CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 72
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 12, 2004
• Sequence Number: 51
• Publication Date: January 29, 1962
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP
United States
of America
Vol. 108
cong 4 ressional Record
P1tOCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 87th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
WASHINGTON, MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1962
Senate
The Senate met at 12 o'clock noon,
and was called to order by t e Vice
President.
The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown
Harris, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
Eternal God, our Father, as with our
hands filled with the perplexing tasks
of the present we turn to Thee for
strength, may our eyes not be oblivious
to the beauty that blooms by the side
of today's pathway-for the glory of the
way, as well as its obligations, is Thy gift.
And now as our earth spins in space
and another day is before us, so soon to
be behind us forever, we know that only
this once can we seize the day for which
now we crave Thy blessing and approval.
May we live it in the light of the
yesterdays into whose labors we have
entered, as the past warns us by its
errors, informs us by its achievements,
and inspires us by its sacrifices.
In our stewardship of today, and of
the days to be that may be granted, we
are thankful for the friends whose faith
calls out the hidden best that is in us,
for children who call us by the holiest
name men and women may ever know,
and for the challenge to our utmost, in
which we rejoice as strong men prepar-
ing to run a race.
Thus, before our little day ebbs out
and our work is done, with patience and
courage may we serve the present age
our calling to fulfill.
We ask, it in the Redeemer's name.
Amen.
THE JOURNAL _
On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, the reading of the
Journal of the proceedings of Thursday,
January 25, 1962, was dispensed with.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
messages in writing from the Presi-
dent of the United States submitting
nominations were communicated to the
Senate, by Mr. Miner, one of his
secretaries.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-EN-
ROLLED BILL SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (H.R. 157) to change the
name of the Playa del Rey Inlet and
Harbor, Venice, Calif., to the Marina del
Rey, Los Angeles, Calif., and it was
signed by the Vice President.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of executive business, to
consider the nominations on the Execu-
tive Calendar.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration
of executive business.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before
the Senate messages from the President
of the United States submitting sundry
nominations, which were referred to the
appropriate committees.
(For nominations this day received,
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF
COMMITTEES
The following favorable reports of
nominations were submitted:
By Mr. HILL, from the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare;
Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., of New York, to be
a member of the National Mediation Board.
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMIT-
TEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr.. RUSSELL. Mr. President, from
the Committee on Armed Services, I re-
port favorably the nominations of 1 gen-
oral, 4 lieutenant generals, and 1 major
general, for special assignment in the
Arnly; 1 general, and 4 lieutenant gen-
erals to be placed on the retired list of
the Army; 1 officer to be a temporary
brigadier general in the Army; 4 lieu-
tenant generals for special assignment
in the Air Force, and 1 general to be
placed on the retired list of the Air
Force; 120 officers in the rank of briga-
dier general and major general, for tem-
porary and permanent appointment in
the Air Force; the permanent promotion
in the Navy of 26 rear admirals, and per-
manent appointment in the Marine
Corps of 5 major generals and 8 brigadier
generals. I ask unanimous consent that
these names be placed on the Executive
Calendar.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The report
will be received, and the nominations
will be placed on the Executive Cal-
endar.
The nominations are as follows:
Maj. Gen. Robert John Fleming, Jr.,
U.S. Army, for appointment as Governor of
the Canal Zone;
Lt. Gen. Paul DeWitt Adams, U.S. Army,
to be assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility designated by the Presi-
dent;
Maj. Gen. Samuel Leslie Myers, U.S. Army,
Maj. Gen. John Phillips Daley, U.S. Army,
and Maj. Gen. William Wilson Quinn, U.S.
Army, to be assigned to positions of impor-
tance and responsibility designated by the
President, in the rank of lieutenant generals;
Augustus G. Elegram, for appointment as
a temporary brigadier general in the Army
of the United States, and for reappointment
as colonel in the Regular Army of the United
States, from the temporary disability re-
tired list;
Gen. Bruce Cooper Clark, Army of the
United States (major general, U.S. Army),
and sundry other officers, to be placed on
the retired list;
Charles B. Brooks, Jr., and sundry other
officers of the Regular Navy, for permanent
promotion to the grade of rear admiral;
Leroy J. Alexanderson, and Grant G. Cal-
houn, officers of the Naval Reserve, for per-
manent promotion to the grade of rear ad-
miral;
Alpha L. Bowser, and sundry other officers
of the Marine Corps, for permanent appoint-
ment to the grade of major general;
Thomas F. Riley, and sundry other officers
of the Marine Corps, for permanent appoint-
ment to the grade of brigadier general;
Approved For Release 2004103/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2,
 884
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Gen. Charles P. Cabell, (major general,
Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force, to be
placed on the retired list ip the grade of
general;
Maj. Gen. Bruce X. Holloway, Regular Air
Force, Maj. Gen. James Ferguson, Regular
Air Force, Maj. Gen. Harvey T. Alness, Reg-?
uiar. Air Force, and Maj. Gen. Thomas S.
Moorman, Jr., Regular Air Force, to be as-,
signed to positions of importance and re-,
sponsibility designated by the President, In
the rank of lieutenants general;
Maj. Gen. John S. Hardy (brigadier gen-
eral, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force, and
sundry other officers, for appointment in
the Regular Air Force; and
Brig. Gen. Don Coupland, Regular Air
Force, and sundry other officers, for tera?-
porary appointment in the U.S. Air Force.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I also
report favorably the nominations of 397
officers in the grade, of lieutenant colonel
and below, for prootion and appoint-
ment in the Army. All of these names
have already appeared in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD. In order to save the
expense of printing on the Executive
Calendar I ask unanimous consent that
be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Philippines.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
ENVOY
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of William A. Crawford, of the District
of Columbia, a Foreign Service officer of
class 1, to be Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to Rumania.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of Fred Korth, of Texas, to be Secretary
of the Navy.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
they be ordered to he on the Secretary's
desk for the information of any Senator.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The report
will be received, and, without objection,
the nominations will lie on the desk, as,
requested by the Senator from Georgia.
The nominations are as follows:
Therese A. Quinby for promotion in the
Regular Army of the United States;
Ronald P. Abreu, and sundry other officers,
for promotion in the Regular Army of the
United States;
Clifton F. Vincent, for reappointment as
a captain in the Regular Army of the United
States, from the temporary disability re-
tired list;
Robert C. Hamilton, and sundry other
persons; for appointment In the Regular
Army of the United States; and
John 4. Allen, and sundry other distin-
guished military students, for appointment
In the Regular Army of the United States.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, also
from the Committee on Armed. Services,
_I report' avorably the nominations of 27
major generals and 51 brigadier generals
for temporary appointment in the Army.
I ask that these naives be placed on the
Executive Calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations'are as follows:
Brig. Gen. Carl Darnell, and sundry other
officers for temporary appointment in the
Army of the United States.
The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be
no further reports of committees, the
nominations on the Executive Calendar
will be stated.
MEMBER, BOARD OF GOVERNORS,
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of George W. Mitchell, of Illinois, to be
a member of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System for a term
of 14 years from February 1, 1962. -
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of John A. McCone, of California, to be
Director of Central Intelligence.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
I ask that this nomination be placed at
January 29
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
MENT AGENCY
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of Williank C. Foster, of the District of
Columbia, to be Director of the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of Adrian S. Fisher, of the District of
Columbia, to be Deputy Director of the
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL REPRESENT-
ATIVE AND ADVISER ON AFRICAN,
ASIAN, AND LATIN AMERICAN AF-
FAIRS, AND AMBASSADOR AT
LARGE -
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of Cheater Bowles, of Connecticut, to be
the President's special representative and
adviser on African, Asian, and Latin
American affairs, and Ambassador at
Large.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
Without ob- j
U.S. AMBASSADORS
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE
The Chief, Clerk read the nomination
of Neil E. Harlan, of Massachusetts, to
be an Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
jection, the nomination is
Without ob-
confirmed.
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of Frederick' G. Dutton, of California, to
be an Assistant Secretary of State.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of George W. Ball, of the District of
Columbia, to be Under Secretary of
State.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of George C. McGhee, of Texas, to be
Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs. -
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nomination is confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE POPULA-
TION COMMISSION OF THE ECO-
NOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL OF
THE UNI'T'ED NATIONS
The Chief Clerk read the nomination
of Dr. Ansley J. Coale, of New Jersey, to
be the representative of the United
The Chief Clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations of ambassadors.
Mr. -MANSFIELD. Mr. President, -I
ask unanimous consent that these nom-
inations be considered en bloc.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the nominations of ambassadors
will be considered en bloc; and, without
objection, they are confirmed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that - the Presi-
dent be immediately notified of the ac-
tion taken by the Senate in confirming
these various nominations.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, the President will be notified
forthwith. -
TRANSACTION OF LEGISLATIVE
BUSINESS
By unanimous consent, as in legisla-
tive session, the following routine busi-
ness was transacted: -
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,
ETC.
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before
the Senate the following letters, which
were referred as indicated:
REPORT ON OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO PERMANENT
DUTY IN THE, EXECUTIVE ELEMENT OF THE
AIR FORCE AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT
A letter from the Secretary of the Air
Force, reporting, pursuant to law, that, as of
December 31, 1961, there was an aggregate of
2,280 officers assigned or detailed to perma-
nent duty in the -executive element of the
Air Force at the seat of government; to the
-Committee-on Armed Services.
REPORT OF BOARD OF VISITORS TO U.S. NAVAL
The Chief *FoVb .o e -QOOW $Sf:tom &R00g4OQ Secretary. to the Board
of William E. Sfelvenson, of Colors o, to Council of the United Nations. of Visitors, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis,
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
893
The radicals of the right fulfill none of No nation, emerging or established, how- negotiations with many different coun-
these criteria. They are at odds with the ever remote, seems to, be off limits to an tries."
purposes which are our strength and our American Embassy and to members- Mr. President, it is fair to wonder what
hope-freedom and democracy.
I do not plenty of them-of our diplomatic corps, delicate diplomatic negotiations the
propose that committees of Con-
gross caravan about the country conducting and the sun never sets on our military Peace Corps is charged with, and why
investigations into the activities of the missions. Let us call a halt to any claim should its negotiations be cloaked under
radical right. I believe we have had enough that the Peace Corps has authority to the top secret privilege?
investigations into the political beliefs of conduct "very delicate diplomatic nego- If any organization and its activi-
free American citizens. tiations with many different countries." ties should be completely open to pub-
I do propose, however, that all Americans i have confidence in our Armed Forces lie scrutiny, it is the Peace Corps.
who cherish liberty and democracy become and in our State Department. Their ac- In enacting legislation creating the
alert to the danger from the right and de- A;,.e?+:..,,.. --A _- .___ .... .. _.
fend in their communities the right of their
neighbors to speak their views, however un-
popular they may be. Free discussion is the
lamp that lights democracy. Its glow must
not be dimmed under a shrdud of fear.
THE PEACE CORPS
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
in the last session I supported the pro-
gram of the Peace Corps and went along
with its personable and really outstand-
ing Director, Sargent Shriver, supporting
the appropriation he sought. Now may
I confess my faith and confidence has
been somewhat shaken, although not
shattered.
As a Senator of the United States, Mr.
President, in referring in a questioning
and critical manner to the Peace Corps,
I fear that, like Moses on Mount Horeb,
I am treading on holy ground. In the
fifth chapter of Joshua it is written:
"And the captain of the Lord's host said
to Joshua, `Loose thy shoe from off thy
foot; for the place whereon thou stand-
-est is holy.'" Also in Exodus, chapter 3,
I believe, Moses as he was directed,
"came to the Mountain of God, even to
Horeb."
Well, Mr. President, my shoe is loosed
off my foot and I report to you sir, that
I take a dim view of officials of the
Peace Corps directing subordinates that
they may, when they see fit, classify re-
ports and memorandums "top secret,"
"secret," and "confidential," "not for
publication," and all that sort of thing,
ad nauseam.
In my judgment, Sargent Shriver,
Director of this outfit, should back up,
repudiate, and withdraw any directive of
this sort-immediately.
My constituents and I, as their public
servant, are entitled to know the facts
regarding the successes and failures of
this governmental agency concerning
which there has been so much favorable
propaganda.
Does anyone really claim that the
Peace Corps is a policymaking agency
of our Government? This noble experi-
ment may go the way of an so-
called noble experiment if its Director
enforces a protective screen against re-
porting regarding the work, or failure to
cret," and "confidential." However, Mr.
President, let us have no classified "top
secret," "secret," "confidential" and "not
for publication" emanations from pub-
licity men of our Peace Corps. In fact,
if the Peace Corps does the job we expect
of it, and for which our taxpayers are
paying, I know of no reason for their
need of publicity men.
Mr. President, in support of my views,
I ask unanimous consent to include at
this point in the RECORD, as a part of my
remarks, an editorial recently published
in the Daily News of Washington, D.C.,
a Scripps-Howard newspaper.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FOR WHOSE EYES ONLY? _
Peace Corps activities, it develops, can be
classified "top secret," "secret," "confiden-
tial," "not for publication" and all that sort
of thing.
What have we here-another policy-
making outfit of the Government operating
behind the old protective screen when it
chooses? We thought the Peace Corps was
going to be perfectly transparent as it went
about its deeds of openhanded goodness in
the underdeveloped countries.
But hardly so, according to a spokesman
as quoted by the United Press International.
It seems the secrecy order is necessary be-
cause Sargent Shriver's youths or the Corps
itself sometimes conduct "very delicate
diplomatic negotiations with many different
countries."
We thought that business was reserved for
the State Department and Representative
JOHN Moss' House Information Subcommit-
tee seems justified in asking how come. The
only "delicacy" we've heard so far is the
question of whether Peace Corpsmen should
be sent to Japan, or whether Japan wants
them. Admittedly it is a sort of delicate
question whether Japan is an underde-
veloped nation, what with its unprecedented
industrial boom-to the extent that we send
five Cabinet members there to learn how a
country can get so prosperous.
The Moss committee should take a stiff-
necked look at this use of the "top secret"
stamps.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
the Peace Corps is now nearly 1 year old.
It is, so to speak, on a shakedown cruise
in international waters. I am sure we
stated its purpose is to help promote
a better understanding of the American
people on the part of the peoples served
and a better understanding of other peo-
ples on the part of the American peo-
ple.
We had high hopes for the success of
the Peace Corps in helping do away with
misery, squalor, hunger, and disease in
underdeveloped areas of the. Western
Hemisphere and elsewhere, and inci-
dentally to prove to people the world
over we were not Yankee imperialists,
but that ours is a way of life to enable
people of all races, traditions, and cul-
tures to live together in peace, friendship,
and contentment and to restore to down-
trodden peoples their simple dignity as
creatures of God. This purpose is not
served by secrecy. Secrecy does not pro-
mote understanding. It limits it.
Nothing is to be gained by giving an-
other new bureaucracy the privilege of
secrecy, and I maintain that nothing
would be lost by denying it this privilege.
The Peace Corps should not even be op-
erating in any area remotely concerned
with secrecy.
It was represented to me that it sends
representatives to another country only
upon invitation. Though negotiations
obviously may be necessary, what could
possibly be so delicate about them that
they must be kept secret from the Amer-
ican public? Shades of the Central In-
telligence Agency.
Beyond its delicate negotiations,. Mr.
President, the Peace Corps-according
to the order granting it top-secret
status-has "a primary responsibility
for matters pertaining to national
defense."
The definition of national defense has
to be stretched beyond credibility to ac-
cept this line of reasoning.
What relationship does the Peace
Corps bear to our national defense? I
see none in sending groups of Americans
to underdeveloped nations to teach, or to
help build public works. By these
standards we could constitute the Cub
Scouts of America as a Government
agency and give them top secret status
on the grounds of national defense.
In the early flush of enth..n;..s.... o
ver
h id ism
th
C
~
v
e i eace
orp i4 was
cated individuals and "do-gooders" ' who voyage. Frankly, though, I 'believe the believed volunteers would live s, at the
are enrolled in the Peace Corps. Let the Peace Corps already has hit a reef. same level as citizens of the countries to
people know the truth. It was disturbing and disappointing which they are assigned. In view of
I seriously question the claim, if such to me to read recently that Peace Corps this, I was shocked to read in the De-
claim is advanced by officials of the officials apparently wish to hide under cember 25, 1961, issue of Newsweek mag-
Peace Corps, that the enrolled youths, the protective blanket of secrecy. azine the following quote from a young
young- men and women, or the Peace Peace Corps officials evidently have Peace Corps man serving in Ghana: "I've
Corps itself sometimes conduct "very received permission to classify docu- got a huge bungalow with three bed-
delicate diplomatic negotiations with ments and?reports as "top secret." The rooms, living room, dining room, family-
many different countries." grounds, as one Peace Corps spokesman size kitchen, huge bath facilities-the
We have a State Department and a put it, according to the Washington Post works."
Foreign Service and Ambassadors of the of January 23, 1962 are t t P~ o 1~ irs Division
United States everywhe - oflmr I #eaB81$QQ,4/63k iid $ ktMPq~i~ ~~~4~ r volunteers
 894
Approved For Release 2004/03/25': CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE January 29
overseas will be simple and unostenta- people be fully informed as to the total leader as'a request, as a suggestion from
tious, and in view of the fact that it compensation and fringe benefits paid one brother in arms to another. I hope
costs American taxpayers approximate- to each person overseas including pay- it will be given what I think is fair
ly $9,000 a year to maintain a Peace ments made by various governments in consideration, because it really is es-
Corps volunteer, this Corps man's status addition to the cost directly borne by our sential in order to protect all Members
comes as startling news. citizens. ~ when we go into a busy session with lots
The young man goes on to say: f` ___\ of very important decisions to be made
I have a cook-steward who fixes the meals, /AGREEMENT TO VOTE ON THE by unanimous consent.
washes, irons, and markets. Except for the Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
twenty-'tWo" 40-minute periods that I teach NOMINATION OF JOHN A. McCONE think the Senator's request is worth con-
each week, my time is my own. TO BE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL sideration. I shall be most happy to
Mr. President, when we consider the INTELLIGENCE. discuss it with the minority. leader. 11 hours of work our fellow Americans put Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if I The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
in at their daily tasks, and when we may have the attention of the Senate, objection to the request of the Senator
Senators consider-though we are not I should like to propound a unanimous- from Montana? The Chair hears none
complaining-the hours of work we put consent request. and it is so ordered.
in attempting to be good public sere- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
ants, it is a little startling to read about Senate will be in order. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
this young man, who said, "Except for Mr. MANSFIELD. I have discussed, FOR RECOGNITIOI~1 OF THE SEN-
the twenty-two 40-minute periods that with those who are interested in the ROM LOUISIANA
Is LOUISIANA
I teach each week, my time is my own." nomination, the proposal I intend to IOR
THE SENATOR FCONCLURI M OF MORN-
Mr. President, though I am sure this make. I am in receipt of a request from
an exception, this enrollee of the a Senator who is very much interested in ING BUSINESS, JANUARY 30, 1962
Peace Corps is enjoying a vacation in- the pending nomination. This colleague Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
stead of, participating in a noble ex- of ours states he would deeply appreciate . one of our colleagues, the distinguished
periment in international relations. postponement of the final vote on the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
In Ghana, it should also be pointed McCone nomination "until my return." ELLENDE$], makes a trip every year to
out, Peace Corps volunteers teachers re- It is my understanding that this Senator various parts of the world, and comes
ceive nearly $2,000 a year living ex- is due to return at 9 o'clock this coming back with voluminous and detailed re-
penses from the Ghanaian Government, Wednesday morning. In view of his ports. It has been my belief that for
presumably to permit them to live on request, and based on the fact and my all too many years we have not paid
a scale comparable to native teachers, understanding, I ask unanimous consent enough attention to the reports by our
few of whom-I am. sure have a combina- that the vote on the McCone nomination distinguished colleague. I should like,
tion cook-steward. How much does the be undertaken at 2 o'clock on Wednesday therefore, to ask unanimous consent at
-Philippine Republic pay to each Peace next. this time that at the conclusion of the
Corps man in addition to the salary The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there morning hour tomorrow the senior Sen-
and' expenses paid by American tax- objection to the request of the Senator ator from Louisiana be recognized to
payers? from Montana? make a report which I think will be
As stated earlier, Mr. President, the Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the worth the attention of all Members of
Peace Corps, only a, year old, is still on Senator yield? the Senate.
its shakedown cruise. In general, it has Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
been greeted with enthusiasm, and de- Mr. JAVITS. I,had an experience with objection to the request of the Senator
servedly so. It is capable of a splendid the consent matters, I wish to say to my from Montana?
contribution to international under- colleague, the other day, when I was sit- Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
standing. Let the people know the ting out in the lobby and a unanimous- Senator yield?
truth. Is this an outfit of teachers and consent request with respect to a matter Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
do-gooders who are serving their country which interested me was ? made and Mr. JAVITS. I have asked the Sen-
for $75 a month rendering a real and granted and that was the end of that. ator to yield so that I may understand
needful public service? Or, in various Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the request. There will be proceedings,
underdeveloped countries are Peace the Senator will yield, I think he is I say to my colleague, in connection
Corps men being paid additional sat- referring to me as the guilty party. I with the morning hour tomorrow.
aries? If so, this money, to tell the was guilty. I did promise to notify the Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
truth, also comes from our foreign as- Senator, but I forgot. Mr. JAVITS. Which might involve
sistance funds. My constituents have a Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I was not some debate.
right to answers to questions as to the quite finished. I never consider my Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
total cost of this program. What are friend, the Senator from Montana, as Mr. JAVITS. Do I correctly under-
the fringe benefits Peace Corps men ever guilty to me. I respected what he stand that that debate is to take place
receive? did. I know he forgot. I am sure of before the unanimous-consent request is
May I further suggest that if a nurri- that. I have no doubts about it. to take effect?
her of young men and women of the I wish to ask the Senator a question. Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. The unani-
Peace Corps are returned to this country Of course, I shall not insist with respect mous-consent agreement would take ef-
because of disability incurred In line of to this unanimous-consent request, be- feet at the conclusion of the morning
duty by disease or accident, American cause I have' given him no notice, but it hour or the morning business.
citizens are entitled to know the facts--? does seem to me we ought to have a prac- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
whether it is Contemplated disability tice in the Senate that every time there there objection? The Chair hears none
claims are likely to be paid and pension& is a unanimous-consent request of. this and it is so ordered.
awarded during the coming 50 years or character 'for a vote, which cuts off
more. What provision is contemplated debate, we should have a live quorum. I BILL OF RIGHTS CONTEST
for the care of former Peace Corps men think the very least we can do, in the
who may suffer disability as long as they interest of the minority alone, if one WINNERS
live following their service overseas of would say that, is togive everybody a live Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, every
1 or 2 years? I shall not be around to notice that a very important decision is year the South Chicago Chamber of
help foot the bill, but millions of our going to bereached by unanimous con- Commerce conducts an essay contest on
children and grandchildren will sweat sent. the subject ,of Americanism. Some of
and pay, and they deserve to receive and As it' is, Members at their peril leave these essays are extremely well done. I
should receive consideration., the floor for 30 seconds, and a very im- have been advised by Mr. Vincent L.
