Secretary McNamara would be willing to have such a conference, and as he says in his letter, they have cooperated with our staff and with the individual Senators, I think a thousand percent. Would that be agreeable? I would like for the subcommittee members to give a

Senator SYMINGTON. I yield to Senator Saltonstall.

Senator STENNIS. I thought you had addressed the Chair.

ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY BY M'NAMARA DOES NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have read this letter. As I understand it, of the 14 individual reviewers, 11 are military officers. I have only seen the letter this morning and was not at the hearing yesterday, because the Navy came up before the full

committee.

I would like to ask the chairman if he believes that the reasons given in the last paragraph on the first page starting:

I do not, at this time, perceive the reasons which underlie the request, is it the position of the Chair that Secretary McNamara is correct in his position in this paragraph or is incorrect?

Senator STENNIS. May I see the paragraph? We sent the only copy of the letter to the mimeographing machine.

Yes. The first sentence in that was:

I do not, at this time, perceive the reasons which underlie the request to identify particular reviewers.

Well, I think Senator Thurmond has very clearly given the reasons this morning, that his only purpose in identifying the reviewers is to ask them these questions as he related. What were you carrying out? Were you attempting to carry out policy? Do you understand that policy? And what was the policy? And in judgment of that, whether it was capriciously done or reasonably done in following policy.

I think that if there is a conference, perhaps that is one of the things that could be made clearer to the Secretary.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, then, that you agree with the position of Senator Thurmond?

Senator STENNIS. In what way? About his purposes in callingSenator SYMINGTON. No. About whether or not the Secretary of Defense is correct in not wishing these witnesses to appear or incorrect in not wishing these witnesses to appear.

Senator STENNIS. Well, the status of it now is that Senator Thurmond asked a question and the witness declined to answer, saying in effect that he was acting under instructions of the Secretary of Defense, and at that point the Chair then said that in substance this brings up and raises the broad issue of privileged communications. The Chair certainly did not rule that just that alone that had been said expressly invoked the privilege but it brought up the entire question and I knew it was coming in many other ways, and that is where we stopped the proceedings by agreement until the Chair could rule and

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I have lost possession of the one copy now. But as I remember it, Secretary McNamara said he would prefer to take the responsibilities for these 11 officers and these 3 civilians for himself and not have them questioned in detail, and I would ask the Chair if he believes that Secretary McNamara is correct in that or if he is incorrect.

Senator STENNIS. No. I do not think that it can stop at just that point.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is what I was getting at.

Senator STENNIS. Excuse me. I did not know that that was the point involved. No. I do not think that an executive officer, even the head of a department, a member of the Cabinet, can stop a legislative inquiry by merely saying, well, I am responsible for everything that was done and therefore under executive privilege you cannot proceed further.

Now, I infer from the Secretary that he thinks as a matter of logic that that is enough, but it is not clear to me that he maintains that as a matter of law. I do not think that that is enough. This legislative group has power and is going to proceed to exhaust that power within legal principles, of course, and it will take a clear-cut invocation of the privilege which can be sustained before this subcommittee will be stopped, as I see it.

Senator Saltonstall?

CONFERENCE PROPOSAL SUPPORTED

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the committee will go forward with Mr. Sylvester this morning and consider this subject over the weekend. It is my understanding that the committee will have the power to summon all of these 14 reviewers whose names we have before us. We can put them under oath. We can ask them to answer all questions.

Now, this issue would have to be raised by a question addressed to one of these witnesses who would refuse to answer it on the ground of executive privilege. In other words, if I asked each one of these 14 people, did you censor Speech 20, did you censor Speech 44, he would have to answer that question unless he came under the executive privilege.

Now, if he did state that he came under executive privilege, then, certainly, we would want to hear arguments as to whether we believed that that was true or not. If the committee believed that it was not true and was not a ground for executive privilege, then the issue is squarely raised as to whether the witness is in contempt of the Congress.

I would hope that all those questions would not be discussed or ironed out in a public session certainly without first having the opportunity to discuss this question more fully with the Secretary of Defense. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we could go forward with the hearing this morning, and that you take whatever steps you believe wise to discuss this question with Secretary McNamara and the General Counsel of the Defense Department, Mr. Vance. We can then decide next week what steps we would take. However, it would

summoning all of these 14 people whose names we have before us, put them under oath, and ask them whether they censored a particular speech. The question would then be squarely raised, if they refused to answer, whether their refusal to answer would properly come within the province of executive privilege. I would want to hear arguments on this point because I think that is a very difficult question and extends the executive privilege far beyond my conception of it.

I would not want to pass on it at this time. I believe that if this question can be ironed out satisfactorily over the weekend by our distinguished chairman and the distinguished Secretary of Defense, who, I know, has a good lawyer in yourself, Mr. Vance. I think we will make progress.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Symington?

Senator SYMINGTON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator STENNIS. Senator Case?

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this issue came up because in the hearing yesterday Senator Thurmond, in questioning Mr. Lawrence, asked this question:

All right, now, Mr. Lawrence, speaking about the speech I referred to there, which was the speech of General Trudeau, and this speech was to be delivered before the House Science and Astronautics Committee, who within the Army Section of the Directorate for Security Review handled this proposed testimony? Mr. LAWRENCE. Sir, I will have to respectfully decline to answer that question. I have been instructed by the Secretary of Defense that all personnel of the Department of Defense are hereby instructed to refuse to answer any question in a manner which associates a particular reviewer with a particular speech or article.

