
exactly who provides it and exactly how it is received, that is different.
We treat that below. Maybe we don't treat it well enough, but we treat it.
GENERAL WILLEMS: I don't think I have gotten my thought -- the
meaning of a. -- across.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, you have to me, and I agree in general with it,
and, as a matter of fact, I think that the word "received" belongs in there,
and I think that we ought to make that "all U. S. Government" but make it
broad.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Well, but you see we are going to have representatives
of the IAC agencies, and what we were trying to do here was to get a screening
of all the indications that each agency received. Now when we go to the agencies
outside IAC you introduce another thought here, another relationship, and that
is why I suggest that we give some consideration to putting that in another
paragraph.
GENERAL LEWIS: Well, I don't have any objection as long as you have it
in there somewhere.
DR. REICHARDT: I think agreeing with General Willems to sort of reverse
myself from earlier, we have to set up channels, and if we get into the field
where we receive things, I mean where the Indications Center or the Watch
Committee receives things, from all over, you are getting into too big not
Approved For Release 2001/03/07': UNA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T0"1'72R000400150004-9
only responsibility, but it is almost a control thing. The indications for
the Watch Committee are capable of legally controlling.
GENERAL LEWIS: What you are saying though is that a. talks about more
than receiving things from all possible sources, and generally it doesn't
talk about any more.
DR. REICHARDT: Well --
GENERAL LEWIS: Go ahead.
DR. REICHARDT: I mean to me. You can interpret it by adding General
Willems' "screen all pertinent intelligence information received by all IAC
agencies for considerations relating to the Watch Committee function". Now
that sets up your channels and your method of operation, and then if you
expand that "received by" to "that the various IAC agencies receive under
their various charters information from all commands". If you are worried
about a delay in Message Centers, let us say SAC, AFOIN, to the Indications
Center, then hit it from that angle of taking care of the possible delays
rather than have the Center receive it directly from SAC.
MR. SHELDON: It seems to me we are mixing oranges and lemons here
somewhat. Why isn't it quite obvious that those working in the Center
must screen everything they receive? I think that is quite obvious that
anything that comes in or they arrange to get they must screen, and that is
all we would be saying if we cut out the words where the stuff came from. You
then turn around in c. and put the burden of action through IAC channels on
the members of the staff. It seems to me that that is fundamental. We
don't have to say where the stuff is coming from.
COLONEL WALLACE: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. SHELDON: Certainly.
COLONEL WALLACE: Do we have any examples now or historical cases
where the various other than IAC agencies have been sending information that
came to their attention which they thought was of vital interest to the 25X1 C
national security? Do they automaticalbr now give it to CIA, for instance?
MR. SHELDON: Yes, we get information from all kinds of non-IAC sources.
CAPTAIN ELLER: For instance, in the
ou but it comes from one of the IAC
--proved For Release 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Re&ease 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP91T04472R0004001 0004-9
AHIC(W -T-9
COLONEL WALLACE: That would be covered here -- received by an LAC
agency. We don't care how the LAC agencies get it, and they are our bosses
and in turn would funnel it to the Indications Center.
MR. TRUEHEART: I dare say that the system whereby the IAC agencies
tap all the information that other agencies receive that that system may
leave something to be desired, but we can hardly expect the Watch Committee
to remedy the situation. I think it is a tremendous job to tap the 75
agencies in Washington, or if that is all there are, and CIA has got a large
organization in OCD, I think, trying to do it in part. We can't ask it. The
Watch Committee can't conceivably do any more in that field than the agencies
with their large staffs have been able to do.
MR. SHELDON: Yes, but in a. all we are saying is, "Look, you guys, we
have to screen that stuff that you get." Why do we have to say where it
comes from?
MR. TRUEHEART: I don't think we do.
MR. SHELDON: That is what I say. Why don't we eliminate where you get
it from? All we are telling them, "Look, screen this stuff." In b. we
tell them, "Look, get your evaluations out by coordination, but your own
work, and by request to your own Agency," and in c. we tell them, "Look,
arrange for this screening through your IAC channels." It seems to me in
a. we simply don't need to say where the stuff comes from or it makes any
difference. All we are telling these guys to do is to look. "Go ahead and
screen this stuff; get busy on it."
GENERAL WILLEMS: But in as we are not telling them or we didn't intend
to tell them to screen just the take -- the day's take -- that came in there.