In each country where the Peace Corps portant decision which affects them may Knaus, chairman of the Americanism
has been invited and is functioning I then be taken. Committee of the South Chicago Cham-
ask that a complete report be made pub.- I shall not object, of course. I only ber of Commerce, that Mr. Richard
lit at frequenjk
-ipf P sdaP$rt l e a 5 co a F~d4? 4'bt 20 0 gan, a'sophomore at oAtin 4U0 'I
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 :. CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
tem while maintaining the secrecy required if Walter Lippmann, Harry Ransom,
for its successful operation? Secret opera- Charles Wilson, and Hanson Baldwin
tions must remain immune from some of the are right, Congress must be concerned
normal checks, especially publicity. Heavy since it, along dependence must be placed upon politically s with the President, has
responsible officials to exercise control. responsibility for determining foreign
In a prliamentary democracy, such as policy.
Great Britain, the problem is less acute. In any case, the head of the Central
The problem is less acute in Great Intelligence Agency will take on great
responsibilities and acquire great powers
Britain than it is under our system of a,. ,., ,. __ .-
concerned, he can exercise with little or
He continues: no supervision. Under the law, he can
Parliamentary government unifies execu- withhold titles, salaries, or numbers of
tive and legislative 'responsibility under personnel employed by the Agency. He
majority-party leadership. When Ministers can approve the entry into the United
are also Members of Parliament, response- States of certain aliens and of their fam-
bility for management of secret functions is
reinforced. flies, subject to concurrence of the Attor-
British intelligence services, too, are so ney General and the Commissioner of
organized that secret political operations Immigration and Naturalization. He
overseas are entirely separate from political will have authority to expend funds
and military intelligence functions. An without regard to the provision of law
agency for secret operations is supervised by and regulations relating to the expendi-
a
t
f
i
C
ure o
all
that
Government funds on vouchers principal intelligence adviser and the
are under firm political a tho ity.
certified by him alone. I'll h t h
t
t
This essay describes the situation in
British intelligence activities. The con-
trol of the actvity and the direction of
it is quite different from that which
exists in the United States today.
Charles Wilson, as Secretary of De-
fense, described this danger at a press
conference in 1957 with these words:
You see, what I get for my purpose is an
agreed-on intelligence estimate. I have to
take that, or I would have to bore through
an enormous amount of detail myself to try
to say that they were wrong or right. I ac-
cept what they say.
The statement or comment by Charles
Wilson indicates one of the fundamental
problems, namely, that original intelli-
gence estimates or decisions which are
made at a relatively low level begin to
_, . move through channels and to pick up
momentum as they move along until, at
the point of final decision, it is extremely
difficult to change the direction or to
bring a movement or an action to a
halt.
Hanson Baldwin, as military commen-
tator for the New York Times, wrote in
his column of January 15, 1956:
If war is too important to be left to the
generals, it should be clear that intelligence
is-too important to be left to the unsuper-
vised.
Walter Lippmann, looking at the same
problem from a slightly different point
of view, wrote soon after the recent
change of personnel in the State Depart-
ment that reform of the CIA should seem
easier and more necessary.
For-
He said-
the CIA should cease to be what it has been
much too much, an original source of Amer-
lean foreign policy. That is what has gotten
it into trouble, and that is what needs to
be cured.
Mr. Allen Dulles once said :
In intelligence you have to take some
I acknowledge the truth of this, but
also acknowledge and insist that faith
is no excuse for lack of knowledge or for
failure to seek out facts; nor should it be
accepted as a convenient device for shun-
ning responsibility.
yielded easily. But they are, I think
necessarily granted in this case.
A part of the CIA's work is the prepa-
ration of the national intelligence esti-
mates which are used as important
guides in the formulation of foreign and
defense policy. The CIA is an evaluator
as well as a collector of facts. This
agency should find and present the facts
as they are and interpret them with full
objectivity.
The Director of the CIA is Chairman of
the U.S. Intelligence Board. Other
members represent the Defense Depart-
ment; the intelligence components of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force; the National
Security Agency, the Atomic Energy
Commission, the FBI, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and the State Department.
The head of the CIA briefs the Na-
tional Security Council at each of its
meetings and is always asked to remain
for the ensuing discussion.
Customarily, at least, he is asked to
remain for the ensuing discussion.
Although the head of the CIA is not a
member of the NSC, he does remain and
participates in the discussions.
What is the statutory or legal basis for
the operation of Central Intelligence?
Quoting again from the Harry Ransom
article:
The CIA's functions are specified, broadly,
by Federal statutes, defining the Agency as
an instrument of the Presidency. The CIA's
operational guidelines are some two dozen
codified National Security Council intel-
ligence directives, approved by the President.
Actions such as the U-2 flights and the
Cuban expedition must be approved specifi
cally by the President. In the past he has -
January 29
chusetts Institute of Technology. Presi-
dent Kennedy recently reappointed Dr. Kil-
lian to the chairmanship of a reconstituted
board after a 2-year interval in which Gen.
John E. Hull, retired Army officer, presided.
Central Intelligence is subject today to
three major criticisms. They involve ques-
tions of control by responsible authority, the
efficiency of existing organizations, and the
problem of secrecy.
We attempt to determine how much
should be kept secret, how much in-
formation should be made available to
the public, and how much should be
made available to Congress itself. It is
true that the Central Intelligence Agency
officially operates under Presidential di-
rectives and is supervised in a general
way or checked upon by interdepart-
mental groups from the National Se-
curity Council. They participate in both
extraordinary secrecy inside the Govern-
ment and with a secret budget.
I think we must acknowledge that ours
is a government of laws and not of men,
in one sense, but we must acknowledge,
too, that this is a government of men
as well as of laws, and in the important
positions of policy determination, and in
originating ideas in the field of foreign
policy, there is certainly a flow of author-
ity from the President down and there
is also a flow from those appointed by
him or who are put in important posi-
tions of trust and decision upward
through the channels to the President
himself.
Quoting further from Mr. Ransom:
In a complex world of fast-moving events
and in a Washington intelligence commu-
nity where CIA professionals are increas-
ingly influential, too few sources of counter-
vailing power exist. This particularly is a
problem with covert operations in which the
Presidency is largely dependent upon the
CIA for information on what is being done
or what needs doing. The danger of self
serving by the Agency is great. CIA may,
without careful policy guidance, write its
own ticket.
That is true of all Government agen-
cies, and I see no reason to believe that
it would not also be true of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask the, Senator
policy directly contrary to the policy of
the State Department.
NCS subcommittee on clandestine operations, i Mr. MCCARTHY. There have been a
A second potential check has been the j number of reported cases in which the
President's eight-man Board of Consultants ! Central Intelligence Agency- activities
on Foreign Intelligence Activities. This was were reported to be counter to what the
established early in 1956, after a Hoover State Department' advocated. In other
Commission study expressed concern about cases the Agency carried on a policy
tbe.,possibility of the growth of license and ( without any direction or knowledge on
abuses of power where disclosures of costs,
organization, personnel, and functions are the part of the State Department.
precluded by law. ,,/ Mr. DOUGLAS. Does the Senator
The first chairman of this group, com- from Minnesota remember the speech
posed largely of distinguished industrialists which Colonel Nasser delivered at Alex-
and former armed services officers, was James andria, Egypt, in July 1956, I believe?
R. Killian, Jr., then president of the Massa- Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes; I do.
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
ori
y remains the Director of
These are unusual ig es au
powers, and powers' Central Intelligence, who is armed with
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 925
Missouri," by Henry C. Hart, University of
Wisconsin Press; "Toward Responsible Gov-
ernment," by Edward F. Renhaw, Idyia
Press, Chicago; publications of -Resources for
the Future, Inc., and the Conservation Foun-
dation;_proceedings of the western resources
conference, published by the University of
Colorado Press.
UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, this
year we celebrate the 44th anniversary
of the historic independence day of the
great Ukrainian people. It is a sad fact
of history that the liberty-loving people
of the Ukraine experienced freedom and
self-government for only 2 years, from
1918 to 1920. This brief period of inde-
pendence was the culmination of a strug-
gle for self-determination which began
in, the 17th century, and endured for
more than 3Q0 years. The people of this
nation struggled against great odds to
establish their homeland as a free, inde-
pendent state. Repeatedly their efforts
were blocked by their neighboring states.
When they finally succeeded, in 1918, it
was to be for a heart-breakingly short
period. Yet the people of this nation
continue to believe in and yearn for
freedom and independence.
Americans of Ukrainian descent, in
Wisconsin and elsewhere in our Nation,
look back through these 44 years to the
time when their country was independ-
ent All of us today know and admire
their marvelous cultural attainments,
their personal self-reliance and strength,
and their devotion to freedom and inde-
pendence. These are treasured Ameri-
can traits, as well. We are all the better
for having them added to our national
character.
'The great Ukrainian poet, Taras
Schevchenko, by his life and by his writ-
ings, reminds us all of the greatness and
the unfulfilled hopes of his people. On
this anniversary of Ukrainian independ-
ence, I salute his memory, and the mem-
ory of a nation, which though briefly in-
dependent, has left its mark on history.
EXECUTIVE' SESSION
The Senate resumed the consideration
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of the nomination of John
A. McCone, of California, to be Director
of Central Intelligence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs.
NEUBERGER in the chair). The question
is on agreeing to the motion of the Sen-
ator from Montana.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
question is, Will the Senate advise
consent to this nomination?
The
and
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
what is the pending nomination?
the PRESIDING OFFICER. The
domination of John A. McCone, of Cali-
fornia, to be Director of Central Intelli-
gence.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam-President,
in introducing this nomination to the
Armed Services Committee, the chair-
man of the committee, the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], said with refer-
ence to the Office of Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency:
This office is perhaps second only to the
Presidency in its importance.
Certainly it is.
This is one of the most important con-
firmations which the Senate is called
upon to make. In my opinion, it ranks
in importance ahead of most Cabinet
confirmations for several reasons: the
importance of the work of the CIA, the
relative freedom of action given the head
of the CIA and to his subordinates, and
the lack-a very serious lack-under ex-
isting practice, of any continuing -direc-
tion or of effective review of CIA activi-
ties by the Congress.
I have in the past supported and ad-
vocated establishment of a joint commit-
tee of the Congress to exercise continu-
ing supervision over the -activities of the
CIA, somewhat in the same manner that
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
operates. If such a committee existed,
the choice of the head of the CIA and
Senate confirmation would not be so
critical as it is.
There is no regular or normal pro-
cedure in existence or in use today by
which committees of the Congress are
consulted or informed of CIA activities.
During a discussion of a proposed Joint
Committee on Central Intelligence on
the floor of the Senate on April 9, 1956,
the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANS-
FIELD] asked:
Now many times does CIA request a meet-
ing with the particular subcommittees of
the Appropriations Committee and the
Armed Services Committee.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
SALTONSTALL], a member of both com-
mittees, replied:
At least twice a year that happens in the
m d Services Committee and at least once
A
these activities is attributable to three
major reasons.
From earliest times, an Intelligence appara-
tus has been an indispensable part of the
paraphernalia of a great world power. The
worldwide responsibilities of the United
States today require both a system for keep-
ing the complex details of world politics
under constant surveillance and an instru-
ment for secret foreign political action.
A second reason is that national policy
decisions are based, increasingly, upon pre-
dictions of foreign political, economic, and
military developments 5 to 10 years hence.
This fact is a consequence of the long lead-
time in developing weapons systems and of
the need to make economical use of finite
resources to implement long-range foreign
policy objectives.
Consequently, an intelligence system today
is asked an incredibly wide range of urgent
questions, answers to which can be obtained
sometimes only by devious methods. When
will Communist China test an atomic device?
What future has the economic integration of
Europe? How stable is the Government of
South Vietnam? What course will Sino-
Soviet relations take?
These are among the questions to
which Mr Ransom has pointed as ex-
amples of the kinds of things Central
Intelligence is expected to be concerned
about and on which it is expected to
makesome judgments and some recom-
mendations.
A third reason derives from modern mili-
tary-technological developments. Intelli-
gence, it often is said, has become the first
line of defense. Accurate and rapidly trans-
mitted information is an absolute require-
ment for an effective strategy of deterrence.
Strategic striking forces must have an ac-
curate dossier of potential enemy targets.
And essential elements of information al-
ways must be available to thwart an enemy's
possible surprise knockout blow.
He continues with these words:
Short of declared war, however, secret op-
erations are widely regarded as a dirty busi-
ness, unfitting America's open, demo-
cratic-and formerly Isolationist-society.
Events of recent years have, nonetheless, re-
vealed to the public at least the top of the
iceberg of a vast secret intelligence program.
Distasteful or not, secret operations have
become a major underground front of the
cold war. The accelerating pace of cold war-
fare in Laos, South Vietnam, Thailand, the
Congo, Latin America, and elsewhere in-
creases the pressure for greater American In-
volvement in the secret "black arts."
One's attitude toward these activities will
depend, finally, upon one's assessment of.
contemporary international politics and of
the requirements for the common defense.
President Kennedy recently declared that
the cold war has reached such a stage that
r
a year it happens in the Appropriations "no war ever posed a greater threat to our
Committee. I speak from my knowledge security." If they take that as a valid as-
during the last year or so. sessment, most Americans will assume, al-
h d -1 ith is i in s a wartime
m
v
Obviously there is no regular proce
dure, Certainly there is no indication o
any kind of current and continuou
supervision and consultation.
Intelligence activities raise speci
-problems and need special attention.
would like to quote significant passage=li
from an article by Harry Howe Ransom
g
g,
thong ou ess w
attitude toward secret operations.
Whatever one's view, the existence of a
secret bureaucracy poses special problems
in the American system of government.
Knowledge is power. Secret knowledge is
secret power. A secret apparatus, claiming
superior knowledge and operating outside
the normal checkreins of American democ-
racy is a source of invisible government.
in the New York Times magazine, May I suggest that this is a most significant
21, 1961: statement in the article by Harry Ran-
Central Intelligence today has three prin-
cipal functions: intelligence collection, its He continues:
analysis and communication to policy-
makers, and clandestine foreign political How then can the controls of a democratic
operations. The increasing necessity of system be imposed upon the intelligence sys-
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051J2
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 927
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that in
that speech Colonel Nasser said that a
high representative of the U.S. Govern-
ment had come to him and said that
the State Department was sending out
Mr. George E. Allen, who later became
Ambassador to Greece, to make a protest
to him about some of his actions in con-
nection with the Suez Canal, and that
this high official of the American Gov-
ernment then told him to pay no atten-
tion to Mr. Allen and to disregard what
he said? I do not believe I have the clip-
ping with me concerning the incident,
but I am certain that Nasser followed
out that advice, and at one time said
he was tempted to kick Mr. Allen down-
stairs.
In November 1956, when I was in
Cairo, I thought the man in question
was probably the former Ambassador to
Egypt, Mr. Byroade, who was transferred
from Egypt to the Union of South Africa.
But I found upon inquiry-and I believe
this information has since been con-
firmed-that it was not Mr. Byroade at
all but a regional representative of the
CIA who bears the name of a famous
American family.
Does the Senator from Minnesota
know anything about that incident?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am familiar with
the story. So far as I know, there has
been--and perhaps this is in keeping
with the operation of the Agency-no
tially the story that the Senator has re-
lated, which has been about for a long
time.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I checked very care-
fully with the Embassy in Cairo. Rep-
resentatives of the Embassy were united
in saying that it had not been Mr.
Byroade-but it had been the regional
representative of the CIA. Whether that
action was taken without the knowledge
of the Director of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, which I suppose may well
have been the case, is it not in all prob-
ability an illustration of the CIA and
the State Department moving exactly
at cross purposes in a very crucial
situation?
Mr. McCARTHY. It would certainly
be an example of what the Senator sug-
gested. Since the Senate has a particu-
lar responsibility in the determination
of the policies to be carried out by the
State Department, we need to be par-
ticularly concerned to be sure that Cen-
tral Intelligence is not carrying out a
contrary policy. I am sure the Presi-
dent and the State Department, too,
representing the executive branch of the
Government, also need to be concerned.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not true that in
that case the advice which was sup-
posedly given by the CIA made Colonel
Nasser much more intransigent than he
would otherwise have been which helped
to aggravate the crisis over Suez?
Mr. McCARTHY. That was certainly
the interpretation which was placed
upon the reported incident.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr, McCAARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is true, is it
not, that the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Secretary of believe we should, frankly, in public dis- , That is my only observation
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2.
State both report to the President of the
United States?
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes,
Mr. SYMINGTON. The distinguished
Senator from Minnesota would not wish
to saddle on any new incumbent to the
position of Director of the Central In-
telligence Agency any possible mistakes
of the past, as outlined by the Senator
from Illinois, would he?
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not think the
remarks of the Senator from Illinois
could be interpreted as putting any bur-
den of guilt upon the newly named head
of the Central Intelligence Agency, or
even on the former head of the Central
Intelligence Agency. -
Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
may I pursue my inquiry further?
Mr. McCARTHY. If I may finish, the
remarks of the Senator from Illinois
were addressed to the question of cer-
tain procedural relationships, and were
by way of illustration of a possible sit-
uation in which both the President and
the State Department, as well as Con-
gress, would have been called upon to
face an action which neither had really
approved.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. If President Ken-
nedy believes, as apparently both my dis-
tinguished friends from Minnesota and
my friend from Illinois believe, that some
things have not gone well In Central In-
telligence, there would be no criticism
of the President for attempting to im-
prove the management of the Central In-
telligence Agency through change in the
management, would there?
Mr. McCARTHY. No, on my part, I
am sure there would be no such criticism,
and I think in this case I could likewise
speak freely for the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DOUGLAS].
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. JACKSON. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. JACKSON. I wish to clarify one
point. There seemed to be some impli-
cation that there is a lack of constitu-
tional control over the head of the CIA.
Did I correctly understand the. Senator?
Did I understand correctly that the
Senator meant to say that?
Mr. McCARTHY. I have been trying
to say that for 2 weeks.
Mr. JACKSON. Wherein is there a
lack of constitutional control? It may
not be what it should be, but wherein
is there a lack of constitutional control?
Mr. McCARTHY. I raised four or flue
areas in which I thought serious ques-
tion could be raised as to whether there
was constitutional justification or treaty
justification or justification under any
action, taken by Congress or concurred
in by Congress. I made reference to
action in Iran against Mossadegh.
Mr. JACKSON. I do not wish to talk'
about individual instances. I do not
cuss some of these matters, whether
they are true or false.
The Senator referred to the British
system. I must say that under the
British system only the Prime Minister
knows. who is the head of intelligence.
They do not discuss these matters In the
House of Commons. Insofar as we dis-
cuss this subject I believe we ought to
follow the ancient rule of intelligence
that silence is golden.
When we criticize specific intelligence
operations in open session, we are our-
selves guilty of a lack of understanding
of the problem. Certainly these details.
should not be discussed on the floor of_
the Senate. Of course we can talk about
constitutional control. As I say, there
may be an opportunity to improve the
operations of Intelligence, but details
with respect to intelligence should not
be discussed on the floor of the Senate.
The head of Central Intelligence re-
ports to the President. Congress does
supervise the Agency. There is a ques-
tion whether Congress has done the
kind of job of exercising control at times
that it should have done in that connec-
tion. Perhaps this control can be
improved.
But the head of CIA is under the
President, and responsible to him, and
he does report to the National Security
Council. Therefore, I do not understand
the contention that there is no constitu-
tional control.
Also, there is congressional control.
Whether that control is what it should
be is another question. However, I do
wish to emphasize that we should be
careful when we discuss in public any
specific activities of CIA. Such discus-
sion may be unwittingly giving aid and
comfort to the enemy, in a sense.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. In the sense, I mean,
when we speak of specific examples of
intelligence activities. These are things
that can be used against us.
Mr. l3UUGLAS: Madam President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I merely called to
mind a speech which Colonel Nasser
made at Alexandria, and which was
blazoned to the world. There was no
secret about this. The statements in
that speech have never, so far as I know,
been denied in the slightest degree.
They tended to reflect badly upon the
diplomatic service. Upon investigation,
however, the evidence became clear that
it was not the diplomatic service which
was at fault, but the local, regional
representative of the CIA. Therefore, I
was not betraying any secrets with re-
spect to any matters which were not al-
ready known, 'but indicating where the
responsibility lay. ,
Mr. JACKSON. I have the utmost
confidence in the junior Senator from
Minnesota. I merely say that if we get
into any of these Illustrations, like the
situation in Egypt, we give authoritative
affirmation or denial by someone in Gov-
ernment, and that is later used in cer-
tain places against our Government.
 ,ApprcJ ed For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE January 29
There is plenty of room for a proper Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sen- was made as to whether there was any-
discussion of the organizational struc-? ator from Washington and the Senator thing more we' should be told, or any
ture of CIA. However, I believe we from Missouri for their observations and information which we might need, we
should, be careful about dealing with comments, and for the questions they always received it./ one member of
particular activities. have raised. For myself, I would say I the committee, I hdve felt that we should
This is my opinion. I have the utmost have not been particularly critical of give our very best possible advice and
respect and confidence in the Senators the Central Intelligence Agency for its judgment to the Central Intelligence
who have raised this issue. operation in the way of its intelligence Agency if we felt it was not being prop-
Mr. McCARTHY. I appreciate the gathering. I think that perhaps they rly administered or that the procedures
admonition. have been unjustly criticized by some ere not being properly carried out.