Then Senator Thurmond said:

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, it is essential for this committee to have identified the individuals who participated in the review of particular speeches, if this committee is to perform its function.

I will skip a portion of the comments and continue with his concluding remarks. Senator Thurmond said:

The witness has not claimed the privilege of the fifth amendment, and, indeed, I cannot see how such a question could arise with reference to the Director of Security Review, and the witness has not invoked Executive privilege. Nor do I believe that Executive privilege would apply in this instance, were it to be invoked.

Therefore, I request that the chairman require the witness to answer the question.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Lawrence, do you understand and do you intend to raise the question of Executive privilege and invoke Executive privilege in declining to answer?

Mr. LAWRENCE. Sir, may I consult with my counsel, please?

Senator STENNIS. Certainly.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Senator Stennis, I am carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of Defense at this particular time.

Senator STENNIS. Well, the Chair is of the opinion that you are, in effect, invoking Executive privilege, or that the Secretary is, through you. That raises a very important question. The Chair thinks that in the course of these hearings similar questions of this kind will be asked of other witnesses. There is more testimony but I think that gives the basis of the inquiry.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, it is my personal opinion that the

ing executive privilege. By the letter, I would assume that the Secretary is reluctant to invoke the principle of executive privilege but, there is nothing ignoble about invoking it if the executive branch feels that it should do so. The question as to whether or not executive privilege applies in this instance does raise some very serious questions. I would share the hope, as expressed by Senator Saltonstall, that there might be a conference with the Secretary of Defense on this matter or that the matter might be further explored in executive session.

SUBCOMMITTEE SUBPENA POWER

However, I would remind the Chair and the members of the committee that when the Armed Services Committee had the Thurmond resolution before it, a proposal for its revision would have eliminated the power of subpena. While it may or may not have been necessary to have it expressly stated in the resolution, since the subcommittee would probably inherit the rights of the full committee for subpena, yet, on discussion, we seemed to think that it should be included. I remember particularly that I personally moved or at least suggested that we retain the subpena power. That was done by the action of the full committee.

I think it is implicit in the fact that we expressly retained the subpena powers for the subcommittee that it was anticipated that the committee would be equipped, and was intended to have, whatever powers it needed to request and to require witnesses to come. before the committee and to respond and answer such questions as might be asked, subject, of course, to any proper invoking of executive privilege.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Case, I think you made a fine statement. As I said in my opening statement, speaking not only for myself but for the subcommittee, we propose to make full and complete investigation and disclosure of the pertinent facts, and this is certainly a part of our processes.

I remember the Senator's motion about subpena power, that he did not want it left just by inference, but expressly.

Senator Thurmond, you have expressed yourself clearly. Do you have additional points?

Senator THURMOND. No.

Senator STENNIS. Senator Bartlett?

Senator BARTLETT. I would only say, Mr. Chairman, as much as I admire and respect Secretary McNamara's willingness to be responsible for all the acts of his subordinates, in this case, I am inclined to agree with Senator Thurmond and I do believe the best interests of the Department of Defense and the best interests of the Nation would be served if these reviewers were made available for questioning by the subcommittee, and I hope that there could be informal consultation with the Secretary that would enable this to be achieved.

CONFERENCE APPROVED

Senator STENNIS. Members of the subcommittee, are there any futher discussions on this matter?

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, I move, if a motion is in order,

Senator STENNIS. Thank you. The Chair understands that this matter is now on the point of the suggestion of the Chair that there be a conference, and I would like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Saltonstall, to be with us at that conference. This will not be a committee of the subcommittee, but in the conference we will sit representing the subcommittee, and I want the Senator to join

us.

CHAIRMAN WELCOMES VISISTING HIGH SCHOOL GROUP

We will now proceed with Mr. Sylvester. May I say, in passing, that we are delighted to have with us this morning the ninth-grade civics class of Western High School out at Bethesda, Md., who are accompaned by their teacher, Miss Finkelstein. It may be that they had to leave before we had a chance to recognize them, but I think this is a wonderful illustration of the interest on the part of our young people in serious affairs of their Government. They, or any others of their group, will certainly be welcome to come back.

All right, gentlemen. We will proceed.

SYLVESTER STATEMENT

Mr. Sylvester, you have a prepared statement, do you not?
Mr. SYLVESTER. I have, Mr. Chairman; yes.

Senator STENNIS. All right. You have already been sworn and we will proceed in the usual way.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to respond to your invitation to discuss the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense with respect to the review of public speeches.

Today, our country is again faced with a very real threat to its security. The grave challenge posed by the relentless Communist drive for world domination is reminiscent of the constant peril which our forefathers faced for decades. It was a time of constant danger but the men and women who built this country stood up to it and won. Today, once again we find ourselves subjected to unremitting pressure-both overt and covert-from within as well as from without. The challenge by the Sino-Soviet Communist bloc demands constant vigilance, unflagging determination, and, if necessary, the ultimate sacrifice. I believe so strongly, Mr. Chairman, in our form of government, our way of life, and the sanctity of the individual that I cannot conceive of anything but the eventual triumph of the ideals of our Nation and the free world. We have defeated aggressive totalitarian forces twice in this century. To be sure, the Sino-Soviet Communists regard themselves clever in the use of power and subversion of democratic governments, but it is their system, not ours, that carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The history of man's endeavor to be free attests to that. The ultimate revelation, it seems to me, in the affairs of man lies within the human heart and not within any state, any party, or any other totalitarian organization which claims to be the sole respository of truth.

The present struggle covers every phase of human activity. The Communists use the entire spectrum of their national resources to fur