It was our intention to try to tell them more than that, that they would
screen all of the pertinent intelligence received by all of the agencies.
You see, we are trying to push them out beyond the present sort of routine
acceptance of functions where what comes in to the Watch Secretariat is
screened. They look it over and work it over, but that is as far as they go.
Now we were trying in this . . . whether we were right or not, I don't know,
but this point is not quite clear. We were trying in this a. to push them
- 25 -
Approved For Release 2001/0/0? iIA-RDPg1T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T0+172R0091'S-9
out a little bit more and give them a wider field than that.
CAPTAIN ELLER: General, could we accomplish that by, as we just men-
tioned here,"continually screen all pertinent IAC intelligence information
for indications relating to the Watch Committee mission? This will be
pursued on an aggressive determined basis to insure that it is not carried
out in a perfunctory manner,"or some phrases along that line? In other
words, the concept or the difference in the two concepts is vast in my
opinion because when you say "received by all IAC agencies" you are talking
of thousands of pieces of paper daily.
MR. TRUEHEART: I wonder if there is a difference that doesn't go more
deep than this. Are you thinking perhaps, General Willems, of the individuals
who make up the Center and what they do while they are not at the Center, and
you are talking about what they do while they are in the Center?
GENERAL, WILLEMS: Well, there may be a little difference in concept
there.
MR. TRUEHEART: Because certainly while they are sitting in the offices
of the Center they can't be screening anything but what has been sent over
there or what they brought over there. On the other hand I think it is in-
conceivable that these individuals can screen all the information that comes
into their agencies.
GENERAL WILLEMS: We are not saying all information; we are saying all
indications.
MR. TRUEHEART: All pertinent information; that means it has been
screened before it gets there.
GENERAL WILLEMS: We expect each representative in each agency will
arrange for that, isn't that right?
MR. TRUEHEART: Yes.
GENERAL, WILLEMS: Suppose we do trim out all the other words than just
the screening and go on for the moment, and then come back to this and see
if we have adequately provided for that?
MR. SHELDON: That may not suit everybody around the table, I don't know.
All I am trying to do is to make the basket into which people can dip reasonably
-26-
Approved For Release 2001/03717 CIA-RDP9.1 T01 172R000400150004-9
 Approved For ReWase 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T0W2R000AW59D 9
large, and then you set up the channels whereby through the LAC mechanism
those baskets are sorted to produce the pertinent indicators. That is all
I am trying to do, and we are having trouble with words, I guess. Isn't
that your concept of how this thing should be tackled?
GENERAL LEWIS: Yes, except if you take that out I think it is a little
bit naked without saying where are you going to get this stuff. Maybe not.
MR. SHELDON: Well, does anybody object to "by all U. S. intelligence
agencies" which is an alternate suggestion?
COLONEL WALLACE: I think that one is too wide, sir.
MR. SHELDON: Well, if you leave the word "National" in and define it
correctly it is certainly as broad as "U.S." isn't it?
COLONEL WALLACE: I think we ought to stick to the IAC agency wording
which we were discussing sometime ago.
GENERAL LEWIS: I will buy IAC tentatively, and I don't entirely believe
in it, but eventually I think I will be able to show you why.
MR. SHELDON: I would agree with you, Millard, on that. I would prefer
to broaden it, but rather than hold up the parade here tentatively with a
reservation, I will go along with it.
MR. TRUEHEART: I will go along with it, but above all solutions I would
prefer leaving out everything from "received" through "agencies".
MR. SHELDON: Yes, I would agree with that too. Now I think we haven't
any questions left open in b. Am I correct?
GENERAL LEWIS: Where do we stand now on a?
MR. SHELDON: Tentatively it reads as follows: Continuously screen
all pertinent intelligence information received by all IAC agencies for
indications related to the Watch Committee mission. That is the tentative
statement. b. at the moment reads: Develop promptly an early evaluation
and analysis of all indications in coordination with the intelligence agency
or agencies best qualified to deal with the field of intelligence to which
an indication belongs. Are we temporarily satisfied with that?
MR. TRUEHEART: I think we could get around the grammatical problem
we have had here by changing the "all" to "each" in the second line and going
back to the "the" in the last line. Maybe that is polishing too much at
Approved For Release 2001/03 7,, RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For ftease 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T04172R00 YID&4-9
this point.