.Mr. JACKSON. I do not know of any- Members of Congress and perhaps in the This subject was argued several years
one who has been more conscientious public judgment that has been pro- ago, when Senator Barkley was a Mem-
and sincere in trying to bring about nounced upon them. I do believe, how- ber of the Senate and took a very active
proper control over the activities of the ever, there is involved here a funda- part in the discussion. I think that if
Central Intelligence Agency than the mental juridical question. _The Consti- the question comes up at the present
junior Senator from Minnesota. I know tution establishes the responsibility of time, as it has been raised by the dis-
that the Senator from Illinois likewise Congress with respect to the determina- tinguished junior Senator from Minne-
Is taking a keen interest not only in this tion of foreign policy, at least major sota, we can discuss the question of pro-
matter but in all matters affecting na- foreign policy, and with respect to that cedure again, and we should. Certain-
tional security. I wanted to make these determination there was a time that we ly, as a member of the Committee on
observations for our own good. I know in Congress could do this by ratifying Armed Services and as a member of the
that my comments will be taken in that treaties. We no longer can operate ef- Committee on Appropriations, I would
spirit. fectively by the treaty route. We still welcome the appearance of the Senator
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam Presi- have the responsibility with regard to from Minnesota before those commit-
dent, will the Senator yield? the declaration of war, but we no longer tees in executive session to give us the
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. declare war. We fight police actions detailed suggestions that he might have.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I agree with the and we carry on what are called cold As the Senator from Washington [Mr.
main precept of the distinguished Sena- wars. JACKSON] and the Senator from Mis-
-tor from Washington. I am a member Does this mean that because of a souri [Mr. SYMINGTON] havesaid today,
of two of the three committees to which changed mode of political conflict Con- the question, as I see it, is whether the
the Central Intelligence -Agency reports gress has lost any responsibility under gentleman who has been named for this
in the Senate, and have heard some!- the Constitution? Is that the situation, position is qualified to hold it. That is
thing of this story with different inter- Madam President, or does it, rather, re- the primary question before the Senate
pretations. I do not know which is true. quire that we give some thought to pro- today. When a new man takes office,
I do submit for the Senator's consid- cedures? After all, we have a repre- we can then consider the question of
eration the fact that whether or not it sentative democracy, and in major improving the management of the
is true the Central Intelligence Agency, decisions, whether domestic or interna- agency. I think the record will show that
because of its character and type as in- tional, some concurrence and some par- we discussed that question when the
dicated by the Senator from Washing- ticipation on the part of Congress has Senator from Minnesota was before the
ton, will not have a chance to give its clearly been involved from the very Committee on Armed Services.
side of the story from the standpoint of beginning. Certainly we ought to make every ef-
what happened in 1953, I believe it It was in connection with these points fort possible to improve the -Central In-
was that I cited the practice in the British telligence Agency in these very difficult
Mr. DOUGLAS. Nineteen hundred parliamentary system. I do not mean times. However, I think the primary
and fifty-six. to say that every Member of Parliament objective today is to determine whether
Mr. SYMINGTON. I was in Cairo the was consulted. In the British system the man who has been nominated is
atter part of October or first part of the Members of Parliament picked a qualified, and to decide the question af-
November of this year. I thought that cabinet on'intelligence. firmatively or negatively. Then we can
the Agency's operation, from what I . It may be said that this involves a take up the question of procedure and
heard, was satisfactory at that time. In very complex procedure. However, I do determine whether the agency is ful-
any case, Mr. Dulles, the former head not believe -it is so complex that we could filling its duties. These questions can
of CIA-and this is true of any other not work out some procedures through be considered by the committee in-exec-
so that the intelligence can
utive session
,
member of CIA-will not have a chance which we could be satisfied that Con-
affirm or deny whether statements gress had been consulted, or at least and will be kept on a level which will not
made this afternoon on the floor -of the men picked by Congress had been con- result in the giving away of information,
h them Congress had either through procedural discussions or
d th
u
r
t
t
it
d,
t
ro
g
cor
ec
an
or no
. su
e
Senate are correc
Mr. JACKSON. Madam President, participated in some degree in these in other discussions.
will the Senator yield? basic decisions. Even if we picked only I appreciate what the Senator from
Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield. men who had presented themselves for Minnesota is seeking to do and wishes
Mr. JACKSON. The Senator from the Presidency, we could make up a full to do. As one Senator from the other
Missouri has raised a pertinent point. committee out of the Senate alone. The side of the aisle, I certainly would be
In order to have an authoritative denial same kind of committee probably could very glad to be helpful i_i trying to solve
or statement from the Agency, the be made up even of vice presidential this problem, because I have heard the
Agency would have to enter public dis- candidates. We would have more on subject discussed for the last 6 or 8
cussion, which would itself be an ira- the committee than we needed, if we years, :.` least, if not more.
proper operation of the Agency. That limited the committee to the usual Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sen-
is my point. choice of those who felt that they them- ator from Massachusetts. The question
The Senator very properly raises some selves could be entrusted with these im- of whether the nomination should be
,questions which are obviously of proper portant decisions. approved by the Senate depends, in my
concern of Congress. His interest in Mr. SALTONSTALL. Madam Presi- judgment at least, to a large extent on
making sure that ' there is appropriate dent, will the Senator from Minnesota the nature of the role the nominee will
constitutional control, and more effec- yield? fill. It depends on the nature of the
tive and adequate control, and reporting Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. authority he will exercise over the activ-
by the appropriate committees of Con- Mr. SALTONSTALL. As one who has ities of the agency. For this reason, I
gress, Is 'a very worthy subject for Con- -been a-member of two of the committees think it is not exposure, exactly, because
well
it
d
e
ures are qu
-gress to consider, and I commend him which have had to do with the Central most of the proce
b r what he has done in this connection, Intelligence Agency for the last half known; but at least a review of the way
not only for what he has done today dozen years, at least, I have felt that no in which the Central Intelligence Agency
but what he has been doing for severa Information that we asked for was con- is directed or is not -directed. It is a
years now. sealed from us.' Whenever a suggestion , question of whether or not there is a
Approved For Rheas 004/03/25: CIA-RDP64BOO346R000400040051-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
kind of failure under the Constitution-
as I think there is-in that Congress is
not fully enough involved in preliminary
decisions of major consequence, such as
going into Iran or Cuba, or some of the
other areas in which the CIA is sup-
posed to have been very active. These
facts, ,these questions, have a bearing
upon whether or not the nomination
should be confirmed. If the Director's
role is very limited and is carefully su-
pervised, then we should not impose the
same standards of judgment upon him.
However, if he is to be given a great deal
of supervisory authority, then I think
the qualifications of character, and such
things as that, takes on additional im-
portance. It is for that reason I had
hoped to establish a kind of general pat-
tern upon which the membership of the
Senate might make a solid judgment
with regard to the nominee.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Would not the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota
agree that the amount of authority and
responsibility which the Director of the
Central` Intelligence Agency ought to
have, and would have, would be the de-
cision of the President of the United
States?
Mr. McCARTHY. It would depend in
large measure upon the President of the
United States; yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator has
mentioned character. Would he not
agree that the question of character,
as well as the question of ability, would
both be one, which the President of the
United States would want to consider
very thoroughly before he submitted a
nomination of this importance to the
Senate for approval.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am sure that is
so; and'I am certain the President has
made 1a careful examination, according
to his lights, of the qualifications of the
nominee. At the same time, there is a
clear obligation imposed on the Senate
to pass an independent judgment. The
Constitution provides, that this shall be
done. So I do not think we can feel
that we are In any way offending the
President or the office of the Presidency
in. taking a thorough, careful look at
any nomination which the President
sends to the Senate for confirmation.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Is it not true that
nominations of Mr. McCone have been
before this body twice in the past, once
under a Republican President, and once
under a Democratic President; that the
--nominee was examined carefully with
respect to his holdings, his character,
and his ability; and that both times his
nomination was confirmed unanimously
by the Senate for public office?
. Mr. McCARTHY. So far as I know,
that is true.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. McCARTHY. But we are now be-
ing asked to confirm his nomination to
careful examination of the nominee
than we would if he were being ap-
pointed to some other position. We
might have a man who is a fine drum-
mer, but that would not qualify him to
play first violin. I think there is a little
of this kind of sensitivity or complexity
involved in the performance of the di-
rectorship of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
The question of supervision and direc-
tion, and of the effectiveness of them,
on the part of the executive branch of
the Government has been raised by a
number of special committees and a
number of special inquiries.,
Harry Ransom, in the article to which
I referred earlier, said:
In its 6 years of existence, the President's
Board. of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence
Activities, recently renamed the Foreign In-
telligence Advisory Board, has functioned
more as a polite alumni visiting committee
than as a vigorous watchdog. With one
professional staff assistant and a single sec-
retary, the board has been able only
sporadically to oversee the 15,000-man CIA.
Congressional surveillance has been much
the same.
Theoretically, the President-with oc-
casional help from consultants-controls
this powerful, huge, and expensive Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency. But the Presi-
dent is the nominal head of hundreds of
agencies; he cannot be kept fully in-
formed at all times of the activities of
the CIA. Consequently, very- great
powers are vested in the Director of Cen-
tral Intelligence. How these powers have
been used and how they are likely to be
used are most important questions. Has
the CIA in the past carried out actions
modern world, war is seldom declared,
without without the e authority constitutional yal of statute tor r of
justification, instead, there are defensive actions and resolution or of treaty commitments? police actions. Nevertheless, the Con-
Whether these activities or operations stitution still provides, in my opinion,
turned out well or badly, whether in the that the Congress has a definite respon.
long run or in the short run they ad- sibility in connection with such actions
vanced or improved the position of the or actions to continue or to overthrow
United States is secondary to the basic the governments of other nations.
question of legality or constitutionality Congress has acted to give the Presi-
of procedure. dent authorjty'through the United Na-
.Mos- ? --treaty. The Congress approved the Mid-
credited mhhaving helped oust in dle East resolution in anticipation of the
Bede?;h from the premiership of Iran in ---
1953. History has not yet demonstrated Lebanon action.
that that was the wisest policy, and I believe there is a constitutional need
probably never will for consultation with Congress by the
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam Presi- President or by his agents and, beyond
dent, will the Senator from Minnesota that, for some expression of concurrence
yield? or some manifestation of concurrence
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. by Congress or by men chosen by the
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the able Congress to speak for it, somewhat more
clearly and more positively than is pro-
Senator from.Minnesota. vided for under existing law or under
As chairman of the Subcommittee on existing practice. A joint committee may
the Middle East and Southeast Asia, I not be the best means. Perhaps some
spent considerable time in Iran last fa11. other'device could be developed. Per-
I agree with the Senator from Washing- haps we could fix greater responsibility
ton [Mr. JACKSON]-and believe this was on the Armed Services Committee, and
mentioned when the Senator from Min- could say to it, You are to speak for us
nesota was before the committee-- and to represent us, and-we expect that
namely, that it would have been a mis- you will be consulted and that there will
another office, one which the chairman take if Mossadegh had continued in that be conferences and consultations with
of the Committee on Armed. Services has position. you." Or we could say that this shall
described as second in inmportance to I have been following the reports, in- be taken care of by the Foreign Relations
the presidency. If that is the case- eluding classified reports with respect Committee and the Foreign Affairs Com-
and I think it is very close to being the to Iran; and developments there with mittee, which have been chosen by Con-
case-again we need A~h eel IWRg to t20 / ~r11 ,~ O( 4 ii such respon-
. 929
cannot see how this discussion can be of
service to the United States.
I also mentioned, when the Senator
was before the committee, that I doubted
the CIA took credit for the overthrow of
Dr. Arbenz as President of Guatemala,
because our Ambassador to Guatemala at
that time told me personally he felt he
had had the most to do with it.
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not question
really whether the CIA did it or whether
the ambassador did it. The question of
the justification for the action in terms
of some juridical basis remains open to
question, in either case. I am not say-
ing that the CIA in either of these cases
was operating independently or without
approval by the State Department. But
this basic question would run to it, re-
gardless of whether the action was car-
ried out or participated in by the CIA
or without its participation. The funda-
mental juridical question of control
would exist even though the Central
Intelligence Agency was not involved in
those activities, in which there was some
involvement on the part of our Govern-
ment itself.
Similar questions have been raised
with regard to Vietnam, and also of
course more recently in regard to our,
support of the invasion of Cuba, last
year. The basic question of the justifi-
cation remains-regardless of whether
failure-in regard to some of these oper-
ations and some of these activities.
Madam President, I think the Con-
stitution quite clearly provides that Con-
gress shall have a part in declaring war.
However, as I have already said, in the
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
'930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE January 29
sibility for them, and could give formal GRUENING] if I may, that the CIA was set have the wisdom to create an oversight
approval to their participation and con- upIas a follow-on of the OSS, which con- committee, by which the Foreign Rela--
currence, But that has not been done. ducted our intelligence activities during. tions and Armed. Services Committees
Mr. GRUENING. Madam President, the war. may monitor and control this now com-
will the Senator from Minnesota yield? As the Senator from Washington [Mr. pletely uncontrolled agency which is now
`Mr, McCARTHY. I yield. JACKSON] has stated, the CIA is a civilian responsible to no committee of Congress
Mr. GRUENING. Has it occurred to agency which collaborates and cooper- and is unique in that respect, wielding a
the Senator that possibly the nomination ates with the three military services, responsibility and power which Is abso-
should be referred to the Foreign Rela- and-in addition to what.. the Senator lutely unrivaled in 'our democracy, a
tions Committee? As Mr. McCone has from Washington has said-with the power which is vested in a man who as
testified, his task as he sees it is merely State Department, in working out the in- head of CIA, according to the chairman
to receive reports from all over the telligence information from various of the Armed Services -Committee, the
world and to evaluate them. In that countries and giving it to the Chief Ex- distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr.
case-if he is prophesying correctly-- ecutiveof our country-the President of RUSSELLI, is second only in importance
then his task ceases to be a cloak-and- the United States. to the President in the power he wields.
dagger operation as it has in part been, I was present and helped to draft the To allow such power to go unrestricted
and becomes merely a source of informa- present CIA Act; and that was done, as and without any reference to the com-
tion and -guide Ito our foreign policy- I have said, to set up this agency to mittees of Congress which have supervi-
makers. Therefore, would not it be collaborate with the inteligence agencies, sion over foreign relations, when, in
more appropriate for the Foreign Rela- particularly of the military, in time of effect, CIA will be reporting on foreign
tions Committee, rather than the Armed peace, because we felt that at that time affairs in many countries all over the
Services Committee, to pass on this the OSS-which I think was never world, both inside and outside the Iron
nomination? established by law, but was established Curtain, seems to me to be wrong.
Mr. McCARTHY. I think one could by Executive order-had ceased to func- I hope, before we conclude, some action
make a strong case for that. tion, because the fighting part of the war will be taken by Congress so that it may
The activities of the Central Intelli.- was over. I think I am correct in that have some supervision over the agency,
genee Agency are more in the realm of statement. I know we drafted the CIA with whatever restrictions are necessary
areas in which the Foreign Relations act with_a great deal of care and with the to protect the national security.
Committee exercises jurisdiction. Of intention of there being cooperation with Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
course it is true that the CIA was estab- the agencies which are strictly military will the Senator yield?
lished by legislation which was handled agencies. Mr. McCARTHY. I- yield.
by the Armed Services Committee, and Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will Mr. SALTONSTALL. I may most re-
that in fact the Central Intelligence the Senator yield? spectfully say to the Senator from
Agency more or less continues Intelli- Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sena- Alaska that today the CIA is responsible
Bence activities which were developed in tor from Alaska. to the Committee on Armed Services and
various branches of the armed services,, Mr. GRUENING. In commenting on it is responsible to the Commitee on Ap-
for the most part during the war. SG the remarks of the Senator from Massa- propriations. Certainly the Past Direc
there is that legislative background and chusetts, it should be noted, as the Sena- tor of that Agency reported at least two
there is that tradition.. Therefore, I tor from Massachusetts has pointed out, or three times each year to those various
suppose one could argue either way-- that the CIA is the successor of the OSS, commitees. Therefore, those commit-
that there is this tradition and there is which-operated in time of war, and was, tees, or certain members of their sub-
this precedent which would justify re- therefore, a cloak-and-dagger type of committees, have. entire knowledge of
ferring the nomination to the Armed agency. Now, while it is true that there the activities of the Agency, the extent
Services Committee, and that there are is now a state of undeclared war, a cold of the organization, and the cost of the
also the activities of the CIA, in its opera- war of sorts, it seems to me that we cer- organization.
tional aspects, which I think relate to 1 tainly should look into the question of Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, will
matters which are carried on more in whether the Foreign Relations Commit- the Senator yield?
the field of foreign policy, rather than tee should not have as much jurisdiction Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
In the field of military operations. F>c' over CIA as has the Armed Services Mr. BARTLETT. Am I correct in my
the question is a mixed one. I Committee. assumption that the Senator from Min-
Mr. JACKSON. Madam President, . Let us assume that that had been the nesota, notwithstanding that which has
will the Senator from Minnesota yield case, so that during the last year the CIA been said most recently by the Senator
again to m0 had been reporting, to the extent it does from Massachusetts, believes that there
Mr. 1VXcCARTHY. I yield. report at all, to the Foreign Relations ought to be closer supervision by the
Mr. JACKSON. I wish to add to what Committee . instead of to the Armed Congress over the, activities of the CIA?
the Senator from Minnesota said In- re- Services Committee. I see present on the Mr. -McCARTHY. Yes, that is the
sponse to the question asked by the Sena- floor the distinguished chairman of the opinion of the Senator from Minnesota.
tor from Alaska, namely, that the other Foreign Relations Committee [Mr. FUL- If I may respond to the Senator from
intelligence undertakings by the Army, BRIGHT], who had the wisdom to oppose Massachusetts; I think the basic legisla-
the Navy, the Air Force, and theDepa- the attempt to invade Cuba. Possibly, tion which was enacted and which was
ment of Defense, mak up die intelli?- if the CIA had consulted him and had developed in the Armed Services Com-
gence community, -ate the Director of obtained his views, we might not have mittee was sound legislation in terms of
the CentralInVeelhgence Agency is chair.- participated in that tragic error the concept of the Central Intelligence
dition and custom has always been it will be- merely that of collecting infor- ations at least, is carrying on activities
part of the responsibility of the Armed ination all over the world and evaluating which-are far beyond what wascontem-
Services Committee, and, prior to its it, which is distinctly a matter of foreign ;;plated in that legisaltion when it was
creation, part of the responsibility of the relations more than it is anything else, adrawn. It is not a question, really, of
Military Affairs Committee.. certainly the Foreign Relations Commit- only CIA, but a question of whether or
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, tee should have as much jurisdiction not CIA performs functions which are,
will the Senator from Minnesota yield? over CIA's activity rather than Armed in a sense, uncovenanted. That ques-
The 'PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Services, notwithstanding that the ju- tion runs to the functions of the State
LONG of Missouri in the chair). Does risdiction was originally placed in the i Department. The CIA seems to be the
the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Armed Services Committee. Or perhaps K principal agent in these more or less un-
:Senatven better
t actions.' S least juridically unsustained,
are con.
there Mr. 1VIcfrom CAR't'HYacI yield? yeisdiction of both those ccommittees. ju-
So at a time when w we are Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to I hope that before the consideration of sidering confirmation of the employment
say to the Senator from Alaska [Mr. this ~1uestion is concluded, Congress will of the head of the Central Intelligence
Approved For Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 932
Approved For Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29
The man selected to head the CIA
should, I believe, understand and ap-
preciate the great powers which are giv-
en to him and be aware that, at least
in the past, either on its own. decision
or with executive approval, the CIA has
carried on activities which were of ques-
tionable constitutionality or legal justifi-
cation. In my opinion he should be
prepared to discuss these things in the
proper surroundings.
He should realize, too, that in the fu-
ture he may be called upon or challenged
or tempted to conduct similar operations.
The director of the CIA should be sensi-
tive to the danger of such proceedings.
A man selected to be the head of the
CIA should, if possible, be experienced in
intelligence work. He should be a good
administrator. He should have an ade-
quate understanding and awareness of
the problems of foreign policy, of the
difficulties and complexities. He should
be concerned-if we could have an ideal
man-as to the. ethics of the methods
and means by which he, his agents, and
operators seek their goals, either in the
gathering of information or in carrying
on what have come to be called "opera-
tions."
I shall not attempt a judgment or rec-
ommendation with regard to the ques-
tion of experience in intelligence of the
nominee, as there are no clear standards
which can be applied.
The nominee has the reputation of
being a good administrator. I am not
prepared to challenge that. Nearly
everyone whose nomination is sent to us
has a reputation of being a good admin-
istrator.
The question of knowledge of foreign
policy is one which can be passed upon
only in very general terms and by very
subjective standards. I would feel more
confident in passing on this appointment
if there were a more extensive record of
the views of the nominee. He is, accord-
ing to one columnist, hard boiled; ac-
cording to the Economist, a man of tem-
per; according to Newsweek, a tough
man; according to the Wall Street Jour-
nal, hard driving.
These are not undesirable qualities in
the head of the CIA. They are not the
only good qualities possessed by the
nominee, but they are the qualities which
have been especially stressed in newspa-
per comment. Taken by themselves,
they are not enough to qualify a person
for this difficult and sensitive office.
The Director of the CIA should be
more interested in finding evidence and
passing objective judgment on it than in
attempting to polarize opinions or to
support a set position.
Mr. President, I quote again from the
Henry Howe Ransom article:
Secret intelligence must never be more or
less than an instrument of national policy.
Its control should remain primarily a re-
sponsibility of the Presidency, but Congress
also must assume a more carefully defined
and active surveillance role. And the De-
partment of . State, particularly, must be
aggressive in weighing gain from success,
of intelligence collection, its analysis and
underground foreign political action.
Those who would organize and carry out a
proposed secret operation should be separated
in the decisional process from those who
supply and interpret information to justify
the plan. ' * *
Planners and operational commanders
notoriously come to view the plan as an end
in itself. They gradually develop a state
of mind that is receptive only to intelligence
data that justify the plan's practicability.
A distorted view of reality often results. ? "
No greater challenge confronts American
society than responding to the question of
how the United States can engage success-
fully in protracted cold warfare without
sacrificing the principles defended.
As an open democratic society, the United
States has to recognize its handicaps in
some form of competition with the closed
societies of totalitarian regimes. It would
be unwise to attempt to match the profi-
ciency of Communist regimes in subversion
as the avenue to the attainment of national
objectives. There is no point in America's
fighting totalitarianism by imitating it.
