prohibition against the general use of the Army or Navy as a possee comitatus.

Executive Order 12936 provides a vehicle for the FBI to request the Attorney General to ask other intelligence gathering agencies for specific information regarding violations of criminal law. This authority could be used if the President or other political official protected by statute was assassinated.

In the event of a calamitous event, such as a Presidential assassination, the FBI would relay all pertinent information to all official U.S. Government agencies concerned with developments, including the White House, the U.S. Department of State, the Department of Justice, the National Military Command Center, and the U.S. Secret Service.

We are currently conducting a periodic review of a formal agreement between the FBI and Secret Service which defines areas of activity regarding the Secret Service's protective responsibilities and the investigative responsibilities of the FBI and establishes mutual communication and cooperation in ordinary and extraordinary situations.

Through established liaison at Headquarters, the FBI is in regular communication with many agencies of Government in Washington having normal business with us, including all of those mentioned above. Means are available to immediately contact any U.S. agency which might afford assistance or information.

Our field offices maintain regular contact with criminal justice agencies at Federal, State, and local levels within their territories and can promptly contact any who might assist in an investigation. Through legal attachés, FBI agents attached to the U.S. embassies in several foreign countries, liaison is maintained with many friendly foreign policy agencies to resolve mutual problems of international criminality. The cooperative assistance of those foreign police agencies could be solicited for specific investigation outside the jurisdiction of the United States, subject, of course, to any State Department concerns arising from the specific situation.

The specific situation which might arise would govern the degree of assistance and information which might be sought. Within the United States our jurisdiction appears ample. Within legal bounds, the FBI will not hesitate to solicit cooperation, assistance, or information from whatever source may be required.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to give you an overview of our jurisdiction to investigate political assassinations, of the way we would respond in the most serious of these situations, of the obstacles we might face in proceeding with an investigation, and of the extent of cooperation we might expect from other agencies in conducting such an investigation.

Obviously, there are many areas that I have not touched on, and I would be happy to answer whatever questions you may have about these or about specific issues that have come to mind concerning the materials I have just presented.

Thank you very much.

Chairman STOKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Webster, for the statement you have just given us.

I apologize for the difficulty we are having with our acoustic system here; we have asked someone to come up and check on it, though.

I would like at this time, without objection, to have placed into the record the FBI functional organization chart and have that made a part of the record at this point.

[The information follows:]

Chairman STOKES. The committee will operate under the 5minute rule.

I guess the first question I would have of you, Mr. Webster, is really a question as to whether or not we can really prevent political assassinations to save a President of the United States.

In my opening statement I made the comment that President Kennedy had made in Dallas, and I guess my first question to you is, What role can the FBI play in preventing political assassinations?

Mr. WEBSTER. The primary protective responsibility is, of course, as I am sure the chairman is aware, with the Secret Service. We do attempt and do in fact provide informational assistance to the Secret Service regarding any information that properly comes into our possession that suggests that a plan or a conspiracy is afoot to do injury to public officials and specifically the President.

We have guidelines in place which govern our ability to develop such information. As it comes to us properly, we make a point of getting that information immediately to the Secret Service, and that is probably the most effective means by which we can contribute to the Secret Service's protective and hence preventive responsibilities.

Chairman STOKES. Can you tell us whether the Attorney General's guidelines on domestic security investigations have had an adverse effect on the FBI's ability to prevent political assassinations?

Mr. WEBSTER. Of course, I have to begin and answer that question by saying any restriction to that extent impedes the free exercise of investigative activity. But these are often choices that are made in a free society.

I personally do not feel at the present time that the domestic security guidelines unreasonably impede or interfere with our ability to develop legitimate information. Whenever we have information that an organization or individual is planning an act of force or violence against the United States or instrumentalities of the United States or against civil rights, we have the basis for an investigation.

We do not put in place informants to tell us what every first amendment organization or other political group may be up to and hence we cannot be assured that we will learn of a plan in time to avert it. That is one of the choices, one of the assumed risks that we take in a free society, and I by no means suggest any alteration in that approach.

Chairman STOKES. I guess that sort of brings me to the next question.

Charter legislation is now pending, Mr. Webster, as you know, in both Houses of Congress to authorize and prevent abuses of domestic security investigations or the use of such investigative tools as informants and wiretapping.

I would appreciate having your comment on the best approach to follow in working out these problems; that is, should the Attorney General issue guidelines subject to congressional veto, should the Congress work out specific legislation subject to executive department input?

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, it's my view that all of the sensitive areas ought to be addressed in the legislation. By saying this I don't endorse the concept that every fine point ought to be a matter of statute. Investigative techniques vary from time to time, conditions change.

I have always asked for the degree of flexibility that guidelines provide. My approach would be for the legislation to provide for more specific guidelines to be promulgated by the Attorney General in specific sensitive areas with congressional oversight over those guidelines.

I think we can live very comfortably with that type of oversight and governance.

That is the approach that I have taken in submitting draft proposals for consideration by the Department and the Congress. Chairman STOKES. Under the present guidelines some domestic security surveillance will be possible. However, nothing like what happened to Dr. King is supposed to be possible again.

But, suppose a public figure in a group that was legitimately under investigation was assassinated, do you think the Bureau itself should be disqualified from conducting an investigation over his death in order to assure the appearance of objectivity, or should just the agents involved in the investigation be disqualified?

Mr. WEBSTER. I am trying to get a handle on how best to approach it because I don't want to assume the premise that any agent of the FBI will be conducting an investigation contrary to the rules and guidelines presently in effect and the instructions which I have given with respect to the conduct of investigations within the rule of law.

I have tried to avoid historical comparisons, but we don't have a special organization within the Bureau engaged in internal security matters anymore. All of these investigations are being conducted by our criminal investigative units, and at the present time all of the organizations subject to investigation and individuals within those organizations are terrorist related and could just as well have been conducted under a criminal standard.

So I don't see how it would be possible or feasible to interject another agency to protect the integrity of the investigation. It seems to me that congressional oversight into our investigations is the answer. The FBI is the premiere investigative agency in the country. We have specific authority in this area. Any information that we had collected with respect to a terrorist organization would logically be needed and useful in trying to solve an act of terrorism such as an assassination of a President.

Chairman STOKES. Thank you.

My time has expired.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer.
Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Webster.

It's good to have you here today, Judge Webster, and thank you for your cooperation in this assassination hearing.

I understand that the Secret Service and the State Department don't presently do any domestic security investigations. Therefore, it has to rely on you, the FBI, to furnish it with domestic security intelligence.

Is that the way it operates?