DR. REICHARDT: Yes.
MR. SHELDON: All right.
MR. TRUEHEART: Analysis of each indication.
MR. SHELDON: Now we get down to c. Now here we have a somewhat dif-
ferent problem. Here is your channeling problem, and it would seem to me
that IAC is perhaps the appropriate change to be made for National because
obviously you can't require the Indications Staff to deal outside the limits
of the IAC.
GENERAL LEWIS: We]], I am going to add two bits more worth here, and
I will buy IAC, but I can easily conceive of the fact that you might have
a special individual in this Watch Center designated to maintain contact
with everybody else, not only IAC, that you can possibly think of that might
be a source of indications intelligence, and so I think we are still a
little bit too narrow here to hold it to only IAC, and we said to arrange
for. We didn't say order it. We said arrange for it, you see, but in order
to get on, let's go ahead, but I still think that we have got an opportunity
to pick up some bits and pieces, and I think we ought to take advantage of
that opportunity somehow. I don't think you would necessarily do it through
one of the IAC members either. You might do it direct, but you would do
it either one way or the other whichever would be the most convenient.
MR. SHELDON: I can conceive of that occurring.
GENERAL LEWIS: It is a possibility, and you kind of hate to close the
door, but the IAC is generally correct. It may be as much as 95% or 98%
correct.
MR. SHELDON: If it became desirable to assign an individual on that
basis it would seem to me quite possible to make such amendments as might
be necessary in these papers to accommodate.
GENERAL LEWIS: I don't think you would ever make any amendments in them.
I think the thing to do . . . well, you might have trouble with them. I think
the thing to do is to leave these slight loop holes to be able to do whatever
is necessary to broaden . . . whatever is proper to broaden . . . it. It is
- 28 -
Approved For Release 2001/037`~C4!DP9'1T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For RQ4ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472R0094Q jQQD.4-9
just absolutely impossible for us to sit here and draw sharp lines in these
things without sharp lines and making them too limiting, and that is the
thing that worries me about a number of these things. I think we are all
generally talking about the same thing, but I would like to stay on the side
of permitting a little bit of flexibility so that this thing can develop
further when the time comes rather than to be limiting in the narrowest
possible sense. Let's leave it at IAC for the moment.
MR. TRUEHEART: My general comment I would like to say that I don't
want to limit these people's activities in the sense of preventing them from
getting every scrap of information they need, but I am quite concerned that
we can set up here another intelligence agency with all the paraphernalia
going with it if we make the right kind of statements in these Terms of
Reference.
GENERAL LEWIS: I just can't make myself worry about that in the least.
MR. SHELDON: I would agree with that, Millard. Besides we go on record
here in our own notes to that effect that your asterisk is purposely intended
to preclude any such procedure.
MR. TRUEHEART: How does it do that, Mr. Chairman? It says that it
doesn't interfere with what anybody else wants to do.
MR. SHELDON: The intent, for instance, if you will refer to the
Minutes of the 6th of October, to LAC, and General Cabell very specifically
went on record as in guidance to this Committee and the operations of the
Watch function to thee'fect that one thing we should be careful not to set
up is a further intelligence agency, and there is no desire on anybody's part
to do that.
MR. TRUEHEART: I am sure that isn't, but if that is the guidance we
have received, I think we should do what we can to follow up on it by making
sure that these Terms of Reference don't, in fact, create another intelligence
agency.
MR. SHELDON: I have one query on c. That is the last three words.
We could be absolutely specific if we said "as set forth in 2,a and b."
- 29 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/07.: CIA- 4fF91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For ReI se 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T014a2R000400150004-9
AHIC(W)-T-9
MR. TRUEHEART: Or we could go back to the phrase in a. related to
the Watch Committee mission.
MR. SHELDON: Yes, simply to tighten up. We are trying to make a
definition here, and we might as well stick to the hard earned definitions
in the paper. Is that agreeable to you?
GENERAL WILLEMS: Would you say it again?
MR. SHELDON: "Soviet/Communist intentions as set forth" or whatever
words you want to use in C,2,a and b above.
COLONEL WALLACE: That would be just C,2 then would it not, sir?
MR. SHELDON: Correct.