That point brings me to the serious
problem which faces the Senate, not
only in this case, but in many other
cases.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The able Senator
from Minnesota has read at length from
an article, as I understand it, written by
Mr. Harry Ransom, and published the
21st of May 1961. I have asked the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, the Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. FULBRIGHT], if he knows who Mr.
Ransom is, and he says he does not. I
have asked the ranking member of the
committee on the other side of the aisle,
who is on two of the three committees
involved with the Central Intelligence
Agency, if he knows who Mr. Ransom
is, and he, too, says he does not. I con-
fess to my able friend from Minnesota
that I do not know who Mr. Ransom is
either, and inasmuch as he is being
quoted at such great length as an au-
thority in this field, I would.ask two ques-
tions.
First, who is Mr. Ransom?
Second, has Mr. Ransom had any
extended or practical experience in the
field of intelligence? I do not ask these
questions to be in any way critical of
Mr. Ransom. I merely ask them for
the information of the Senate.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am not quoting
Mr. Ransom particularly because he is
an authority but rather because I
thought what he had to say was to the
point and had bearing upon the discus-
sion. I think he is currently on the
staff of Vanderbilt University. He has
written what I believe is perhaps the
most thorough book inquiring into the
whole question of the organization and
the operation of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
But I would not ask any Senator to
accept what Mr. Ransom has said be-
cause he said it, or even because perhaps
pertinent to the problem which the Sen-
ate is considering today..
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield further?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Has Mr. Ransom
ever had any experience in any of the
intelligence apparatus of the United
States? -
Mr. McCARTHY. So far as I know, he
has not, but I may be mistaken. He may
have had some intelligence experience.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. As I understand,
the point the Senator from Minnesota
is making relates to a division within
the so-called intelligence community be-
tween the gathering of the information
and its analysis and operation.
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That subject has
been widely discussed in the press by
many writers. I do not happen to know
Mr. Ransom personally.
I wish to ask the Senator a question
on another subject.
Does the Senator from Minnesota
know whether or not, it is true, for ex-
ample, in a country such as Great Brit-
ain, that the two functions I have stated
are separated?
Mr. McCARTHY. So far as I am fa-
miliar with the operation there, they are
separated.
Mr. FULBRIGHT.
traditional method.
Mr. McCARTHY.
Britain. _
Mr. FULBRIGHT. As I mentioned a
moment ago, the Senator is really dis-
cussing the operation of the CIA itself,
and whether or not it is properly consti-
tuted, a question in which I am very
interested. Will the Senator discuss
the particular experience and qual-
ifications of the appointment being con-
sidered by the Senate? As I understand,
the question before the Senate is not
whether the CIA is properly constituted,
but whether the appointee is qualified to
head the Agency.' Is that not correct?
Mr. McCARTHY. The. Senator is
quite correct. As I indicated, the role
which the CIA now plays has a bearing
upon whether or not the nominee is
qualified to carry out this kind of com-
plicated and difficult directorship.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I made that state-
ment because at one time I was a co-
sponsor of a measure and very sympa-
thetic-and still am-to the idea of a
joint committee or some other committee
which legally would have responsibility
for the supervision of the CIA. However,
I am fearful that this body will not
have an opportunity to pass upon that
question.
Mr. McCARTHY. I agree with the
against cost of failure, in every proposed endorsement of him, but rather only up- Senator.
major secret operation. on the basis of whether or not his state- Mr. FULBRIGHT. So the only ques-
A second major riticism is that thr, CIA me ti t 1~'gcations of the ap-
places under one rAppr'cl i~f9irnbf~l~a$& ,3=re ~ 6 c j ptL
 Approved FC(NGRESSIONAL 2RECORD- 68000400040051-2
Agency, I think we should consider this
question.
Mr. BARTLETT. Acknowledging that
there might,, and probably would, be 99
other opinions as to what ought to-be
done, is `it the Senator's conclusion that
this closer supervision might best be
obtained by the establishment of 'a joint
committee?
- Mr. McCARTHY. I said earlier in my
remarks-
Mr.. BARTLETT. I am sorry I was
not here at the time.
Mr. McCARTHY. I shall be glad to
repeat the statement, with some addi-
tional remarks. I am not satisfied that
a joint committee is best to accomplish
the purpose I have -referred to. First,
however, I do not know of any better
method that has been proposed. Sec-
ond, we have had rathergood experience
with the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy. I am sure the Senator will rel
call, that, when that committee was
established, charges were made that
Members of Congress could not be trusted
with this kind of information, that there
Would be leaks, and that Congress
could not exercise continuing supervision
over activities as involved and as tech-
nical as those in the atomic energy field.
Yet I think the record bears out the
statement, this Joint Committee has
worked out reasonably well. I think it
would perhaps not be out of turn to say
that it could be tested in other areas
and other jurisdictions.
Mr. BARTLETT. If the Senator will
,permit me one further observation, and
perhaps a question, the Senator has men-
tioned that there has been an implica-
tion that the whole Congress cannot be
trusted with secrets relating to the CIA
and the Atomic Energy Commission. I
wonder how far down, in the Senator's
-opinion, this information could be safely
-disseminated. We live in a strange
world. In days gone by, I suppose every
Member of Congress could ascertain
everything about every Government
agency. Whether it should be done or
not, it is not being done now.
I wonder if the Senator has any idea
as to where the cutoff point might prop-
=erly come.
Mr. McCARTHY. As the Senator
knows, we are held responsible for every-
thing done within the Government, even
though oftentimes we do not have much
authority over what is done. It is con-
sidered ill-advised to admit that we do
.not have as much responsibility as we
seem to have. But it is my opinion that
we could to some extent bridge the gap
between responsibility and real power or
effective access of power related to our
responsibilities if we, the Congress, could
determine that these particular persons
could be trusted, in the same way as in
England members of Parliament pick
members for the cabinet out of their own
parliamentary body, and those persons
direct intelligence activities.
931
Mr. McCARTHY. I would not say Joint Committee on Atomic Energy ex-
necessarYly that it should be by seniority. ercises in its field of jurisdiction?
Mr. BARTLETT. No. I say that is Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would say
the way it is done now. that we could do more than we have
Mr. McCARTHY. Seniority has some done if we felt it were necessary to do
bearing on it; I really do not know about it. There has never been any limit of
that. However, evidently the determi- supervision, so to speak, placed upon
nation of who should be given this in- our efforts by the past Director of the
formation is not a determination made CIA, and I am sure none would be placed
by' Congress except in rather vague on us by the future Director of the CIA.
language of the act which established I have never heard of any limitation
the CIA, but it is primarily a kind of that was put upon us.
selective determination by the executive Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will
branch of the Government itself. the Senator yield?
Mr. BARTLETT. In summation, then, Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Sen-
I might remove myself from this col- ator from Alaska.
loquy by stating that the Senator enter- Mr. GRUENING. Does the Senator
tains the belief that if some Members of from Massachusetts realize that in cer-
Congress can be trusted with the awe- taro countries the CIA operates with
some secrets relating to atomic energy so complete independence of the Chief of
might other Members of Congress, con- Mission, and that our diplomatic rep-
stituting a joint committee, be entrusted resentatives are not even informed of
with the secrets having to do with the what the CIA agents are doing in the
CIA. country?
Mr. McCARTHY. I think the Con- Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
gress is deserving of a test in several will the Senator yield?
other areas. Mr. McCARrHY. I yield.
Mr. BARTLETT. We should give the Mr. SALTONSTALL.. I would deny
Congress a try? that. I would deny that, but I would
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. I do not like prefer not to say anything more on the
to repeat my good lines, but I suggested floor of the Senate. I should be glad to
earlier if we had doubts we could limit discuss it with the Senator from Alaska
the: appointees to this committee and, in conversation, as to what I do know.
select them only from men named as Mr. GRUENING. Well, I have been so
possible presidential candidates. informed by a responsible member of
Mr. BARTLETT. That is a line worth; the diplomatic service in a country
repeating. where this particular situation exists.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Senator Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. -President, will
from Alaska. He generally appreciates the Senator yield?
my good lines. -I thought I might risk Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the -Sen-
stating that once again. ator from Arkansas, the chairman of the
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will Committee on Foreign Relations.
the Senator yield to me so that I may Mr. FULBRIGHT. I have not studied
ask the senior Senator from Massachu- this as much as has the distinguished
setts a question? Senator from Minnesota. Does the ex-
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. isting law specifically require the CIA
Mr. GRUENING. My good friend, the to report to the Committee on Armed
senior Senator from Massachusetts, the Services?
ranking minority member of the Com- Mr. McCARTHY. I think it does. At
mittee on Armed Services, said a few least, it is implied that they should be
minutes ago that the Committee on in some way responsible. At least, the
Armed Services more or less supervised practice has been for the CIA to report
the CIA, and that the CIA reported to to the Armed Services Committee.
the committee. What is the extent of Mr. FULBRIGHT. I did not ask the
the report? Do the committee members Senator for the practice.
go into any details, or are they merely Mr. McCARTHY. We shall have to
given a brief summary of expenses, the ask the Senator from Massachusetts.
number of people employed, and so on? Mr FULBRIGHT. I am asking for
d
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. Presi
ent, information as to what the law itself
will the Senator yield? does require by way of reporting to any
floor of the Senate that we spend several, Mr. McCARTHY. We should have to
hours and go into many details of opera ask the Senator from Massachusetts,
tions, of expenses; of administration, and who is a member of the committee and
-so on. I would not wish to say more on helped to draft the law. My opinion is
the floor of the Senate. _ that the CIA really is required to report
I say as one member of the commit- only to the President. We can check
tee--I speak only for myself, but I think; the statute.
I can speak for the others also-we have' I Mr. FULBRIGHT. I ask the Senator
never been refused any information of whether he is going to discuss, a little
any character for which we have asked later, the particular experience of the
Mr. McCARTHY. If I may have t -present nominee for this-particular posi-
attention of the Senator from Massa- tion, or whether that will be the sub-
secrets would be reposed in those be- 'chusetts, I should like to ask a question. ject of his talk?
longing to a certain committee or coon- The Senator would not say, however, Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. I intend to
mittees and from the vantage point of would he, that the committee exercises make some comments with respect to
seniority. Is that a correct evaluation a kind of continuing supervision in any his qualifications and preparation for
of how it is? . Approved For ReIEA&?93'/ ?t =1 b' W431kbbb` b0040051-2
No. 12-7 .
 934
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE January 29
which can be justifiably used by the
Central Intelligence Agency.
I do not see how the head of what is
known to be a covert, as well as an overt
agency, and which has been set up on
that basis to protect the freedom of this
country, could possibly answer that
question.
As the Senator from Minnesota knows,
I have great respect for his opinion:
However, let me read that question
again.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
what was that question?
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is question
No. 4.
This would involve such matters as
whether a member of a foreign service
could be influenced in any way. I can
think of many other n tters, and so can
you other Senators. I just do not under-
stand how a man could answer that
question?
He knows the nature of the oath he
takes when he takes the office, as he has
twice _in the past. I ask the Senator
from Minnesota to give consideration, if
he were nominated for this position, to
what his answer would have been to this
question:
What is the nominee's judgment as to
methods which can be justifiably used by
the Central Intelligence Agency?
to us, would, in my opinion, have been and while I will have overall responsibility
completely unsatisfactory. The Senator for the Agency, I am studying what delega-
asked me what kind of answer I might tions of authority should be made to the
have given to that question. I cited all Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
this as an example. I do not say it is senator MoCAh s second question asked
what bearing such ch changes would have upon
Mr. McCone's approach. It is not my the duties of the head of the Central Intelli-
approach. I do not believe even that it gence Agency and upon the operation of the
is really the approach of Mr. C; D. Agency. Any changes made in Agency or-
Jackson. ganization will have no bearing on the duties
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senatoi did of the Director. of Central Intelligence, the
not read the last sentence in the fifth scope of whose responsibilities is set forth
paragraph of the statement of Mr. Mc- in the Presidential letter mentioned above.
Cone, incident to that question. Was The authority of the Director has been
there any reason for not dof g so? neither enhanced nor diluted, and I believe
the purpose of the President's directive is
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not think so. to make clear that the Director of Central
I thought I had read it. Intelligence is his principal intelligence offt-
Mr. SYMINGTON. If I am incorrect, cer to exercise the dual role set forth in the
I apologize. law, to be responsible for the direction of the
Mr. McCARTHY. I think I made ref- Central Intelligence Agency itself, and to as-
erence to it. I may not have completed sure the coordination of the intelligence?
community it. community as a whole. The one change that
has been made is in connection with the
Mr. SYMINGTON. May I read it? coordination function. The Director of Cen-
Mr. MCCARTHY: Yes. I do not think tral Intelligence is Chairman of the U.S. In-
it is really pertinent. I have no ques- telligence Board, which is composed of the
tion that Mr. McCone would not know- heads of all the intelligence components of
ingly violate his oath of office. The the Government, and I have placed the
statement really does not relate to my Deputy Director of Central Intelligence on
question, because I do not expect that that Board to represent the views of the
he would even have had to say this in Central Intelligence Agency in connection
with any matters considered
answer to me. However, I should like It that if I served the Board.
appeared to me that as Chair-
to have the statement complete in the man and as such as the President's repre-
RECORD. As a matter of fact, if I may sentative and the Deputy as the Agency's
have unanimous consent to do so, I representative was the advocate of the
Agency's viewpoints, I would be in a position
ik
h
l
h
t
l
tt
ou
d l
e to
ave the en
ire
e
er
The Senator, realizing, of course, that s
printed at this point in the RECORD. to take a more objective point-of view. This
this nominee would report to the Press- Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sena- new arrangement was approved by the Presi-
dent of the, United States., dent in the letter referred to above.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I did not ex- tor. I was about to make the same senator MCCARTIIY'S third question asks
pect the nominee to give an answer in request, for my views as to the authority for some
terms of every specific and possible ac- There being no objection, the letter of the actions attributed to the Central in-
tion that might be taken. However, some was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, telligence Agency in the field of foreign af-
time ago Mr. C. D. Jackson made a as follows: fairs within recent years. Many events have
speech in which he said, as I recall the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, been attributed to the Central Intelligence
Washington, D.C., January 19, 1962. Agency over the years, and it would be im-
fanatiion, that we should proceed as Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, possible or me to have the facts on these
fanatics, with no holds barred and no chairman, Armed Services Committee, matters, but I certainly do not accept that
questions asked. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. because they are attributed to the Central
If this had been the nominee's answer DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I am happy to re- Intelligence Agency the Agency is responsi-
I would have had to say that here is a spond at the Armed Services Committee's ble for them. The Senator's question ap-
person who is insensitive to the question request to the statement Senator EUGENE J. pears to go to the basic juridical or constitu-
of methods. We must be very careful MCCARTHY made on January 18, 1962, at the tional authorities of the executive branch,
opening of the committee's hearings on my and this involves profound legal questions
not to attempt to justify the use of any nomination to the position of Director of which, since I am not a lawyer, I do not feel
methods or any means because we feel Central Intelligence. I shall respond directly col peete my to debate.
however, that the
our objective is good in the matter of to the specific questions posed by Senator y understanding,
communism or fascism, I would expect MCCARTHY at the end of his statement, but President has wide powers in the field of
him to make a statement in which he as other portions of the statement were con- foreign relations and within the framework
would make a distinction between right sidered during the hearings I shall also set of the Constitution is empowered to do what
and wrong, even in this difficult area in forth my position in regard to them. he deems to be necessary to protect and pro-
The first question asked if the Central In- mote the national interest At the present
which the Agency must operate. I did telligence Agency is to be reorganized and if time, in my opinion, the national interest is
not expect him to make a particular, fine so in what respects. I have been and I am best served by taking steps to deter the en-
judgment.. However, it was not unrea- studying the organization of the Agency very croachment of communism. As provided by
sonable to expect a man to indicate at intently. The present pattern of organiza- law the Central Intelligence Agency operates
least the framework of principle or pat- tion of the Agency is the result of years of under the direction of the National Security
tern of principle within which he would study by competent people, both within the Council which is advisory to the President
attempt to make this hard and difficult Government and outside consultants, and in and of which he is Chairman and, therefore,
my opinion it is not a bad pattern of or- it is but one of the arms in the complex of
judgment or recommendation. ganization. However, I believe that in. all establishments which are involved in the
Mr. SYMINGTON. IVir. President, will departments of the Government there is an President's conduct of foreign policy. I In-
the Senator yield? evolution in management procedures and op- tend to carry out to the best of my ability
Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield. portunity for improvement, so I think that all duties assigned, and I must assume that
Mr. SYMINGTON. ' I believe Mr. C. D. some changes will be indicated in the Agency no such assignment would cause me to vio-
Jackson, to whom the able Senator has organization. I would propose to discuss any late my oath of office to support and defend
referred, is the publisher of a well- important changes with our congressional the Constitution.
known magazine, and has been out of subcommittees. Senator MCCARTHY'S fourth question con-
the Government for years. During the hearings before your committee cerns my judgment as to methods which can
I read into the record a letter from the Presi- be justifiably used by the Central Intelli-
Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. dent concerning the scope of the responsibil- gence Agency. The very nature of the ques-
Mr. SYMINGTON. Has that any- sties he has asked me to assume, and the tion is such that I believe I cannot respond
thing to do with Mr. McCone? President stated therein that he would expect to it, particularly in the light of the respon-
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator from me to delegate to a principal deputy as i sibility imposed upon me by law to assure
Missouri as me to give an example of may deem necessary so much of the direction the protection of intelligence sources and,
the kind as answ of the detailed operation of the Agency as methods from unauthorized disclosure.
Mj I dS ~0~4ffl ~ 1 ?P48? 16R0$ fl6r40(~ 2 fifth question was to
the circumstan e t 94 'one pr mary as oft a irector of Cen ral the extent of my involvement, If any, in what
the kind of answer, if it had been given Intelligence. This, of course, I intend to do, had been described or reported as "leaks"
 19 62
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346F'2000400040051-2
,CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE .933
Mr. McCARTHY. To exercise super-
vision over the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Mr, RIGHT. I was very curious
about the Senator's views on that subject.
Mr.McCAI THY. "I'heSenatorls cor-
rect. The question is whether or not we
Think 'the appointee is qualified to direct
the CIA as it is now constituted, as it
now gperates,, and as it is likely to opp-
-*rate, In the immediate future. I' say
that it would be impossible to find a
in-em who had all the necessary qualifi-
?ea'tions. I should like to cite two or three
considerations which I think Senators
who are called upon to act upon the
.nomination need to consider.
Mr SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr, McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I share the view,
and -perhaps tho apprehension, of the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGii'rd.
It is quite possible that' the appointee
of the President-in fact,: the President
himself-is not entirely 'satisfied with
the past operation of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. If what I have said is
true, I am sure that the able Senator
from Minnesota does not wish to hang
around the neck of Mr. McCone, whose
appointment is the question -before the
Senate for discussion, any of the past
possible sins or transgressions of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency, I am sure he
would be the first to agree that Mr. Mc-
Cone has had no connection with them
whatever
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator from
Missouri has stated my position on that
question correctly.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sena-
ir.
Mr. , McCARTHY, To return to the
tempt to establish some general stand-
ards, I said that the man selected to
head the Central intelligence Agency
should be aware of the great powers
which are given to him. Since he may
be called upon-and will certainly be
called upon-to operate in an area in
which the question' of constitutionality
acid the question of right or wrong will
sometimes be very difficult to determine,
he should, if possible, be experienced in
Intelligence work. As I said, he should
be a good administrator. He should be
concerned with the methods and means
by which he, his agents, and operators
are seeking their goals in gathering in-
_lormation and_in carrying out what has
some:to be called operations.
It is against those four'or five general
standards that we must make our de-
cision with regard to the nominee. As I
have Indicated, I would not attempt to
pass judgment with regard to the ques-
tion of his experience 'in intelligence.
In testimony before the committee it was
Indicated that Mr. McCune had little or
no experience in, that field. ' As I have
said, there. really are no clear standards
to be applied by which he might be
judged. We cannot say, "Here is a man
who leas been highly successful," as could
have been said about Allen Dulles. In
views on some of the broad and com- He went on to say that he intended.
,plicated policy questions that have been to carry out to the best of his abilities all
iknown, the duties assigned to him.
"",Poor my part, I would feel much more No full or pertinent answer, it seems
confident in passing on the appointment to me, was made to the question of con-
if there were a more extensive record stitutionality. It may be that we should
of his -views on these complicated ques- not expect the head of CIA to give such
bons. He has spoken very little, so on an answer, and perhaps it is an unrea-
that 'point I could not make any recom- sonable demand or an unreasonable sug-
mendation. I would have to say that gestion. However, it seems to me that
this factor is unknown. he should have given some thought to
So far as concerns the question of the it, or that when he is being considered
constitutionality of some of the actions, for appointment we might properly ask
either participated 'n by CIA, attributed of him this question as to what his opin-
to CIA, or perhaps only carried on by ion is with respect to the juridical basis
the State'Department, I raised this ques- for some of these actions. In this case
titan before the committee. I suggested his answer does not cover what I hoped
that they might wish to ask certain he would cover in answer to this question.
,questions of the nominee, and the ques- My fourth question was:
tiaras were asked. -I quote from a letter What is the nominee's judgment as to
which Mr. McCone himself sent to the methods which can be justifiably used by
chairman of the ''committee in answer 'the Central Intelligence Agency?
to a number of questions which I had Mr. McConereplied:
raised and which in turn had been asked The very nature of the question is such
of him by the committee: that I believe I cannot respond to it, par-
Senator MCCARTHY s third question asks titularly in the light of the responsibility
for my views as to the authority for some imposed upon me by law to assure the pro-
of the actions attributed to the Central In- tection of intelligence sources and methods
'itiligence Agency in the field of foreign -from unauthorized disclosure.
-affairs within recent years. Many events I can see that there would be need
have been attributed to the Central Intel-
ligence Agency over the years, and it would for secrecy. I did not have in mind that
be impossible for me to have the facts on he should express an opinion on a spe-
these matters, but I certainly do not accept cific situation. I had hoped that there
that because they are attributed to the might be some discussion of a theoreti-
Central Inelligence Agency the Agency Is cal situation, as to what methods he
responsible for them. thought might be justifiable. We could
This charge was not made. This was raise a theoretical question with refer-
not in the question I had'suggested to the ence to stirring up a revolution behind
committee. the Iron Curtain when it had no oppor-
Mr. McCone continues: tunity of succeeding, even though the
The Senator's question appears to go to suppression of the revolution by the Rus-
the basic juridical or constitutional authori- sians would -give us propaganda value in
ties of the executive branch, and this in- some other part of the world.
voaves profound legal questions which, since This is a rather gray area, I know, and
I am not a lawyer, 'I do not feel competent one in which I did not expect him to
to debate. It is my understanding, however, answer specifically or -give a specific
that the President has wide powers in the moral judgment or make a fine ethical
field of foreign relations and within the
framework of the Constitution is empowered distinction. However, this is an area in
to do what he deems to be necessary to pro- which a decision must be made, without
tect and promote the national interest. At attempting to apply a theoretical situa-
thepresent time, in my opinion, the national tion to a particular case. It may be that
interest is best served by taking steps to Mr. McCone would be willing to carry
deter the encroachment of communism. on such a discussion in private, but judg-
Does this mean that he would justify ing from what he said I cannot be sure
.any step or any action, constitutional or of that.
extra-constitutional or unconstitutional Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
in deterring communism? will the Senator yield?
I would not say that this is his pose- Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
tion, but it is the statement that he made Mr. SYMINGTON. As I understand
'in answer to the letter: the question asked of the appointee by
At the present time, in my opinion, the the able Senator from Minnesota, it was
national interest is best served by taking as to what were his views as to the au-
~.steps to deter the encroachment of commu- thority for some of the actions attributed
nism. to the Central Intelligence Agency in the
field of foreign affairs within recent
'This is a fine, general statement of
years. but what is needed is some re- . If I were asked the question, I
finement and somewhat more specific would not know how to answer it.
tatement with relation to the involve- The Central Intelligence cy hes
-serit of the Central Intelligence Agency, been identified, s a almmost ost Aentirely gency e-
m?as has been charged in the press and in o for thh e a as situadtio on. . Based
on o on the a e record to which I listened care-
other places: fully, and which, as the Senator knows,
its provided by law the Central Intelligence some members discussed on the floor, I
Agency operates under the direction of the can not agree.
National Security Council which is advisory This is a very delicate field. I ap-
to the President, and of which he is Chair-
man and, therefore, it is but one of the arms proach it with caution, even in com-
in the eou plea of establishments which are menting that much.
,has taken a stand o 6as ei ?n o e o the methods
n r vad' PoPiteleas$; 8n,4/03/25: CIA-RDP64BOWUM 498%f-1
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2.
936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE January 29
zations, especially in areas abroad, to this subject, when the question of con- Mr. McCARTHY. I did not. I said
where we seek to influence people and firmation of a nomination is before the that I should like to have the committee
I governments, setting out different poli- Senate? ask questions on that. But I think the
ties and guidelines, only confusion and Mr. McCARTHY. Let me say to the procedure in the committee is not to
sometimes chaos will result. Senator from Massachusetts that sev- have other Senators ask questions there.
That is why I was especially pleased eral other Members have been concerned Is that correct?
to hear Mr. McCone define the chief about some other related problems, and Mr. SYMINGTON. The Armed Serv-
purpose, as is revealed in the printed I should like to hear them express their ices Committee was very glad to have the
hearings on his nomination, of the CIA views. But it is my feeling that whereas Senator from Minnesota submit ques-
as being a gatherer of facts. I would not say the nomination of Mr. tions. The Senator from Arkansas has
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- McCone should be rejected on the basis brought up a pertinent point, because
tor from Alaska for his comments. of any one of the specific points which the chairman of the Senate Armed Serv-
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, have been made against confirmation ices Committee permitted questions in
will the Senator from Minnesota yield? ,of his nomination, yet the total pattern any detail the Senator from Minnesota
_Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. or configuration is such that if it were wanted to ask them. Some are part of
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is somewhat ,4for me to make the decision about con- the record, beginning with page 32, listed
academic, but I think there is merit in !tion of his nomination or rejec- from 1 to 6. The answers were given
the suggestion of the Senator from Min- !Lion of his nomination, I would have to by Mr. McCone in the letter which mem-
nesota for congressional representation I 'vote "No." So unless I am persuaded bers of the committee received; and it
on the National Security Council. At otherwise in the course of time-and of is now Dart of the hearing record,
one time a distinguished former Mem- .; course, as Edmund Burke said, little I would say, with great respect to the
ber of this body, the Honorable James W. time remains, for we must vote on this Senator from Minnesota, that if there
Wadsworth, introduced a bill to that question the day after tomorrow, were any specific questions for the pur-
effect. It had to do with making the Wednesday, and even though I do not pose of challenging the nominee's capac-
Vice President a statutory member of think many Members would base their ity in this field, and his knowledge of
the National Security. Council. The decision on my declaration of position, foreign policy-which, as the Senator
proposal was opposed by the administra- yet I would have to say that as of now knows, is reasonably extensive, based on
tion at that time, because it was consid- I am not prepared to vote in favor,of positions he has held in the past-inas-
ered that the Vice President was a confirmation of the nomination. much as .the Senator from Minnesota
member of the legislative branch, not Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, has now declared his intention to vote
the executive branch. will the Senator from Minnesota yield against confirmation of the nomination,
But I think there is merit in the idea, further? I would have hoped the questions would
and I hope that at sometime the able Mr. McCARTHy. I yield. have been asked of the nominee at the
Senator from Minnesota will develop any Mr. SALTONSTALL. Whereas I committee hearing, so that before the
further thoughts he may have on that. , agree on many subjects with the Sen- Senator from Minnesota took the floor
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank, the Sena- ator from Minnesota, let me say very he would have had answers to any ques-
tor from Missouri. fervently and categorically that I dis- tions he cared to ask.
Oil this point I think it important that agree with him on this one, and I shall Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
Senators give attention to the entire vote in favor of confirmation of the the Senator from Minnesota yield?
matter of procedure. I think that some- nomination. Mr. McCARTHY, I shall yield in just
times we believe democracy is self- Mr. McCARTHY. In view of the. a moment.
operating and that we do not need to Senator's previous remarks, I assumed First, let me say that the questions to
worry very much about it or about what that he was likely to reach that conclu- which the Senator from Missouri refers
the channels are and what the juridical sion. were included in my statement and were
basis is, and we are inclined to believe Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, on suggested to the Armed Services Com-
that it will take care of itself. I was not this point, will the Senator from Minne- mittee as relating to an area about which
a supporter of - the famous Bricker sota yield? they might wish to ask questions.
amendment; but I do not think the only Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. t
question involved was isolationism, be- Mr. FULBRIGHT. A moment ago I she Fo ask about. T. That is what I
cause there were also questions of the thought the Senator from Minnesota I wished to ask abDid any member
of the Armed Services Committee spes-
authority of Congress and. the involve- would proceed to discuss the affirmative
I
ment of Congress in some of the deci- reasons which had been advanced in re- tion the nominee in regard to this aspect
sions. So I think we should give atten- gard to the question of confirmation of Lof foreign relations?
tion to this problem, not only in regard this nomination. Do I correctly under- Mr. MCCARTHY. So far as I know,
to the CIA and foreign problems, but stand that the Senator has completed there were no questions there in regard
also in regard to matters in domestic that part of his presentation? to matters which can be defined as mat-
fields. Mr. McCARTHY. I thought that by ters of foreign policy "or relating to for-
Mr. President, I have only one more indirection I had made those points. eign problems,
related set of remarks to make. These Certainly I do not dispute some of the Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does not the Sen-
have to do, not with this partciular case, claims made for the nominee or about ator think it is rather unusual that the
but with the entire function of the Sen- his fine record, as pointed out by the committee did not ask questions about
ate in its role in acting on nominations. Senator from Missouri. I can only say such matters, which are of primary con-
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, that I have in mind a different point. cern to it? ,
at this point will the Senator from Min- As regards the administrative expe- Mr. MCCARTHY. I had hoped they
nesota yield? rience of the nominee, I am not in a would, because the public record is very
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUR- position to challenge, or at least I am scanty.
DICK in the chair) . Does the Senator not inclined to challenge, any of those Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from
from Minnesota yield to the Senator r statements. Minnesota is not a member of that com-
from Massachusetts? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Do I correctly un- mittee; is he?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. derstand that the Senator from Minne-
sota has said he has no knowledge of Mr. McCARTHY. No, I am not a
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator the nominee's views in regard to matters member of the Armed Services Commit-
from Minnesota has made a learned pre- of foreign policy? tee.
sentation in regard to the CIA and Mr. McCARTHY. I say that I am not Mr. FULBRIGHT. So the record does
supervision of it by the Congress, and informed in regard to his position on not show that any member of the Armed
other related matters. Do I correctly f many matters of complicated and dim- Services Committee asked about these
understand that the Senator from Min- cult foreign policy, and this is informa- matters; does it? I am asking the Sena-
nesota opposes confirmation of the Pend- tion which I should like to have. tor that question.
Ing nomination; or is he raising ques- i. Mr. FULB$~~z o; not in what I
tions now because ~ C lRoxs Rel ageg2 w y to go into such
proper'time to raise q estions in regard this subject? complicated matters.
 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
-.
ills. I. n ivW v ? " ?-- ----- ..----- - -
ally or any of the Commissioners were the committee. the proper participation of Congress it
of a classified nature. There were leaks in ---_. gress and its participation in decisions,
this area, but there were none that were Mr SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, some of which I think under the Con-
attributed to the Atomic Energy Commission. , will the Senator yield? stitution, were not intended that Con-
Senator MCCARTHY'6 sixth question in
as to the facts with regard to the I\tr. McCARTHY. I yield. gress be involved, and that this ques-
quired I
that I attempted to have scientists Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator tion would still run through the State
charge
fired at the California Institute of Tech- from Minnesota has raised the question Department, the National Security
nology. Ten scientists at Cal Tech signed of the constitutionality of actions, and so Council, and the -Central Intelligence
a statement concerning suspension of nu- forth. I have been looking up the law. Agency.
clear testing. I differed strongly with their I believe that chapter 343 of the Acts of Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Secretary
position and felt that the manner in which the 80th Congress, section 102(a), be- of State himself is a member of the
my letter stating my strong disagreement to
1 of the 19 scientists directly, Dr. Thomas
Lauritsen. To the best of my recollection I
did-not send 'copies of this letter to the uni-
versity or officials thereof, and the file carbon
which I retained'does not indicate any dis-
tribution. I would be less than candid if
I did not say that my views concerning this
matter were known to many" people. How-
ever, I did not officially or unofficially re-
quest the dismissal of any or all of the
scientists by the institute, and none were
dismissed as a result of any action by me.
The general thrust of Senator MCCARTHY's
statement was- the need for greater congres-
sional supervision of the Central Intelligence
Agency, and early in his statement he said
there is no regular or normal procedure in
existence or in use today, by which commit-
tees of the Congress are consulted or in-
formed of the Central Intelligence Agency's
activities. There are, of course, subcommit-
tees of the Armed Services Committees of
both the Senate and the House, constituted
as CIA subcommittees, and there are sub-
committees of the Appropriations Commit-
tees of both the Senate and the House,
constituted to consider 'the Central Intel-
ligence Agency's appropriations matters.
The Central Intelligence Agency has been at
all times responsive to the calls of these sub-
committees and In addition has- brought to
their attention matters the agency felt
should properly be considered by them. I
will continue this policy and this relation-
ship with these subcommittees.
Senator McCAETHY's statement quoted a
comment by Hanson Baldwin that intel-
ligence is too important to be left to the un-
supervised. In addition to the relationship
with the subcommittees of the Congress set
forth above, the Agency reports to the Na-
tional Security Council and is subject to di-
rection by the National Security Council.
There are precise interdepartmental arrange-
ments for, consideration of certain of the
Agency's Activities so that the President and
of-State and Defense can ap-
t ie
r
h
,
s
e Secre a
t
ply policy guidance and be adequately in- (5) to perform such other functions and to questions; namely, that he does not
formed. - duties related to intelligence affecting the believe it to be the duty of the CIA to
Senator MCCARTHY also sets forth a quota- national security as the National Security formulate policy. His description of the
tion from Walter Lippinann stating that the Council may from time to time direct. rpthat His sas I
Central intelligenAgency source has American ati much I call especial attention to subpara- call his thinking about it, to collect in-
fo g he
s original g
he graph (5) : telligence and data. That seems to me
for reign policy. I do not consider that the
Director of Central Intelligence is a policy- (5) to perform such other functions and to be vitally important. If rumors are
making position. The chief function of the -duties related to intelligence affecting the to be believed, that has not always been
Agency is to obtain all possible facts from all national security as the National Security true in the past.
sources and after proper evaluation dissemi- Council may from time to time direct. My understanding of the situation is
personate pate them eto the President and other ap- That would put the CIA directly under that foreign policy is to be conducted
wcyd . I might asked
personal views, and it if so I would feel free free my to the National Security Council, to per- by the President, with advice and gun -
give them, but do not conceive that it is form whatever actions the National Se- ance coming principally from the De-
proper for the Director of Central Intelligence curity Council asked the CIA to do, as partment of State, and that the contri-
to volunteer in regard to questions concern- I interpret that sentence. butions of the Central Intelligence
ing the national policy. Within the Intel- Mr. McCARTHY. Of course, the Agency are to be made in the supplying
ligence structure there are, of course, from question of constitutionality would arise of intelligence information upon which
time to time, policy questions concerning or- so as to determine whether the CIA per- those decisions can, as we hope, be
ganization or methods but these are not re- 1 ads. But if there are two or
tiated lated and from therefore matters rrA of atio atio inal policy olicy an RQI 4W6 4Q90UAoiZd, more organi-
ginning on page 497, is still thepresent --National Security Council. Certainly
law regarding the Central Intelligence we would hope the President would not
Agency. I wish to call attention to sub- authorize, through the National Security
paragraph (d) of section 102, which de- Council, anything to be done that was
fines its duties. If the Senator from not constitutional.
Minnesota will permit me to do so, I Mr. McCARTHY. Perhaps we should
should like to read the five-duties. ask for representation from Congress on
Mr. McCARTHY. I should be glad to the National Security Council. This
have the Senator from Massachusetts do might be an alternative to a joint com-
so. mittee on intelligence.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I read as fol- Mr. SALTONSTALL. I think that
lows: matter has been discussed in the past
(d) For the purpose of coordinating the and decided in the negative.
intelligence activities of the several Govern- Mr McCARTHY. Conditions change.
_ment departments and agencies in the in-
terest I.think it was Edmund Burke who said
direction be the of the that for every political decision or situa-
duty of the national Agency, , security,
under er it the shall
the National Security Council- tion, the number of factors involved is
the
(1) to advise the National Security Coun- infinite; therefore, the number of de-
oil in matters concerning such intelligence , cisions that might be right is also
and agencies as relate to national security;
(2) to make recommendations to the Na-
tional Security Council for the coordination
of such intelligence activities of the depart-
ments and agencies of the Government as re-
late to the national security;
(3) to correlate and evaluate intelligence
relating to the national security, and provide
for the appropriate dissemination of such in-
telligence within the Government using
where appropriate existing agencies and fa-
cilities: Provided, That the Agency shall have
no police, subpena, law-enforcement powers,
or internal-security functions: Provided fur-
ther, That the departments and other agen-
cies of the Government shall continue to
11ect evaluate correlate, and disseminate
the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. BARTLETT. First, I desire to
congratulate the Senator from Minne-
sota for his discussion this afternoon.
I think the issues he has raised and the
questions he has propounded ought to
have been raised and propounded.
While it is true that he-and, for that
matter, all the rest of us-must, be-
cause of the very nature of the Agency
which is,'the subject of the discussion,
co
departmental intelligence: And provided fur- points which I think will, in the long
ther, That the Director of Central Intelli- run, result in an improved functioning
gence shall be responsible for protecting in- of the CIA. For that reason, if for no
telligence sources and methods from unau- other, the country is indebted to the
thorized disclosure;
(4) to perform, for the benefit of the ex- junior Senator from Minnesota.
isting intelligence agencies, such additional I was very favorably impressed by the
services-of common?concern as the National statement Mr. McCone-made before the
t
i
'
ces, ne
Armed Serv
Security Council determines can be more ef- Committee on
but two or more times, in response
ficiently accomplished centrally; once
proceed, as it were, through the dark,
darkly, yet he has brought out here
 938
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29
presented, but, so far as questions went
in that field, I would not say he has not
completed the record.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I brought that
question up because the question was
asked. Are there any fields in which
the Senator believed the nominee was
evasive?
Mr. McCARTHY. At present, no. It
is not a question of evasiveness. I have
made no charge of evasiveness, but I
raised some questions which had been
raised, to which satisfactory answers
were given in the hearings, and in part
raised them here because they deserved
special consideration in reference to
facts in controversy with respect to the
head of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the
Senator.
In the record the Senator from South
Dakota asked the nominee about his
position; whether he was a policymaker;
and he said "No." I am sure it was the
feeling of his predecessor that he should
not be a policymaker.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed at the
conclusion of my remarks two docu-
ments, one a, letter from John A. McCone
addressed to the Honorable RICHARD B.
RUSSELL, chairman 'of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee, dated January 19, and
an article entitled "The Secret Mission
in an Open Society;" by Harry Howe
Ransom. At the time the latter article
was written Mr. Ransom was on the
faculty of Harvard, if I may correct
my earlier statement. He has since
moved from Harvard.
There being no objection, the letter
and article were ordered to be printed
In the RECORD, as follows:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., January 19, 1962.
Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate, '
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: I am happy to
respond at the Armed Services Committee's
request to the statement Senator EUGENE J.
MCCARTHY made on January 18, 1962, at the
opening of the committee's hearings on my
nomination to the position of Director of
Central Intelligence. I shall respond directly
to the specific questions posed by Senator
MCCARTHY at the end of his statement, but
as other portions of the statement were con-
sidered during the hearings I shall also set
forth my position in regard to them.
The first question asked if the Central In-
telligence Agency is to be reorganized and if
so in what respects. I have been and I am
studying the organization of the Agency very
intently. The present pattern of organiza-
tion of the Agency is the result of years of
study by competent people, both within the
Government and outside consultants, and in
my opinion it is not a bad pattern of organ-
ization. However, I believe that in all
departments of the Government there is an
evolution in management procedures and op-
portunity for improvement so I think that
some changes will be indicated in the agency
organization. I would propose to discuss
any' important changes with our congres-
sional subcommittees.
During the hearings before your committee
I read into the record a letter from the
President concerning the scope of the respon-
sibilities he has asked me to asstune, and
the President stated therein that he would
expect me to delegate to a principal deputy
as I may deem necessary so much of the
direction of the detailed operation of the
Agency as may be required to permit me
to carry out the primary task of the Director
of Central Intelligence. This, of course, I
intend to do and while I will have overall
responsibility for the Agency, I am studying
what delegations of authority should be
made to the Deputy Director of Central In-
telligence.
Senator MCCARTHY'S second question asked
what bearing such changes would have upon
the duties of the head of the Central In-
telligence Agency and upon the operation
of the Agency. Any changes made in Agency
organization will have no bearing on the
duties of the Director of Central Intelligence,
the scope of whose responsibilities is set
forth in the Presidential letter mentioned
above. The authority of the Director has
been neither enhanced nor diluted, and I
believe the purpose of the President's direc-
tive is to make clear that the Director of
Central Intelligence is his principal intelli-
gence officer to exercise the dual role set
forth in the law, to be responsible for the
direction of the Central Intelligence Agency
itself, and to assure the coordination of the
intelligence community as a whole. The
one change that has been made is in con-
nection with the coordination function.
The Director of Central Intelligence is
Chairman of the U.S. Intelligence Board,
which is composed of the heads of all the
intelligence components of the Government,
and I have placed the Deputy Director of
Central Intelligence on that Board to repre-
sent the views of the Central Intelligence
Agency in connection with any matters con-
sidered by the Board. It appeared to me
that if I served as Chairman and as such as
the President's representative and the Depu-
ty as the Agency's representative was the
advocate of the Agency's viewpoint, I would
be in a position to take a more objective
point of view. This new arrangement was
approved by the President in the letter re-
ferred to above.
Senator MCCARTHY'S third question asks
for my views as to the authority for some of
the actions attributed to the Central Intelli-
gence Agency in the field of foreign affairs
within recent years. Many events have been
attributed to the Central Intelligence Agency
over the years, and it would be impossible
for me. to have the facts on these matters,
but I certainly do not accept that because
they are attributed to the Central Intelli-
gence Agency the Agency is responsible for
them. The Senator's question appears to go
to the basic juridical or constitutional au-
thorities of the executive branch, and this
involves profound legal questions which,
since I am not a lawyer, I do not feel compe-
tent to debate. It is my understanding,
however, that the President has wide powers
in the field of foreign relations and within
the framework of the Constitution is em-
powered to do what he deems to be neces-
sary to protect and promote the national in-
terest. At the present time, in my opinion,
the national interest is best served by tak-
ing steps to deter the encroachment of com-
munism. As provided by law the Central
Intelligence Agency operates under the di-
rection of the National Security Council,
which is advisory to the President and of
which he is Chairman and, therefore, it is
but one of the arms in the complex of estab-
lishments which are involved in the Presi-
dent's conduct of foreign policy. I intend to
carry out, to the best of my ability, all duties
assigned, and I must assume that no such
assignment would cause me to violate my
oath of office to support and defend the
Constitution.
Senator McCARTHY's fourth question con-
cerns my judgment as to methods which
can be justifiably used by the Central In-
telligence Agency. The very nature of the
question is such that I believe I cannot
respond to it, particularly in the -light of
the responsibility imposed upon me by law
to assure the protection of intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized
disclosure.
Senator MCCARTHY'S fifth question was to
the extent of my involvement, if any, in
what had been described or reported as leaks
from the Atomic Energy Commission with
reference to the moratorium on nuclear
testing. I know of no instance where I per-
sonally or any of the Commissioners were
charged by. anyone with leaking anything
either on this subject or any other subject
of a classified nature. There were leaks in
this area, but there were none that were
attribtued to the Atomic Energy Commission.