MR. KUHRTZ: While you are dealing with C,2, I thought we left it a
while back at a meeting that 2 include a phrase here which I don't see in the
revised copy you have distributed here, and that was "furnished by the IAC
Agencies relating to imminence of hostilities." I thought we somewhat --
MR. SHELDON: That is an error because that was an agreed phrase.
MR. KUHRTZ: I thought it was, and I don't see it.
MR. SHELDON: Frank, check that.
25X1 A I will check that, yes, sir.
MR. SHELDON: That was agreed to in the recent meeting. You are quite
correct. Are there any other comments on c? Everybody is satisfied with c?
Except Bill?
MR. TRUEHEART: Is everybody else satisfied?
MR. SHELDON: Let's have your thoughts on it. Come on; don't be bashful.
MR. TRUEHEART: I am not, as you know. I just thought maybe somebody
else would like to do a little talking here. I would be glad to hear any
other comments first.
MR. KUHRTZ: Well, I will have to see it work. I think it is entirely
too broad, and just a literal reading of it there, I can't conceive of it,
but I won't let that stand in the way of it by seeing it in writing there to
see how it will work.
MR. TRUEHEART: One thing that just puzzles me a little is if in b.
we have the Center asking the agencies for evaluations, and in c. we provide
- 30 -
Approved For Release 2001/01/p7
D P91T01172 R000400150004-9
 Approved For Rase 2001/03/07: CIA-RDP91T0 1'72R00AKY96 094-9
that everything we send over there goes with an evaluation, it implies that
it would be evaluated before it would be sent over. I think there is a fuzziness
in these two paragraphs as to Just what is going to happen here.
GENERAL WILLEMS: That is because you might get an indication reported
by the Air Force, let us say, which might be actually better evaluated by
a naval expert, and the thought there was that if the Navy could contribute
anything to it or would be the appropriate Agency, it was the responsibility
of the Working Group to get it to the Navy.
MR. TRUEREART: So it would only be in the case where the information
originated with an Agency which wasn't qualified to evaluate it that b.
would be operated.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Not necessarily qualified.
MR. TRUEAEART: Best qualified, I mean as to responsibility of the
Center here to insure the necessary . . . Do you expect all information
furnished will be evaluated before it is sent to you, which is one way of
reading c? I think that is probably not feasible, and if it is feasible,
not desirable because of the time lag involved.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Well, it depends upon what you mean by evaluation.
I mean if it is received by any intelligence agency it probably gets some
evaluation in just being transmitted. Let's say even the very hot reports
that we get in from the Air Force of planes that are not identified, etc.,
they always come in and there is some evaluation on them. By the time the
people in the Watch or Duty Officer gets it, we have the benefit of the
advice of someone from the Air Force.
COLONEL WALLACE: I believe it would be a mistake for the Indications
Center to be getting a great mass of unevaluated or raw intelligence because
they . . . On the other hand, in connection with this c. I can see receiving
a piece of evaluated intelligence, and as a result of discussion within the
Indications Center they might desire a clarification of a certain aspect of
it and go back either to the originator, that is, the agency who sent the
report or others if need be to get that clarification. I believe that was
- 31 -
Approved For Release 2001/0310.7 = CIA-RDP91?T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For Rase 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T01'72R000400150004-9
the intent probably in that c., wasn't it, General?
GENERAL WILLEMS: I don't think c. means to prevent an agency from
getting a flash over if it appeared that type of an indication.
DR. REICHARDT: I was just wondering if we could get some clarification
in here by say renumbering these. That is, you have a., and then under a.
number 1 which is presently c., and 2 which is presently b. with necessary
modification. In other words, would it be somewhat --
GENERAL LEWIS: Or put a. as 2, and then b. But they receive which
has not already been evaluated the follow-up. In other words, you start with
arranging for these people to do the maximum, and then a screening what they
do, but also screening anything else that they have received that they haven't
evaluated, and then following that develop the evaluation of anything that
hasn't already been evaluated.
DR. REICHARDT: I think that is probably the better arrangement of the
thing.
GENERAL LEWIS: And I can conceive of in connection with the present b.
here that there will be some simultaneous distribution, not very much, but
there will be some, and that there will be a requirement for b. There
will be some things coming in that would have to be evaluated by others or
would have to be evaluated because it is a simultaneous distribution. Maybe
they receive it from one service, as you said, and it is properly evaluated
by another, and they don't have the evaluation at the moment, so they have
to go after it.
MR. SHELDON: It does seem reasonably logical to start with c., doesn't
it? The first thing they have to do when they set up business is arrange
for the stuff to arrive, and the next thing to do is to treat with it and then
follow-ups and coordination, etc. I think that is a reasonable --
GENERAL WILLEMS: I think that is a good suggestion.
DR. REICHARDT: I think that may answer a lot of the problems.
MR. SHELDON: Let's read it in that context if that is agreeable with
GENERAL WIL:LEMS : Yes.
- 32 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/07..: CIA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For R. (ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91TO4-172R00
%4&W4-9
MR. TRUEHEART: c. becomes a.
DR. REICHARDT: c. becomes a., and a. becomes sub 1 and sub 2.
MR. TRUEHEART: Would there be any objection to changing that to say,
"arrange with the IAC agencies for a systematic screening" as opposed to
"arranging for a systematic screening by all"? It seems a little less
coercive if you put it that way.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Yes, I think that is quite proper.
MR. KUHRTZ: "arrange with", Bill?
MR. TRUEHEART: "arrange with the IAC agencies for a systematic screen-
ing It
MR. SHELDON: Don't you think you better leave the word "all" in there?
"Arrange with all . . . "
MR. TRUEHEART: For IAC agencies read whatever is the going term.
COLONEL WALLACE: What is that going to be now? . . . "arrange with
all . . ."?
MR. KUHRTZ: You don't need "all IAC agencies" there, do you, the way
you have transferred it? The "all" has to do with intelligence rather than
DR. REICHARDT: Right.
MR. SHELDON: It is "arrange with the IAC agencies -- ", isn't it?
MR. KUHRTZ: Yes.
MR. SHELDON: " -- for a systematic screening of all intelligence informa-
tion'.'? Do we need "by any means" in there? If we are going to arrange
for the screening of all intelligence information it doesn't seem to me that
we need to say any more.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Well, you were aiming there at insuring that an
Agency didn't have the privilege of setting apart and saying, "this is
something unusual that we are operating here, and we don't want to bring
this into the Center." And when I say that I am not only thinking of just
CIA with some of your operations.
MR. SHELDON: I withdraw the "by any means" if that is aimed at us, and
it makes no difference to me.
- 33 -
Approved For Release 2001/0Z/07 c1A-RDP9IT01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472R0064 9ft4-9
GENERAL WILLEMS: We find the problem within the Army. Every once in
awhile somebody is working on something that he thinks sets himself a little
bit apart, and we are trying to emphasize that for all concerned, and it
would be pointed at the Army intelligence as-much as anybody else.
MR. TRUEHEART: Just an interjection. You certainly didn't draw these
things up in haste. These are not the first words that came into your head.
I am beginning to see that.
GENERAL WILLEMS: A lot of good thinking has gone into this by people
who have been involved in this problem for some time.
COLONEL WALLACE: I was just thinking going back to one of the comments
General Willems made a moment ago about a flash or hot item. It occurs to
me that if there is such an item that is likely to lead to a special meeting
of the Watch Committee anyway rather than be something that the Indications
Center would get all stirred up about first. If in the mind of any one of the
IAC members it was of that importance, he would probably call for that Watch
Committee meeting on an emergency basis.
GENERAL WILLEMS:
COLONEL WALLACE:
Yes.
Did we agree that c. is now a.?
MR. SHELDON: We are looking at it in that context.
DR. REICHARDT:
In this thing if we have c. as a., what do we do with
the present 1 and 2?
GENERAL LEWIS:
Make them b. and c.
DR. REICHARDT:
b. and c.
GENERAL WILLEMS:
I think that would be better.
DR. REICHARDT:
I think I have forgotten who raised the point earlier,
but it was "promptly extracting, evaluating, analyzing and forwarding" is
perhaps too general, but not too general, but it covers too broad a field.
It should only be done when pertinent to the particular agencies. We are
losing something by leaving it as it is written is the way I feel.
CAPTAIN ELLER: He says, "'indications of Soviet/Communist intentions
as set forth in C,2 above." That limits it.
-34-
Approved For Release 2001/03/07'_: CIA=R.DP91 T01 172R000400150004-9
 Approved For R ease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T0'f" f72R0004W1 a -9
DR. REICHARDT: True, but you have there . . . you see "arrange with
the IAC agencies for systematic screening of all intelligence information
received by them by any means for the purpose of promptly extracting,
evaluating, analyzing and forwarding to the Indications Center all indications
of Soviet/Communist intentions."