Senator MCCARTHY'S sixth question in-
quired as to the facts with regard to the
charge that I attempted to have scientists
fired at the California Institute of Tech-
nology. Ten scientists at Cal Tech signed
a statement concerning suspension of
nuclear testing. I differed strongly with
their position and felt that the manner in
which the statement came out tended to
imply that it was an official Cal Tech posi-
tion. I wrote my letter stating my strong
disagreement to one of the 10 scientists
directly, Dr. Thomas Lauritsen. To the best
of my recollection I did not send copies of
this letter to the university or officials
thereof, and the file carbon which I retained
does not indicate any distribution. I would
be less than candid if I did not say that my
views concerning this matter were known to
many people. However, I did not officially
or unofficially request the dismissal of any
or all of the scientists by the institute, and
none were dismissed as a result of -any
action by me.
The general thrust of Senator MCCARTHY'S
statement was the' need for greater congres-
sional supervision of the Central Intelligence
Agency, and early in his statement he said
there is no regular or normal procedure in
existence or in use today by which commit-
tees of the Congress are consulted or in-
formed of the Central Intelligence Agency's
activities. There are, of course, subcommlt-
tees of the Armed Services Committees of
both the Senate and the House, constituted
as CIA Subcommittees, and there are sub-
committees of the Appropriations Commit-
tees of both the Senate and the House,
constituted to consider the Central Intel-
ligence Agency's appropriations matters.
The Central Intelligence Agency has been
at all times responsive to the calls of these
subcommittees and in addition has brought
to their attention matters the Agency felt
should properly be considered by them. I
will continue this policy and this relation-
ship with these subcommittees.
Senator MCCARTHY'S statement quoted a
comment by Hanson Baldwin that intelli-
gence is too important to be left to the
unsupervised. In addition to the relation-
ship with the subcommittees of the Con-
gress set forth above, the Agency reports to
the National Security Council and is subject
to direction by the National Security Coun-
cil. There are precise interdepartmental ar-
rangements for consideration of certain of
the Agency's activities so that the Presi-
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400640051-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to
refer the Senator from Minnesota to the
committee hearings at the top of page
42. From that page I quote the follow-
ing statement by Mr. McCone :
As I said, from the standpoint of my com-
petence in office, it is my responsibility to
report facts, and, furthermore, I think I
should avoid, so far as possible, being drawn
in on a personal 1Sasis into any policy dis-
cussions because that, to an extent, may have
some effect on what people, the validity that
people might attach to the facts.
However, I would expect that because of
the various areas of activity that I have had
in Government in the past, that maybe my
personal opinion may be asked on some sub-
jects. But in my role as-Director of Central
Intelligence, it would be beyond my com-
petence to, deal with policy.
That was brought out at least two.or
three times during the discussion; and
certainly in the past the former Direc-
tor, Mr. Dulles, said clearly that he had
never expressed himself oh matters of
policy. He said it was his duty to obtain
the facts and to give them to the policy-
makers, who are the President, the Sec-
retary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
and so forth.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Does the Senator
believe a nominee to be Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency can properly,
testify before a congressional committee,
in open session, his views with respect toy
matters relating to his, programs and
policies, as he views them in regard to,
our intelligence activities in the various
foreign countries?
Mr. McCARTHY. . I do not know that
it would have been necessary forhim to
discuss all of these in open committee
sessions. I would not have been opposed
to having the committee hold some ex-
ecutive sessions or limited sessions, if
need be. But to satisfy myself, at least,
I should have liked to have had a knowl-
edge of his stand on some of these issues
with which the Central Intelligence
Agency will have to deal.
I think this raises a rather serious
question in regard to what is the real
role of the Senate in regard to acting
on the question of confirming Presi-
dential nominations-for instance
whether the Senate is to take the posi-
tion that the point of view of the nomi-
nee has no relationship to the question
of confirmation, and should not be in-
quired into.
Mr. SYMINGTON. In open ses-
sion-
Mr. McCARTHY. If so, that limits
the role of the -Senate to checking and
ascertaining whether the nominee is
honest, and whether he has FBI clear-
ance, and perhaps whether under cer-
tain conditions he has a health ge ifl-
cate. In that event it could be said there
is no need for the Senate to inquire into
these other areas.
. There is no need to hold extensive
hearings, in my opinion,,for important
the matter of the point of view of a
nominee. Let us take the Secretary of
State. It may be pointed out that he
simply is the instrument and agent of
the President, so why should we ask him
what his policies are? It could be said
that this man is purely the representa-
tive of the Executive.
With respect to the, appointment of a
former Secretary of Agriculture, we
Democrats went into that question ex-
tensively with respect to Ezra Taft Ben-
son. Why did we not then say that he
had nothing to do with policy; that he
was simply the channel, the instrument,
and was pure and undefiled? We raised
the question of point of view and poli-
cies in many other areas that are not as
important as they are in the determina-
tion of policies of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MCCARTHt'. I yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I say, just as
emphatically as I can, from my knowl-
edge of CIA and its activities over the
years, that if Mr. McCone had made a
statement on policy questions and had
said, "I believe that this is the wrong
policy, and this is ' the right policy," it
would have affected my opinion very
materially as to whether he was the
right man for this kind of position to
which he has been appointed. His job
is not to express policy positions, but to
get facts on which the policymakers can
act. If they do not have the facts so
they can do a job, he should get more
facts or resign, or be asked to resign be-
cause he is not doing his job of getting
the facts.
i say that most respectfully to the
Senator from Minnesota, because in this
instance it is distinctly against the
nominee's qualifications for the -position
for one chosen to express himself on
po'licies of the Government. That is my
understanding of the situation.
Mr. McCARTHY, I think if we could
be sure that he was going to be com-
pletely neutralized from now on, it
might be the ideal. If he replied that
he had no views or. has had no views on
policy problems that have been , before
us, it would be another matter. But I
do not think the Senator would argue
that Mr. McCone is a man who has no
views or has had no views, so it is a
matter of some, significance to know
what they are or have been. We can
move from that point to determine
whether or not he would let those views
affect what he might do as the head of
the Central Intelligence Agency. I say
we would not accept a man as, head of
the Rural Electrification Administra-
tion and say we did not care what his
views are. The Senate would not re-
spond to that kind of appeal. I recog-
nize that these remarks would not apply
to the head of this Agency as they would
to the head of the REA; but, in terms
of procedure, I would be opposed to a
man who had expressed certain views
on the questions of policy in a field in
which he was going to be, active, be-
cause, in the formal sense, he would be
937
Mr. SALTONSTALL. If the Foreign
Relations Committee did not ask a new
Secretary of State for his ideas and
position and feelings on foreign affairs
matters, I think it would be derelict in
its duty. That would be true with re-
spect to the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry with respect to one's agri-
cultural policies. But in this case it is
not, I repeat, a policymaking job; this
is an effort to find a man who is capable
of 'getting the facts, administering the
Department, picking out good men to
work under him, so that they can get
the facts and give those facts to the
President, the National Security Coun-
that this Agency has been a policy mak- 1
ing one and has had a great influence on
policy. If such complete neutralism
could be achieved, I think the Senator's,
case could be made. I was going to con-
clude with a statement which is really
an answer to the question the Senator
raised earlier. In this case the whole
somehow is greater than the sum of its
parts, and I am inclined to oppose the
nomination.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator from
Minnesota had an interview with Mr.
McCone, did be not?
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. At the Senator's
request?
Mr. McCARTHY. I think it was at
his request.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Did the Senator
find Mr. McCone evasive?
Mr. McCARTHY. No. I think he
answered essentially in the same way he
answered before the committee and in
the letter which he subsequently sent to
the committee when the committee sug-
gested-I do not know whether it was a
suggestion or not-that he answer in re-
sponse to my question, which the com-
mittee presented to him.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The only reason
I mention this conference is because of a
discussion before the committee. I had
felt the Senator from Minnesota was
stating Mr. McCone attempted to dis-
charge these professors.
Mr. McCARTHY. I have not raised
that question here today.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I know the Sena-
tor has not. I am raising it.
Mr. McCARTHY. I have made no
point about evasiveness with respect to
any question.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I asked the Sen-
ator that question because I wanted it
clear in the RECORD that he had not re-
quested the discharge of these men and
none were discharged.
Mr. McCARTHY. Insofar as I know,
what the nominee said in answer to the
various questions, not only in that hear-
ing, but before the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, presented a picture of
one in whom there was no evasion or
misrepresentation of fact.
Mr. SYMINGTON. -I thank the Sen-
ator.
; ReI 96e0b4/e8/25 P IAtRDP&4BR#0346RQ 5 re may be a
 940
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE January 29
after a 2-year interval in which Gen. John Ei
Hull, retired Army officer, presided.
While the CIA's huge annual budget-
estimated at more than half a billion dol-
lars-is not subject to normal legislative
review, three Congressional standing sub-
committees on central intelligence in fact
exist as a third potential checkrein.
The Senate and House Armed Services
Committees both have subunits assigned as
watchdogs over the CIA. The Senate sub-
committee combines senior Senators from
the Appropriations and Armed Services Com-
mittees. The House maintains a separate
Appropriations Subcommittee, some ' mem-
bers of which have been privy to such secrets
as the atomic bomb (Manhattan project) ap-
propriations during World War II.
The working principle of the intelligence
system in the United States was expressed
some years ago by Allen W. Dulles, Director
of Central Intelligence:
"In intelligence you have to take certain
things on faith. You have to look to the
man who is directing the organization and
the result he achieves. If you haven't got
soiheone who can be trusted, or who doesn't
get results, you'd better throw him out and
get someone else."
Central Intelligence is subject today to
three major criticisms. They involve ques-
tions of control by responsible authority, the
efficiency of existing organizations- and the
problem of secrecy.
True, the CIA operates under Presidential
directives, and interdepartmental groups
from the National Security Council down-
ward participate both in interpreting in-
telligence data - and in authorizing covert
operations. Yet the principal intelligence
adviser to the highest authority remains the
Director of Central Intelligence, armed with
etxraordinary secrecy inside the Government
and with a secret budget.
In a complex world of fast-moving events
and in a Washington intelligence commu-
nity where CIA professionals are increas-
ingly influential, too few sources of counter-
vailing power exist. This particularly is a
problem with covert operations in which the
Presidency is largely dependent upon the
CIA for information on what is being done
or what needs doing. The danger of self-
serving by the Agency is great. CIA may,
without careful policy guidance, write its
own ticket.
In its 6 years of existence, the President's
Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence
Activities, recently renamed the Foreign In-
telligence Advisory Board, has functioned
more as a polite alumni visiting committee
than as a vigorous watchdog. With one pro-
fessional staff assistant and a single secre-
tary, the Board has been able only spo-
Secret intelligence must never be more or
less than an instrument of national policy.
Its control should remain primarily a re-
sponsibility of the Presidency, but Congress
also must assume a more carefully defined
and active surveillance role., And the De-
partment of State, particularly, must be ag-
gressive in weighing gain from success,
against cost of failure, in every proposed
major secret operation.
A second major criticism is that the CIA
places under, one roof the separate func-
tions of intelligence collection, its analysis
and underground foreign political action.
Those who would organize and carry out
a proposed secret operation should be sep-
arated in the decisional process from those
who supply and interpret information to
justify the plan.
This unification appears to have been a
major defect in the Cuban misadventure. It
may explain both the prediction that Cubans
would rise to assist the exiles in overthrow-
ing Castro and the policy decision that the
venture was feasible.
Planners and operational commanders no-
toriously come to view the plan as an end in
itself. They gradually develop a state of
mind that is receptive only to intelligence
data that justify the plan's practicability.
A distorted view of reality often results.
Another example is the unexpected inter-
vention of the Chinese Communists on a
large scale in the Korean war in November
1950. Hard intelligence was available that
the Chinese Communists were infiltrating
North Korea, with a strong possibility of
major intervention. Yet the operational plan
of General MacArthur's forces to drive north
to the Yalu went ahead disastrously in dis-
regard of available information that should
have given pause. The decisional system
should be insulated against this common
cause of self-delusion.
Persuasive reasons possibly can be ad-
vanced for not placing covert foreign politi-
cal and intelligence (informational) func-
tions under separate agencies. If so, the
dangers inherent in combining them should
be recognized and appropriate safeguards
provided.
A third and related criticism involves
secrecy. Democracy cannot work without a
free press. Expanding Government secrecy
increases the danger of official manipulation
of opinion and concealment of shortcomings
of an incumbent leadership. Secrecy also
vitiates the party and electoral system and
reduces the meaningful autonomy of Con-
gress. Yet again intelligence activities by
definition require secrecy.
In the face of this dilemma, CIA's secrecy
today has become ambiguous. This may be
the fate of any secret apparatus within
Am
i
'
i
t
B
er
ca
s open soc
e
y.
ut only in America
-radically to oversee the 15,000-man CIA.
have intelligence officials become famous per-
Congressional surveillance has been much sonalities eager to mount the public rostrum.
the same-infrequent meetings of uncom- The director, deputy director and other CIA
monly timorous subcommittees. The atti- officials in recent years have made frequent
tude of veteran legislators assigned to these public speeches, some containing implicit
units is exemplified by one who declared: policy recommendations. The CIA leader-
"It is not a question of reluctance on the ship should become again publicly silent and
part of CIA officials to speak to us. Instead, unquestionably nonpolitical. Anonymity is
it is a question of our reluctance, if you will, the only proper role.
to seek information and knowledge on sub- Another aspect of the CIA's ambiguous
jects which I personally, as a Member of secrecy is that major operations that fail
Congress and as a citizen, would rather not often produce, as we have seen, public con-
have." fessions from highest authority. On the
As astute politicians, Members of Con- other hand, secret missions that succeed
gress realize the possible national embarrass- often are known to the press but volun-
ment if they formally approved espionage or tartly censored.
covert political action that falls and is dis- For example, the CIA played a dominant
closed. Yet even 'were Congress less in- role in the overthrow of Premier Mossadegh it stand in adjournment to meet at 11
hibited about monitoring secret operations in Iran in August 1953, after his abortive o'clock tomorrow morning.
l' I .............i..t .
none of ?h
has att
m
l
a
it th
t i
b
itte
e
p
e
gue w
e
e su
comm
es
n
' -
staffs today for thorough surveil- Tudeh Party, to exile the pro-Western Shah, The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
adequate
2idwt 0 1 2so ordered. y, i
lance. Approved For ReleasLT'~bYPIf/6,'2o?r&K- g4 t R 0
Another example is CIA's involvement in
the 1954 Guatemalan episode. In an opera-
tion resembling on a smaller scale the recent
Cuban expedition, the CIA aided the suc-
cessful 'counter-revolution against the re-
gime of Col. Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, which
the U.S. Government regarded as Commu-
nist-dominated. The American press re-
mained silent. Perhaps the inevitable
penalty for failure is disclosure.
Self-restraint on the part of the press and
of Congress in dealing with justifiably secret
information will come at that point when
confidence is restored in the professional
quality and unquestioned subordination to
political authority of secret operations.
It remains to be said that America's for-
eign policy headaches around the globe to-
day stem less from information or organiza-
tion deficiencies than from lack of clearly
articulated foreign policy objectives beyond
anticommunism. Many of the aforemen-
tioned problems of the intelligence system
would solve themselves, given a clearer con-
sensus about America's world purpose and
specific policy objectives.
No greater challenge confronts American
society than responding to the question of
how the United States can engage success-
fully in protracted cold warfare without sac-
rificing the principles defended.
As an open democratic society, the United
States has to recognize its handicaps in
some form of competition with the closed
societies of totalitarian regimes. It would
be unwise to attempt to match the pro-
ficiency of Communist regimes in subversion
as the main avenue to the attainment of
national objectives. There is no point in
America's fighting totalitarianism by imitat-
ing it.
It is equally as important to recognize that
any Communist competitive advantage in
cold warfare comes not alone from centrali-
zation, secrecy and rigid discipline. More
important is the existence of a Communist
purpose, clear objectives and refined doc-
trines for implementing them.
In a world still lacking- universal accept-
ance of law and order based upon govern-
ment by consent, the -United States will
sometimes face compelling requirements to
engage in distasteful-indeed, illegal-secret
operations. What Is crucially important in
a democracy is that plans, policies and pro-
grams for such reflect the deliberate, in-
formed and purposeful decisions of respon-
sible political authority.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
11 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate concludes its deliberations today
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD = SENATE 939
dent and the Secretaries of State and De-
fense can apply policy guidance and be ade-
quately informed.
Senator McCARTHY also sets forth a quota-
tion from Walter Lippmann stating that the
Central Intelligence Agency has been much
too often an original source of American
foreign policy. I do not consider that the
Director of Central Intelligence is a policy-
making position. The chief function of the
Agency is to obtain all possible facts from
all sources and after proper evaluation dis-
seminate them to the President and other
-appropriate policymakers. I might be asked
my personal views, and if so I would feel
free to give them but do not conceive that
it is proper for the Director of Central In-
telligence to volunteer in regard to questions
concerning the national policy. Within the
intelligence structure there are, of course,
from time to time policy questions concerning
organization or methods, but these are not
related and, therefore, must be clearly dif-
ferentiatcd from matters of national policy
and are settled internally through the
mechanism of the U.S. Intelligence Board.
I trust the foregoing will serve the needs
.of the committee.
Yours very truly,
JOHN A. McCoNE,
Director.
SECRET MISSION IN AN OPEN SOCIETY
(By Harry Howe Ransom)
Silence is the golden word of intelligence.
Recent events, however, have trumpeted U.S.
foreign intelligence activities at full volume
and high fidelity for all the world to hear.
What has come through is disturbing.
The Central Intelligence Agency's misfor-
tunes have engend red the publicity which
an efficient intelligence system always seeks
to avoid. The fact that disclosures have
been made in itself represents a failure.
The nature of the disclosures raises trouble-
some issues, but the central question in the
current White House and Capitol Hill inves-
tigations is, What is the role ' of the secret
intelligence apparatus in a democracy?
Few would deny the necessity of intelli-
gence activities. After the American U-2
aircraft was downed in Russia last year,
President Eisenhower publicly confessed to
the world that the United States-pursuant
to authority granted in the National Se-
curity Act of 1947-seeks intelligence in
every feasible way. The espionage side of
this activity he described as a distasteful but
vital necessity for security against surprise
attack and for effective defense planning.
The Cuban fiasco, however, has revealed in
unprecedented detail another side of
CIA activities-clandestine political opera-
tions designed to subvert an unfriendly
government.
Central Intelligence- today has three prin-
cipal functions: Intelligence collection, its
analysis and communication to policymakers,
and clandestine foreign political operations.
The increasing necessity of these activities is
attributable to three major reasons.
From earliest times, an intelligence ap-
paratus has been an indispensable part of
the paraphernalia of a great world power.
The worldwide responsibilities of the United
States today require both a system for keep-
ing the complex details of world politics un-
der constant surveillance and an instrument
for secret foreign political action.
A second reason is that national policy
decisions are based, increasingly, upon pre-
dictions of foreign political, economic, and
sources to implement long-range foreign
policy objectives.
Consequently, an intelligence system to-
day its asked an incredibly wide range of
urgent questions, answers to which can be
obtained some2mes only by devious meth-
ods. When will Communist China test an
atomdc device? What future has the eco-
nomic integration of Europe? How stable
is the Government of South Vietnam? - What
course will Sino-Soviet relations take?
A third reason derives from modern mili-
tary - technological developments. Intelli-
gence, it often is said, has become the first
line of defense. Accurate and rapidly trans-
mitted information is an absoluate require-
ment for an effective strategy of deterrence.
Strategic striking forces must have an ac-
curate dossier of potential enemy targets.
And essential elements of information al-
ways must be available to thwart an enemy's
possible surprise knockout blow.
Much of such information is held in tight-
est security by the Iron Curtain countries,
requiring a systematic effort to ferret it
out. Similar information is freely available
to the Communists from our open society.
Americans have not flinched at espionage
or underground political action in, wartime.
A favorite national hero is Nathan ale, who
spied in the American Revolutionary cause.
In World War II, the Office of Strategic
Services was, deservedly or not, considered
most romantic.
Short of declared war, however, secret
operations are widely regarded as a dirty
business, unfitting America's open, demo-
cratic-and formerly isolationist-society.
Events of recent years have, nonetheless,
revealed to the public at least the top of
the iceberg of a vast secret intelligence, pro-
gram.
Distasteful or not, secret operations have
become a major underground front of the
cold war. The accelerating pace of cold
warfare in Laos, South Vietnam, Thailand,
the Congo, Latin America and elsewhere in-
creases the pressure for greater American
involvement in the secret black arts.
One's attitude toward these activities will
depend, finally, upon one's assessment of
contemporary international politics and of
the requirements for the common defense.
President Kennedy recently declared that
the cold war has reached such a stage that
"no war ever posed a greater threat to our
security." If they take that as a valid as-
sessment, most Americans will assume, al-
though doubtless with misgivings, a war-
time attitude toward secret operations.
Whatever one's view, the existence of a
secret bureaucracy poses special problems in
the -American system of government.
Knowledge is power. Secret knowledge is
secret power. A secret apparatus, claiming
superior knowledge and operating outside
the normal checkreins of American democ-
racy is a source of invisible government.
The American democratic system, how-
ever, is based upon the concept of visible,
identifiable power, subject to constitutional
checks and balances. One important check
is the citizen's right to know what his Gov-
ernment is doing. Another is the existence
of a free press to inform him.
How, then, can the controls of a demo-
cratic system be imposed upon the intel-
ligence system while maintaining the sec-
recy required for its successful operation?
Secret operations must remain immune
from some of the normal checks, especially
publicity. Heavy 'dependence must be
First, Britain has been a world power for
several centuries. Over the years a degree
of confidence in the professionalism of secret
operations has developed
Second, parliamentary government unifies
executive and legislative responsibility under
majority-party-leadership. When Ministers
are also Members of Parliament, responsibil-
ity for manegement of secret functions is
reinforced.
A third mitigating factor Is "the establish-
ment." That political leaders, intelligence
chiefs and lords of the press often have com-
mon social ties facilitates consensus on
necessary secrecy.
Fourth, the existence of the Official Secrets
Act inhibits the publication of secret in-
formation by imposing legal sanctions on
the press. Additionally, a special -Govern-
ment press arrangement exists under which
British editors are sometimes asked upon
receipt of Government defense notices, to
refrain voluntarily from publishing speci-
fied sensitive information.
British intelligence 'services, too, are so
organized that secret political operations
overseas are entirely separate from political
and military intelligence functions. An
agency for secret operations is supervised
by a special cabinet subcommittee. The
point is that all are under firm political
authority.
Totalitarian regimes, with their -absolute
control of the press, suppression of opposi-
tion and centralized -government, have few
of the problems of disclosure and control
experienced by open societies. The Soviet
Union is thought to possess the largest in-
telligence system in the world; its existence
is never avowed by Communist leaders.
Even in dictatorships, however, problems
exist. The interpretation of foreign intelli-
gence doubtless is often distorted by the
intelligence structure there are, of course, fr
rigid ideology. And it is also a fact of his-
tory that the secret intelligence apparatus
often has been a vehicle for internal
political conspiracy. Invisible power is
_a potential threat to constituted authority
whatever the form of government.
Aware of the danger of secret power within
government, the President and Congress
have attempted to surround the CIA and
related secret apparatuses with controls.
These are designed to reconcile the conflict-
ing requirements of secrecy and of demo-
cratic control.
The first of these mechanismsderives from
the fact that the CIA's functions are spec-
ified, broadly, by Federal statute, defining
the agency as an instrument of the Presi-
dency. The CIA's operational guidelines
are some 2 dozen codified National Se-
curity Council intelligence directives, ap-
proved by the President. Action such as
the U-2 flights and the Cuban expedition
must be approved specifically by the Presi-
dent. In the past he has had the advice on
such matters of a special NSC Subcommittee
on Clandestine Operations.
A second potential check has been the
President's eight-man Board of Consultants
on Foreign Intelligence Activities. This was
established early in 1956, after a Hoover
Commisison study expressed concern about
the possibility of the growth of license and
abuses of power where disclosures of costs,
organization, personnel and functions are
precluded by law.
The first chairman of this group, composed
largely of distinguished industrialists - and
former armed-services officers, was James R.
military developments 5 to 10 years hence. to exercise control. Killian Jr., then president of the Massachu-
Tbis fact is a consequence of the long lead- In a parliamentary democracy, such as setts Institute of Technology. President
time in developing weapons systems and of Great Britain, the problem is less acute. Kennedy recently reappointed Dr. Killian to
the need to make econonAi5pro I R edcllffen~ ~~t3t ital i-> >~F04ES U-~ ~ ~ 66scostituted board
 942
Approved For Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 29
which I operate. I am willing to serve Ing to investigate individuals. We have office, and that particular time there
my Government. I am willing to come had many witnesses before the commit- was some objection to some of the things
for a' month, 3 months, or 6 months, tee. I think the members of the com- he had done. The Joint Committee had
But I am not willing to come and lay mittee have been careful in asking im- long open hearings, and then in execu-
everything on the board because I do not portant questions. tive session voted five to four to report
have to, because I have made my mark in On the particular subject to which I the nomination adversely. Such action
industry and business, and I do not care refer, while the published record does was taken. The Senate reversed the ac-
to go through that ordeal." not show all the questions which were tion of the Joint Committee and voted
Then, of course, still another weakness asked, I can assure Senators that a great to confirm the individual.
is that under existing law public officials many questions were asked, carefully I only point out that the Joint Com-
can retain many private interests that probed, and not all that appeared ever mittee did not merely take its work as a
are probably incompatible with their reached the surface. matter of course and go on their way.
duty. That subject has not been ex- For example, the President of the They made a careful study of the ques-
plored too deeply, but certainly ought to United States nominated a man from tion.
be clarified so the average citizen could Iowa to be a member of the Atomic En- ' There has been reference to a good
himself, without the benefit of counsel, ergy Commission. The investigation by deal of material that developed about
look at a lawbook and say, "This I could. the FBI was not as recent as it might Mr. McCone. It happens that in the
do. This I cannot do. This kind of have been. It was reasonably complete, files 'of the Joint Committee one would
position I could accept without getting and that investigation did not reveal not find all the material that was gath-
into difficulty." anything with reference to the nominee ered on Mr. McCone in the first days
Finally there is the unwillingness of which should have caused him any of the study.
men of stature who would be glad to trouble. I have a file before me which shows
serve their Government but were not, At the same time, the then Chairman the name of a very distinguished former
and perhaps could not, in justice to of the Joint Committee on Atomic En- Member of the Senate, the late lamented
themselves and their families, always ergy received a great many letters with Senator from New Hampshire, Mr.
divest themselves of all their holdings. reference to the nominee, and when it Bridges. I went to him because of the
That is no easy undertaking, and yet was impossible to get any further in- investigation that he had caused to be
what a burden it is upon the conscience formation on him, the then chairman, conducted by hij committee. He did
of a man to whom the country has been at his own expense, sent an investigator what people expected Senator Bridges
good, who would like to serve his Gov- out to see if some additional informa- to do, namely, he turned over to me such
ernment, but who simply must say, "I tion might be developed, information as he had. I went through
am sorry. What Government demands We had the assistance of a great Iowa every piece of this information carefully
by way of questioning, cross-examina- newspaper, which I believe had been and thoroughly. I asked the other mem-
tion, and divestiture of interest and all friendly to the nominee, but that news- bers of the Joint Committee to sit' with
the other things that I see recited on paper also was anxious to find the facts. me in questioning Mr, McCone. Al-
the front page is too much for me. So We studied them as carefully though the printed record of the hear-
I shall not subject my family to what- we could. ings may ever that interrogation may disclose. I Subsequently we hired a special not reveal in great detail the
would prefer to sit back and pursue my investigator as a member of the com- testimony that was taken, I can assure
vocation as I have done before." mittee staff. . all Members of the Senate that a very
We have statutes on this subject that I wish to point out that though the careful check was made on all matters.
go back to 1873. I trust the Committee nomination was sent up by a Republican to which we had reference in connection
on the Judiciary, on which I. serve, will President, every Republican member of with the matters that have been under
now find inspiration for accelerated ac- the committee voted to employ the spe- discussion.
tion out of the very confirmation that is cial investigator, because every member Another matter that I did not make
before us, and hasten the proposed modi- of the committee wanted the investiga- public was the financial statement of
fications of existing law so that it will tion to be complete. When the special Mr. McCone.
be much easier for patriotic and stead- investigator had finished his work it In meeting with Mr. McCone in the
fast citizens who wish to serve their developed that the nominee desired to office of the then majority leader, Sena-
Government to come into Government have his name withdrawn, and it was tor Knowland of California, I asked him
service. withdrawn. He had been involved in a for a complete financial report of every-
I yield the floor. banking transaction which was not thing he owned. He submitted it to me.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, my frightful, but which had developed a He said he believed he did not need to
sole purpose in rising today is that my little difficulty that he recognized might do so, because he had already submitted
attention has been directed to a portion have been embarrassing to him at some one to the White House, which had been.
of the testimony before the Committee subsequent time. checked fully, and there had been no
on Armed Services in the case of Mr. The point I wish to make is that the difficulty in connection with it. I still
McCone, in which a Senator present at Joint Committee never published any re- asked him for a complete financial re-
the hearing said that in his opinion the port on all the investigations we went port. He submitted it.
inquiry which the Joint Committee on through. It never tried to show how We went over that report very care-
Atomic Energy had held in 1958 with many hours of work the committee put fully. Mr. McCone and I went over it
reference to some action in connection in on this problem. If one would look very carefully and other members of
with the teachers in California was per- at the evidence turned in by the Joint the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
haps not as thorough as it might have Committee, he might say that the com- joined us. It is a hard thing to review
been, or at least the mittee did nothing because the nomina- a man's financial resources and not rush
published reports tion was presented to it and subse- out and publish everything about it. It
of the inquiry were somewhat short of quently withdrawn, is interesting to find an individual who
satisfactory. . Now let me turn to another nomina- owns a great many stocks but who lives
I only wish to say that the one who tion, the nomination of Sumner Pike, modestly and plainly and does not dis-
raised that question is one of our fine made by a Democratic President. The play the fact that he is a man of sub-
Senators, y close personal friend, and first nomination was sent up on Octo- stantial wealth.
I find it extremely difficult to comment her 28, 1946, a recess appointment. The We looked at the report very carefully.
on the subject. I only hope that what nominee took the oath of office, Then We made up a list as to which we said
I say can be dissociated from the other the full nomination was sent to the that those were stock that he ought to
remarks which he made. Senate. The nomination was sent to the sell. I told him we thought he should
I do wish to say that the Joint Com- Senate section of the Joint Commitee. sell those stocks. Of course I was not
mittee on Atomic Energy-certainly the The committee reported favorably upon sitting in judgment.. I had no authority
Senate section o the corn
i#,ee-' h to sell them. How-
opinion has not PrQf6 idli~rii ~? aSgu$~ C~~~Sup~~iL~r~ ~1 ~~ t conscience to have
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RE6ORD -SENATE
NOMINATION OF JOHN A. McCONE
TO BE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE ?
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the nomination of John A. McCone, of
California, to' be Director of Central
Intelligence.
Mr. DIIKSEN, Mr. President, the
question of conflict of interest continues
to beset Congress session after session,
and it does develop some rather awkward
and embarrassing situations not- only for
Members but also for those who are
appointed to come into the Government
service because they have extraordinary
talent and competence to render service
to the Government.
In the instant case we are considering
a very distinguished citizen. I do not
believe there can be any doubt about the
fact that he is a distinguished' citizen.
He was first nominated by the Presi-
dent in September of 1961. I believe the
oath was administered at the White
House by Chief Justice Warren in the
latter part of November.
At the time the designation was made
by the President of- the United States,
there was certainly a glowing statement
with respect to John A. McCone and
the confidence of the President in his
capacity to discharge his responsibility
as Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
I took a little look at this problem,
and I puzzled over it, largely because I
am a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate, which commit-
tee has held some hearings and heard
some testimony with respect to certain
conflict-of-interest bills; one sponsored
by the administration, one sponsored by
,the two distinguished Senators from New
York [Mr. JAVIT9 and Mr. KEATING], and
one which was reported by the House
Sooner or later a man like that was
bound to get into the Government serv-
ice. I think , that high talent recom-
mends itself. It is not at all surprising
that three Presidents-President Tru-
man, President Eisenhower, and Presi-
dent Kennedy-have availed themselves
to Mr. McCone's service.
He came to the Government in an
advisory capacity I believe in the Tru-
man administration, and showed apti-
tude and competence in the whole field
in which the Air Force operates. He did
a lot of work in the field of Air Force
procurement, and he received the Civil-
ian Service Award with high honors in
1951.
It was not surprising that in due
course President Eisenhower should
choose him to be a member of the Atomic
Energy Commission. Certainly he ren-
dered great service there.
He went back to private life, and Pres-
ident Kennedy then discovered his com-
petence in many fields and thought he
would prove very useful In directing
the affairs of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
This subject of conflict of interest is
always a difficult problem, to say the
least, about which one can scarcely talk
without havingit said that he is speak-
ing in derogation of a person. That is
the last thing I would undertake to do.
It is a subject of interest to the Congress.
I am raising the question only to excite
some additional interest in the necessity
that the Congress modify and clarify
acts which have been on the books al-
most going back to the Civil War which
in their application, if they were strictly
applied, would provide some of the most
fantastic results anyone could imagine.
I noticed in the House report on one
of the acts on the books today that if a
mail carrier assisted his mother in mak-
Committee on the Judiciary and which ing out some kind of a pension applica-
has been languishing on the House cal- tion as to which Federal funds were in-
endar Ibelieve since July of last year. volved he would be in violation of-a Fed-
I wish to use this nomination as a eral law and could be prosecuted, as ex-
. .
__h _
I
"._. th
matter isting law stands today.
t
s
e
for
Mr. McCone, as I recall, 15 vv years
age. I have talked with him on occasion and a great deal has been written about tainly it is difficult for a layman, or his
and discovered that he is a mild-man- Mr. McCone by Mr. Pearson. I think I counsel back home, to determine pre-
nered-man, a man of mild speech but of have read most of the articles. A lot cisely what he has to do in order to
great competence. He was graduated of the material was in quotation marks. cleanse himself in the eyes of the stat-
from the University of California I be- Some of it was arrogated to our late dis- utes now on the books if he were to serve
lieve in 1922. tinguished and lamented friend, Senator his Government.
The character of the man is evidenced Bridges. It was taken outof the RECORD. The weakness in this entire setup is
pretty well by the fact that - notwith- I am sure that as people in the country apparent. Look at the cases in which
standing an -engineering degree he -be- read these observations it disturbs them Government could well use the part-
came a -riveter in an iron works. When even as it disturbs us. I came into the time services of people who are admit-
-a fellow is willing to start at the very bot- Chamber one noon recently and talked tedly expert in their fields. Why should
tom notwithstanding the great amount to a Member of the Senate. I said, "Did they, for part-time service, under exist-
of engineering data and knowledge he you, see Mr. Pearson's article today?" ing law, agree to divest themselves of
has absorbed in college, I think it is He said, "I did," I said, "I am terribly their interests, make a full disclosure of
pretty good testimony to his character disturbed and distressed about it. I do their holdings, and be interrogated and
and -to his willingness to start at the not quarrel with the articles as such, but cross-examined on every holding that
bottom and to come up the ladder. By I am thinking in terms of their impact on they have? Then they would always be
rapid stages he did come up the ladder, the thinking of people all over the coun- subject to have raised the possibility
finally to help set up,' in partnership try and what is our responsibility in un- that they forgot something, and might
with others, a business of his own. dertaking to bring about a modification become guilty of perjury. Such talents
For a long time Mr. McCone has de- of the things which are on the statute as they have are denied to the Govern-
voted his talents, together with those of 'books at the present time." ment if a man refuses under those cir-
his associates, to the business of build- I know the nomination before the cumstances to march before a committee
ing troopships, of building refineries, Senate will be approved. I say right now of Congress and say, 'tam sorry. I have
ofbuilding all manner of facilities which that I shall vote to confirm the nomina- lived my life pretty well. I have become
are produced of steel.Approved For Ret as?f2OO4/O325n CIPPRDP6 0 6 6ft4 39rt2in the field in
RM4
nomination directs -attention to the fact
that without undue delay both the House
and the Senate now ought to direct
some really vigorous efforts to the busi-
ness of revising the conflict-of-interest
statutes with which we are presently
dealing.
There are eight of these, and they fall
roughly into four categories. The first
would include officers and employees who
act in behalf of an outsido interest in
dealings with the Government. I think
an example probably would be a mili-
tary officer who assists a private com-
pany in obtaining, let us say, a defense
contract. That is one category with
which existing law deals.
Another category would incude the
officials and employees acting for the
Government in any kind of a transaction'
or deal in which they have a personal in-
terest. We have had some-examples of
that over the years. I would not wish
to specify particularly, and to let it ap-
pear that I was invidious about it, be-
cause I think ifanybody wishes to go to
the history books he can easily find
those cases.
There is a third class, which includes
those persons who were once upon a time
officers and employees of the Govern-
ment and who have left the Govern-
ment, who represent some private con-
cern, and who probably have made rep-
resentations in behalf of a contract or
an undertaking prior to the lapse of the
2-year period which is required. In
some cases it could be an inadvertence.
In some cases it might be deliberate. But
in any event there is law that is directed
against a violation on that score.
Finally we have another category:
Officers or employees who take pay from
a private source for Government work,
as in the case of an attorney, being
paid by the Government and serving the
Government, but also accepting pay
from an outside source for work done
for' the Government.
Those are the statutes in general that
we have today, and they are obfuscating,
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : C1A-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
the minutes of the executive meeting
and let them go into the record.
In my letter of February A, 1961, I
wrote to Mr. McCone, who was then in
Los Angeles, having left the Govern-
ment:
DEAR JOHN: As we both know so well, pub-
lic life, and service has both rewards and
penalties, pleasure, and regret.
It is my pleasure to send you a transcript
of the words of praise and friendship ex-
tended to you by the members of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy in our meet-
ing on January 18. It is my regret that we
will not be facing each other across the con-
ference table again.
There is little I can add to what was said
that last Wednesday except to stress the
sincerity and unanimity in our appreciation
of the contribution you have made to the
country.
I then submitted to him a copy of the
minutes of the meeting of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
RECORD the text of my letter of February
13, 1961, and the portion of the minutes
of the executive session which was
informal.
There being no objection, the letter
and minutes were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
February 13,'1961.
Hon. JOHN A. MCCONE,
Los Angeles, Calif.
DEAR JOHN: As we both know so well, pub-
lic life, and service has both rewards and
penalties, pleasure, and regret.
It is my pleasure to send you a transcript
of the words of praise and friendship ex-
tended to you by the members of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy in our meet-
Ing on January 18. It is my regret that we
will not be facing each other across the con-
ference table again.
There is little I can add to what was said
that last Wednesday except to stress the sin-
cerity and unanimity in our appreciation of
the contribution you have made to the
country.
Sincerely,
CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Chairman.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (INFORMAL), MEETING No.
87-1-1, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1961, of
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHING-
TON, D.C.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in the
committee room, the Capitol, Hon. CLINTON
P. ANDERSON (chairman) presiding.
Present were: Senators CLINTON P. ANDER-
SON (presiding), JOHN O. PASTORE, ALBERT
GORE, HENRY M. JACKSON, BOURKE B. HICK=
ENLOOPER, HENRY DWORSHAK, and WALLACE
F. BENNETT; Representatives CHET HOLI-
FIELD, MELVIN PRICE, WAYNE ASPINALL, WIL-
LIAM BATES, and JACK WESTLAND.
Committee staff present: James T. Ram-
ey, executive director, John T. Conway,
George F. Murphy, Jr., and Carey Brewer.
Representatives of the Atomic Energy
Commission: Hon. John A. McCone, Chair-
man; Hon. John S. Graham and Hon, Loren
K. Olson, Commissioners; A. R. Luedecke,
General Manager; Dwight A. Ink, Assistant
General Manager; A. D. Starbird, Director,
Division of Military Application; Howard C.
Brown, special assistant to the Chairman;
and Richard X. Donovan, special assistant
for congressional relations,
Chairman ANDERSON. The meeting will
come to order.
Today we meet with Mr. McCone for the
last time prior to his leaving the chairman-
ship of, the Commission on Friday. The
purpose of our meeting is to permit Mr. Mc-
Cone to give us his views on the status of
the atomic energy program and the ques-
tions and problems which we face.
I would like to suggest that we withhold
accolades as to Mr. McCone's abilities and
accomplishments until the end of our session
today in order to permit him to proceed in
an orderly manner with his presentation. I
will say, however, at this point that the
relationship between Mr. McCone and me
personally and, I believe, the other Members
and the staff of the Joint Committee has
been most cordial and constructive through-
out the 21/2 years he has. been with the
Commission.
I understand you have a prepared state-
ment, Mr. McCone, which you will file with
the committee, but that you will talk to us
in a more summarized way from notes.
We have with us here today, also, General
Starbird, who will be leaving the Commission
in a week or so as Director of the Division
of Military Application. We are going to
miss his great participation and we are also
going to miss his important contributions
to the program.
Following our session we expect to have
some refreshments and I hope that everyone
will stay for a brief social gathering with Mr.
McCone, the other Commissioners, General
Starbird, and the staff of the Atomic Energy
Commission.
Mr. McCone, will you please proceed?
Chairman MCCoNE. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
I would like to reserve for the end of my
statement my comments as to the very warm
and sincere feeling I have toward this com-
mittee and all of the members and the man-
ner in which they have treated and co-
operated with me.
(There followed a discussion of the various
atomic energy programs which appears in a
separate, classified transcript.)
I would like to close by thanking you, Mr.
Chairman, and you, Mr. HOLIFIELD, and every
member of this committee for the wonderful
cooperation, friendship, and support you have
given me. It has been a very gratifying and
pleasing experience.
I want to thank Mr. Ramey and the staff
also for the cooperation they have given us.
Chairman ANDERSON. I want to say, Mr.
Chairman, I have tried to terminate your
report only because I wanted every member
of this committee, who wished to do so, to
have an opportunity to put some words in
the permanent record.
May I say first of all this has been a very
pleasing and heartwarming experience for
me. I have enjoyed working with you.
Incidentally, I am in the same situation as
you are. I am leaving the chairmanship of
this committee and will not return to it.
Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity
to express in this closing year of my chair-
manship the pleasure I have had in associat-
ing with you and to thank you for your many
courtesies and constant understanding which
I appreciate most sincerely.
Mr. ASPINALL, who could not remain, left a
statement which he asked be inserted in the
record at the appropriate place. This will be
done.
Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to say this to Mr. McCone. I value
January 29
highly the service you have rendered ever
since you came on the Commission in 1958.
I have never worked With a man whom I
thought was more dedicated or applied him-
self more industriously and energetically to a
position in the executive branch of the Gov-
ernment. I think you have rendered a great
service. I appreciate the personal associa.
tion I have had with you and the frankness
and candor with which you have answered
our questions and responded to our requests
for information.
As you leave your place in the executive
branch, I am confident that you do so with
the high regard of all of our Members. I
want to take this opportunity also to say
that Mr. PRICE, who had to return to his
office because of constituents, asked me to in-
clude him in my remarks and in those other
laudatory remarks he knew would be made
today. He shares in the high regard we all
have for you.
Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman, it
is a little difficult for each member of the
committee to say the same thing in a dif-
ferent way, yet we all want to join In what
has been said.
From a personal standpoint I want to say
to you-and for the record-that you have
brought as high a degree of capability and
understanding to this job as an individual
could bring. You are not a physicist, but
you are an engineer of ability and you have
a practical. fundamental grasp of the subject
matter and a capacity to get into these sci-
entific matters from the standpoint of your
background and training. .
You have brought to the Commission the
highest degree of business judgment-prac-
tical business judgment. I think that has
been very important. After all is said and
done, in my view the Atomic Energy Com-
mission is not a scientific agency purely. It
is an industrial production agency. It re-
quires a combination of a high ability to
grasp the scientific phases of the matter and
a high degree of practical business, admin-
istrative and production knowledge. You
not only have this combination of abilities,
but you have displayed it unusually well.
There is no one who has occupied a posi-
tion on the Commission who has enjoyed
greater confidence or trust than you have.
That is a matter of common agreement on
this committee.