MR. TRUEHEART: Are you thinking of the overlap that might involve
several agencies sending the same item?
DR. REICHARDT: No, I am not thinking of an overlap. I am just wonder-
ing if we . . . I mean by "extracting, evaluating, analyzing and forwarding
all indications" you have left no chance for an indication being held, you
see, but when you get to the evaluating and analyzing, is there not there a
chance for a member in one agency . . . ? I can well imagine where somewhere
in our office could well miss something that would evaluate as not an indica-
tion that might well be an indication to military.
MR. SHELDON: I see; in other words, you would propose that . . .
DR. REICHARDT: At the same time we need an evaluation, you see, and
I don't want to have that chance of missing anything.
MR. SHELDON: I think your point is well taken. There is that danger
that the across the board look, which is one of the things we are trying to
achieve here, wouldn't take place based on these words.
DR. REICHARDT: And yet I don't want to open it too broad because we
don't want to have every piece of paper coming in come into the Center, but
I just raise the point as something the Committee could consider while we
are looking at this.
MR. SHELDON: What you want to get in the idea there is evaluating where
it seems advisable, or otherwise forwarding if you really don't know, if you
are on the fence about the thing, and to have somebody else take a good look
at it.
DR. REICHARDT: That is right, and I mean maybe we can leave that implicit
in the understanding or something, but perhaps we can choose some wording to
cover that.
MR. SHELDON: I think that idea is valid.
- 35 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 ;_CIA-RDP9.1TO1172R000400150004-9
 Approved For RQyease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T04472R006Q'0btP4-9
DR. REICHARDT; Perhaps we could . . . well, we had the extracting
and forwarding, and when possible accompanied by an evaluation and analysis.
Would that serve the purpose, or would that be too limiting again the other
way? I mean would it be too time consuming? There are two thoughts in that.
There is another one which has occurred to me. Any evaluation and analysis
takes time, and it defeats the promptness.
GENERAL WILLEMS: Would you excuse me if I left? I have an appointment,
and I simply have to leave. Colonel Berry, if he could represent me here?
MR. TRUEHEART: Actually our time is about up anyway.
MR. SHELDON: I mean you are thinking along the lines of extracting
and evaluating where appropriate and forwarding?.
DR. REICHARDT: Something along that line to try to cover borderline
cases.
MR. SHELDON: I think that is better because if you have to go through
each of the four processes in each and every case you will get a time lag,
and in certain instances you will not get the across the board look which is
one of the objectives of the Indications Center.
DR. REICHARDT: If you don't do that, I mean present a. which is now b.
might as well not be said.
MR. TRUEHEART: I think that is a good thing.
MR. SHELDON: I think that is a good thought. You could simply say,
"evaluating where appropriate and forwarding," leaving out analyzing. How
does that hit the community?
COLONEL WALLACE: What words go in there now again, please?
MR. SHELDON: We are trying out for size "promptly extracting, evaluating
when appropriate, and forwarding."
DR. REICHARDT: We are losing "analysis" in this case, and I am not so
sure we need it.
MR. TRUEHEART: I think that is part of evaluation.
MR. SHELDON: Yes.
DR. REICHARDT: I think evaluation would be broad enough for what we
want here.
- 36 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 AAIC(w)-T-9
Approved For RJease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91 TOM 72R000400150004-9
MR. SHELDON: Does anybody object to that suggested change?
GENERAL LEWIS: Try it again.
MR. SHELDON: "promptly extracting, evaluating when appropriate, and
forwarding to the Indications Center." It simply gives the originating agency
the right to shove a piece of paper through when they are on the fence on it
or don't have the time to actually produce an evaluation.
GENERAL LEWIS: You might help that a little bit by after Indications
Center saying "all information which may contain indications of."
DR. REICHARDT: Yes.
MR. SHELDON: Yes, because if there is a gray area it may not be clearly
cut as an indication.
MR. TRUEHEART: How does that read?
GENERAL LEWIS: After Indications Center say "all information which may
contain indications of."
MR. SHELDON: I think that helps this.
MR. TRUEHEART: There is a problem of duplication here. Do we have to
worry about that?
GENERAL LEWIS: I think you have to worry that it might not occur
because I think it is inevitable, and I think unless you do have a little
bit you are not likely to get every last piece of information that you want.
In other words, there is no way you can cut a sharp line and absolutely cut
out the duplication.
MR. TRUEHEART: I realize that, but when you get a . . . say NSA sends
out an item -- a movement of troops. Do we look to G-2 to pass that to the
Watch Committee, or is every agency which will have received this bulletin
going to shoot it in? That is what I mean.
GENERAL LEWIS: I think it is a question of what kind of troops, and it
might be all kinds of troops. You might get it from three different directions,
you see.
MR. TRUEHEART: It is an Infantry Division moving in Germany.
GENERAL LEWIS: You may not know whether it is Infantry. You may not
know whether Air is connected with it; you may not know naval forces.
MR. TRUEHEART: This we do know. Everybody gets this bulletin. It
Approved For Release 2001/03107-- C --RDP91 T01172R000400150004-9
 AHIC(W)-T-9
Approved For RJease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91TO4472R000400150004-9
concerns the movement of an Infantry Division in Germany. Who sends it in
to the Watch Committee -- everybody or just the Army?
GENERAL LEWIS: No, I think what you would do would be to look to see
to be sure that the Army had received distribution of this particular item.
If they had received distribution of it you would assume that they would
report it, but it occurs sometimes the distribution may not have been made,
you see.
MR. TRUEHEART: Well --
GENERAL LEWIS: Then if you are not sure of the distribution you ought
to maybe report it to the Army and maybe to the Center at the same time, depend-
ing on how hot is is. Normally you would send it to the Army.
MR. SHELDON: In practice what I am pretty sure our people would do they
would call up G-2 and say, "Look, reference so and so, what action are you
taking on this, and we have a question on that," and you have a literal
day to day and hour to hour talk about these various things.
MR. TRUEHEART: I would think we didn't need to spell this out in this
paragraph, but read literally it means everybody will shoot everything in
even though you might know that the fellow down the street --
MR. SHELDON: In practice I don't think it will work that way. There
would be an informal coordination as to who was carrying the ball on that,
and then when it hit the Center, if it was a G-2 contribution, and the Air
man sitting there, or the Navy body sitting there, says, "Gentlemen, we
have something in the files here which may be on time pressure they have not
taken into consideration," so they would go back to their headquarters and
bring in another facet so that you would have a more rounded evaluation
finally on the piece, or per contra G-2 before they shot the item in might
send it into A-2 or ONI and get their particular viewpoint on the thing, and
then it would hit the Center in a rounded pre-evaluated form, but I can con-
ceive of either of two techniques being used.
COLONEL WALLACE: We even see that occurring in the Watch Committee
itself where one member will speak up and say, "I have something; this is
really an Army item, but are you going to mention it?" and the man will say,
- 38 -
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA gRDP91T01172R000400150004-9
 Approved For Reuse 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP91T0112R000 91 06499
"Yes" or "No", and then it will be dropped.
MR. SHELDON: I don't see much difficulty there, and you have to
provide, as Millard says, for everybody to be thinking about the item, but
usually only one person will carry the ball.
COLONEL BERRY: Don't you think, sir) it is much better to have the
possibility of overlap than to have the possibility of a gap?
f?ENERAL LEWIS: That is the point I was making in the first place.
It isn't that overlap that I worry about because I don't think there will
be much. It is the possibility of the gap, and it has happened. I have
actually had it happen where one activity receives a report and thinks
that the other one who should have primary interest has it, and they didn't
have it and hadn't received it yet.
COLONEL WALLACE: That was one of the lessons of the Pearl Harbor
investigation. They laid down some 25 principles which Congress required
be put in appropriate training manuals of the Services and haunted the schools,
and came up with one I remember, "Never assume anything. If in doubt send
it anyway just to be sure."
MR. SHELDON: Yes, our time seems to be up. Does that conclude the
discussion on the new a.? Is everybody happy about the new a. now?
DR. REICHARDT: I would say pending any thoughts that come to one
during the next week we might as well close it off.
MR. SHELDON: All right, fine. Thank you very much.
(There being no further business to come before the Committee,
the meeting adjourned at 12:35 P.M.)
- 39 -
Approved For Release 2004-M iO7" : C1A=R P91 TO 1172R000400150004-9