You have been extremely forward looking
in your attitude and your devotion to this
program. I met Dr. Seaborg outside just a
few minutes ago and we recalled some of
the early days in the committee, the whole
project and some of our associations at that
time. We both agreed the picture doesn't
look the same today as It did 14 years ago.
I don't know what it will look like in another
10 years, but I do believe your forward look-
ing attitude in the programs which you have
sponsored will have a great effect on the pro-
grams in the indefinite future.
I wish you well in the future. I wish you
continued success. I hope you will have the
satisfaction you deserve from again serving
your Government in a most vital way.
Senator PASTORE. I associate myself with
all of the statements that have been made.
However, let me say this. You have be-
come, in my opinion, a model of what a
dedicated and devoted public servant should
be. There was a time in this committee
when I was rather apprehensive at the rela-
tionship between the executive branch and
the legislative branch. I think it has been
through your strong personality and through
your temperament that much of that dis-
turbed atmosphere has been cleared. This
committee has renewed confidence in the
executive branch, for which you should take
a great deal of credit.
Approved. For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
confirmed any man owning stocks in
companies which May have contracts
with the Atomic Energy Commission. I
told him:
You are likely to have some business deal-
ings with these firms when you are on the
Atomic Energy Commission.
He was surprised that I should say
that with respect to one of these com-
panies. He thought that that company
never had had any business transactions
with the Atomic Energy Commission,
-but it had. When he looked at the list,
he said:
I do not object to these; I will sell these
stocks.
He did sell them. Then we came to
another group of stocks. I said:
These are not in a black and white class.
This is a particularly difficult ground we
are now on with respect to these stocks.
However, if I were you, I would dispose of
these stocks also. I agree that they are not
in any way in conflict, but I think I would
dispose of.them also. I think you will feel
better if you did so.
There was no argument about it. He
put a check mark next to every one of
them. He said:
I will dispose of these also.
Then we came to stocks that we
thought he could safely hold, in which
his interest was not such as to conflict
wit l his responsibility, on the Atomic
Energy Commission.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ANDERSON. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. _If- the Senator will
allow me to interpose at this point I
should like to say that the nominee feels
the same way about it at this time.
Reading from the -RECORD at the point
where Senator SALTONSTALL was inter-
rogating the nominee and where the
Senator from Massachusetts had asked
a question about the nominee's holdings.
The nominee says:
In 1958, I turned the management of the
shipping- company over to others, and dis-
associated myself entirely. I then at that
time placed the stock of those companies in
trust in a bank, which was an irrevocable
trust, reVokaile only when I left the Gov-
ernment. -
Now, I have not placed that stock back in
trust. I am perfectly willing to do so.
The witness said this on January 18,
1962.
'Then later in the testimony, with re-
not any possible conflict with respect to
those stocks.
Then we came to a fourth group of
stock, and I said:
I think on these, Mr. McCone, you ought
to make a trust arrangement, so that you
will not have any custody of them. The
reason for it is-that the Atomic Energy Act
is peculiar. It does not permit a member of
the Atomic Energy Commission to have any
other business.
This was a 100 percent wholly owned
company. While he was not going to de-
vote any time to its management, -I
nevertheless said to him:
You do not want the charge to be made
that , president and sole owner of the stock
you had to be engaged in another business.
Therefore, he moved this stock into a
trust arrangement.
Not only did he put them in a trust,
but he submitted the trust agreement not
only to the lawyers, but also to any mem-
ber of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy who wanted to look at it, to see
If it was sufficient. I commended him for
it, and I commend him now.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr, ANDERSON. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. My only point in
bringing it up was that the nominee was
completely willing to do whatever the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
thought should be done with respect to
these holdings, which, as we both know,
is not the case with all potential nomi-
nees. He did exactly what the chair-
man of the Joint Committee thought
was right, and he also expressed the
same thought before the Armed Services
Committee, namely, that if the chair-
man. and the committee thought it was
the right thing to do, he was entirely
willing to do it.
Mr. ANDERSON. I thank the Sena-
tor. I only say to him that this was not
the action of the Joint Committee. It
was merely the suggestion of the chair-
man Of the Joint Committee. I said that
I thought he would feel better if he made
this disposition. He did exactly what
was suggested. I made that suggestion,
and he complied with it. That was typi-
cal of our entire dealings with him.
While it is true that not everything
that took place appears in the record,
there were many things that do not
appear in the record that we did do.
I should like to give another case that
carne before the Joint Atomic Energy
spect to this trust he said: Committee. At one time a very fine
I have no objection to the establishing of scientist was suggested for membership
an irrevocable trust if there is reason to do on the Atomic Energy Commission. He
so. I felt the peculiar wording and restric- was appointed by -President Eisenhower,
tions of the Atomic Energy Act made it ad- so we were not under any obligations to
visable to establish that trust at that time. be extremely careful.
Mr. ANDERSON. I only say to the Some Members of Congress know that
Senator from Missouri that this is not the Senator from New Mexico has not
the class of stocks to which I refer. I always been extremely careful in his re-
shall come to them in a moment. There lationship with people who get appoint-
was a Certain class of stocks that he could ed. Here was a man who was named to
own openly or-I believe lawyers use-the membership on the Commission. I was
expression-notoriously. So there was tremendously interested because I had
known of the man's work at Los Alamos.
H7' telephoned me while I was in New
Mexico and asked me if hecould come to
talk to me before his name was sub-
mitted. Of course, I was happy to have
him do so. Dr. Von Neumann came to see
me and read a long list of things that he
had done which some people regarded as
being foolish and which he felt would
cause some people to classify him as be-
ing an extreme liberal, and he wanted
to know if I thought that was bad. I
assured him that I did not so regard it.
I said to him: .
If your name comes before the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy, you will have to
speak on every one of these subjects and
discuss every one of them.
At a later date he did come before the
joint commitee in executive session and
discussed every one of these things to
which some people might have taken
exception.
The things that he had done were
based upon the fact that he had come
into substantial amounts of money be-
cause of his inventive mind. If a friend
was in need and came to him, he tried
to help him.
We therefore examined Dr. Von Neu-
mann in secret at first. Thenin order
that no one would be able to say that
we did not cover the subject completely
we held an open hearing, at which the
able junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
GORE] carefully phrased the questions
and put them to the witness, so that the
subject could be completely covered but
without drawing other people into it.
We frequently do not put into the
record everything that happens and
everything that takes place. However,
I wish to assure everyone that every-
thing was carefully done. It is all
very much like the case of an iceberg;
not all of it is above the surface. Ques-
tion after question was put to the witness
carefully and thoughtfully, so that he
might have a chance to testify as to what
his relations had been and what had
happened.
As many persons know, Mr. McCone
was well liked by the members of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy., I
was in a strange situation, because peo-
ple had worried that we might riot get
along together. I thought we got along
splendidly. Other members of the com-
mittee thought the same.
So, as Mr. McCone was finishing his
term of service in 1961, and Dr. Seaborg
was coming in to succeed him, the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy had a spe-
cial meeting in an afternoon. At that
meeting, Mr. McCone gave his final
report. At the very outset of it, I an-
nounced to the members of the commit-
tee that -I hoped we might treat the ses-
sion in two sections, one which would
relate to Mr. McCone's final report, the
other which would deal with our own ex-
pressions of feeling toward him. _I
wanted to make it possible to declassify
Approyed For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 946
Approved For RV81% igg4 ki CAt ffb4B%%2ffi 0400040051-2 January 29
was appointed chairman of the Atomic
-Energy Commission.
Mr. President, it is not easy to get able
and qualified men to serve in the area of
national security. I have always been of
the opinion that such men should be
selected without regard to their partisan
backgrounds. I have felt that the main
criterion for consideration should be
their ability and qualifications. I took
this position before I was chairman of
the Democratic National Committee, and
I have taken the same position ever since.
As a matter of fact, I took that position
during the course of the campaign itself.
The President of the United States
stated yery clearly during the course of
the campaign in 1960 that he would
select men in the area of national se-
curity without regard to party.
The President had many such prec-
edents for the service of able men. In
the Wilson administration, in the ad-
ministration of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
and in the Truman administration men
have served who were not members of
the Democratic Party.
From personal experience on the Joint
Atomic Energy Committee I know a good
deal about Mr. McCone's ability and his
knowledge in the field of national se-
curity. I believe we are fortunate in be-
ing able to bring into the Government
a man with Mr. McCone's background
and experience.
Mention has been made earlier of some
of the offices which Mr. McCone has held
and in which he has served his country.
I believe the distinguished Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] went into some
detail in that respect. Suffice it to say
that Mr. McCone served on the so-called
Finletter Committee, the Air Policy
Commission, in 1947. He served as a
special deputy to the then Secretary of
Defense, James Forrestal; then as Under
Secretary of the Air Force; and sub-
sequently as chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission.
Some persons have said Mr. McCone
has not had experience in the field of in-
telligence. The point is that we need
a man who has the judgment, common-
sense, and administrative ability to deal
with the many problems which arise in
the position of Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. At least in my
judgment, Mr. McCone has had experi-
ence in the broad area of national se-
curity that few people in Government
have had. He is a good administrator.
I must also add that during his service
as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission Mr. McCone foresaw what. the
Soviets would do, especially in the area
of nuclear testing. The campaign
against Mr. McCone stems, in fact, not
from concern over the unfounded allega-
tions of conflict of interest, but really
because of concern for his hard, tough
policy in relation to the Soviet Union,
I know of my own knowledge how right
Mr. McCone was concerning what the
Soviets would do in the field of nuclear'
testing. He was honest and forthright
in his dealings with the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy. He gave us his point
of view. He stated his opinions candid-
ly, fairly, and objectively. He took a
position which was in disagreement with
that of some members of his own admin-
istration.
I am confident that Mr. McCone as
head of the Central Intelligence Agency
will act from a broad, rich experience
which will make it possible for him to
serve effectively in this area. He will be
intellectually honest in his judgments in
evaluating the information which will be
entrusted to him. We are indeed fortu-
nate to have a man of his capacity will-
ing to serve the country during this
troublesome period.
Much has been said concerning an
alleged conflict of interest. These alle-
gations. have been made before, as I have
indicated, and have been unanimously
rejected by three different committees,
including the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices, which heard his testimony. We
had all the information before us. Some
persons simply wish to bring out mat-
ters which have been completely refuted.
These matters are raised now as part of
the campaign against Mr.. McCone-a
campaign which stems mainly from dis-
agreement with the hard policy he has
always taken with reference to difficult
decisions which must be made in the area
of national security affecting our rela-
tions with the Soviet Union.
. Mr. President, I am confident that
Mr. McCone will be an able and an ef-
fective Director of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, and that he will faith-
fully discharge his duties in the interest
of our national security. If there is an
area in Government where we need men
who are tough and hard and able ad-
ministrators, rich with good sense and
good judgment, and who will indeed
take a hard, tough position; it is in the
Central Intelligence Agency.
I am confident that Mr. McCone will
be worthy of the trust-and it is indeed
a great trust; it could be the security
of our country-that we place in his
hands when he undertakes to do this
job. I can only say that it would be a
tragedy if Mr. McCone were to embark
on his new position with a substantial
vote against him in the Senate.
Mr. President, we should give Mr. Mc-
Cone a unanimous vote. I only hope
that Senators who speak in regard to
the nomination of Mr. McCone will
weigh carefully their words and will
make sure that they do not attempt to
use arguments in the area of so-called
conflict of interest as a means of justi-
fying their opposition ' to him. If they
believe he is not qualified they should
state wherein he is not qualified.
But I hope and trust that the Senate
will give Mr. McCone an overwhelming
vote of confidence, so that when he em-
barks on his duties as Director of the
Central Intelligency Agency he will
know, and the country will know, that
he has the full confidence and support
of the Senate, which are so essential in
connection with the doing of a very
taxing and difficult job-one which is
most difficult under even the best cir-
cumstances.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I associate my-
self with the remarks of the able Sen-
ator from Washington, one who has had
so much experience working with the
nomineee in broad and classified mat-
ters.
I shall speak briefly on this nomination
before the vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
METCALF in the chair). The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
THE COLLEGE ACADEMIC FACILI-
TIES AND SCHOLARSHIP ACT
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, tomor-
row in the House of Representatives,
and later this week in the Senate, there
will come before the Congress, for de-
bate, the College Academic Facilities
and Scholarship Act, which in this body
is Senate bill 1241. The chairman of
the Education Subcommittee of the
Senate ~ Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, the distinguished senior Sen-
ator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] is un-
fortunately detained, because he is serv-
ing as a member of our delegation at
the Punta del Este Conference, in Uru-
guay. He has obtained, on a State-by-
State basis, statistical information
which in his judgment would be of as-
sistance to each of the Senators par-
ticipating in the debate, and also would
be helpful to the Members of the other
body when they initiate their debate,
tomorrow. He has asked me to have
this material placed in the RECORD at
his request, in order to help us in our
consideration of this important matter,.
The information developed consists of
such items as current and projected col-
lege enrollment, financial assistance to
students administered through the col-
leges and univerisities, data on the pub-
lic junior colleges of each State, esti-
mated expenditure of colleges and uni-
versities for student higher education,
and college age population data.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the material to which I have
alluded be printed in the RECORD at this
point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the data
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
I dislike to see you go, but after all you
have your reasons. It has been.a very illum-
inating and refreshing experience for me to
be associated with you. I remember our
very cordial relationship in Geneva. There
it was my privilege to meet Mrs. McCone, the
very charming and devoted lady who, I
think, may be largely responsible for what
you are. I congratulate you and I wish you
many, many years of good health, success,
and happiness.
Representative ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
too wish to join in the words of commenda-
tion which are being directed to the retir-
ing Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission.
I desire to thank Chairman McCone per-
sonally for the loyal, constructive, able, and
effective service which he has once again ren-
dered to his Nation and fellow men. The
members of this committee, of the Congress,
of the administration, and of the Nation
shall be forever indebted to Chairman Mc-
Cone for his dedication to service and the
Wise counsel and leadership which he has
provided for the nuclear energy program
during his encumbency of the office.
As he leaves our association, I wish for
him life's better blessings-good health and
sweet happiness. I sincerely hope that the
association we have had together shall not
be brought to an end, but, rather, that we
shall find ourselves in his company ofttimes
in the days and years ahead of us.
Senator GORE. Mr. Chairman, my predom-
inant feeling today is a sense of loss both of
a personal nature and of a public nature.
Few men can bring to public service the
personality and the intellectual capacity
which Mr. McCone possesses and of which he
has given so generously.'
Senator PASTORE referred to the improved
relationship between the Commission and
the committee. That was much to be de-
sired. I would that I could have some of
the gentleness of manner which Mr. McCone
nearly always demonstrated. [Laughter.]
And yet I love the Irish in him. It is there.
I am glad it is there. The trouble is that
to make an invidious comparison-it is in
It is with genuine regret that I see you
leave-public service, John McCone, and if I
have my way about it, you won't have the
luxury very long. I think this country needs
you. I shall undertake to persuade somebody
to persuade you to get back into the service
of the country.
Representative BATES. Mr. Chairman, I
will not detain the committee with any ex-
tensive remarks. I have expressed person-
ally to John the great respect I have for
him and the work he has done.
I came on the committee about the same
time he became Chairman of the Atomic En-
ergy Commission. I did so with some con-
sternation, having read in the newspapers of
the bitter controversies which existed be-
tween some members of the Joint Committee
and the Atomic Energy Commission. I have
no firsthand knowledge of those circum-
stances And could not, and see no need to,
pass judgment on the situation as it ex-
isted at that' time. I do, however, wish to
state that the extraordinary administrative
qualities of JohnMcCone brought about an
atmosphere in these relationships that was
pleasant and harmonious. He had that in-
nate quality of balance that permitted him
to be firm in principle, yet cooperative in
understanding alternative-points of view.
He has gained our respect and our admira-
tion. He can leave his assignment with a
great deal of pride. My only regret is that
the country will lose the services of a dis-
'!inguished servant and patriot.
Senator JACKSON. Mt. Chairman, I am
sorry I can't stay for the reception after
this meeting.
However, I do want to express my appre-
ciation to Mr. McCone for the fine job he
has done as Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission. This is not his first service to
the country. He has `served in many other
capacities. I remember particularly his out-
standing work as Under Secretary of the Air
Force at the same time Mr. Lovett was Sec-
retary of Defense.
I want to say, Mr. McCone, that while we
may not agree on every aspect of the atom-
ic-energy effort, I do believe you have
brought to the office a high degree of com-
petence with your background as an engineer
in private life and your administrative expe-
rience. You have handled your job well un-
der what have been trying and difficult cir-
cumstances at times.
I personally wanted to come here today
and express my appreciation for the service
you have rendered the country.
Senator DWORSHAK. Mr. Chairman, I
share the sentiments which have already
been expressed by my colleagues, and I con-
sider it a tragic loss that you are leaving the
service of the Government at this time.
It has been a real pleasure for me to have
the opportunity to work with you. You have
dispelled the feeling I had 4 years ago when
I became a member of the committee that
we were to face constant turmoil and dissen-
sion in the relations of the Atomic Energy
Commission and the Joint Committee which
naturally impaired the progress which I have
strongly desired be made in this field.
I want to express also the appreciation of
the people of my State of Idaho for the very
fine understanding you have displayed and
the sympathetic cooperation you have ex-
tended in the management of the Idaho in-
stallation of the Atomic Energy Commission.
While recognizing the personal sacrifice
you have made in leaving your home and
your business in California to assume this
great responsibility, I do share the hope of
my colleagues that because of your dedica-
tion as an American patriot you will find it
possible to assume other responsibilities in
the future and continue to help our govern-
ment solve many of the problems which so
strongly affect the security of our Republic.
Representative WESTLAND. Mr. Chairman,
after all of these statements that have been
made, it is rather difficult to think of any-
thing further to say.
I, like Mr. BATES, have been on this com-
mittee for 2 years. I consider it a real privi-
lege to have served with this committee and
to have been associated with you. I appre-
ciate the many questions you have answered
in words of one syllable; answers that have
helped me to learn something about this in-
dustry and the problems facing the Nation
in the atomic energy program.
There is no question in my mind, John,
but that you have brought great prestige,
nationwide to the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, some of which has rubbed off on this
committee, and has helped the atomic energy
program in the United States and perhaps
throughout the world.
I have admired you particularly for your
stability in your decisions. Once made you
have stood by them despite occasional con-
trary opinions from equally high levels in
government. Having decided what you be-
lieved to be the right course for this country,
you have maintained that position. 'To m
this is a great character building example
for, perhaps, all of us.
I have only one thing to add-I wouldsay
that I am sure your golf game will improve
after you get away from this job. [Laugh-
ter. ]
Senator BENNETT. John, you have heard
all of these encomiums and these sugges-
tions. It is my job to sum up and I will do
it with theBiblical phrase, "Well done, thou
good and faithful servant."
Chairman ANDERSON. Although this is
something which has not been done before,
I would like to ask permission to have these
statements that have been made today
transcribed in a separate record which would
then be sent to Mr. McCone.
If there is no objection, that will be done.
The meeting is adjourned.
(Whereupon at 4:35 p.m. the meeting was
adjourned.)
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
could place in the RECORD a great many
other things. I simply wish to say that
I believe the committee carefully con-
sidered Mr. McCone's qualifications be-
fore he officially became the nominee.
Before his name was announced, I had
sat down and gone over a great many
things with him in the presence of the
Senator from California, Mr. Knowland,
and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICNEN-
LOOPER]. Then I had had other ex-
tended conversations with him, trying
to bring out facts which I thought were
essential. If the Joint Committee did
not do its work, then I am sorry; but I
fully believe as much care was given to
Mr. McCone's nomination as probably
any committee in Congress ordinarily
would pay to the usual nomination.
We were happy to see how the nomi-
nation worked out. We were very happy
with the work Mr. McCone displayed.
I think we tried to be extremely cooper-
ative. I believe Mr. McCone tried to
carry out the instructions of the Presi-
dent and, at the same time, deal with
the committee, which was dominated by
the opposite political party. It is a very
difficult situation to carry out the wishes
of a President who is of one political
party and to deal with a committee com-
posed of members, a majority of which
are members of another political party.
However, I think the nomination worked
out very well.
I am happy to say that I enjoyed visit-
ing with Mr. McCone and watching what
he did. I for one wish to pay tribute to
the fine way in which he operated as
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I wish
to associate myself with the remarks of
the able Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON].
I have served for many years on the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, both
in this body and in the House. I know
that what the Senator from Mexico has
said today regarding the thorough inves-
tigation made prior to the action taken
by the Joint Committee in approving
unanimously Mr. McCone's nomination
is true. I think it is unfortunate that
these allegations are being dredged up
all over again, afteLr two committees,
prior to the consideration of Mr. Mc-
Cone's nomination by the Committee on
Armed Services this year, had acted
unanimously on his appointment, first, as
Under Secretary of the Air Force in, I
believe, 1948, and later, in 1958, when he
Approved For Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP64B00346R00Q400040051-2
 Approve-d-Fo 'Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE 973
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL rector, the Deputy Director, or the Executive
INTELLIGENCE of the Agency.
The Senate resumed the consideration (c) The determinations and decisions
provided in subsection (a) of this section to
of the nomination of John A. McCone, be made by the Agency head may be made
of California, to be Director of Central with respect to individual purchases and
Intelligence. contracts or with respect to classes of pur-
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I intend chases or contracts, and shall be final. Ex-
to address myself briefly, tomorrow, to cept as provided in subsection (d) of this
section, the Agency head is authorized to
the question of the ___A .,,,.,a,.
ni
tion of the nomination of Mr. McCone
to be Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency.
However, I should like at this time to
have printed in the RECORD, first, a copy
of a memorandum on the conflict-of-in-
terest point, prepared at my request by
the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I
ask unanimous consent that it may be
printed at this point in the RECORD, in
,connection with my remarks.
There being no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
MEMORANDUM FOR SENATOR CLARK
This memorandum is written in response
to your telephone request to this office on
January 26, 1962, regarding the conflict-of-
interest implications which might arise in
the event that Mr. John A. McCone, who has
been nominated by the President for the
office of Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, is confirmed for that office by the
Senate.
According to information furnished this
office by you, Mr. McCone has substantial fi-
nancial holdings in Standard Oil of Califor-
nia, trans-world carriers, and other ship-
ping interests. Such information does not
indicate whether Mr. McCone is an officer
of any company or business organization, and
it is not known to what extent, if any, the
Central Intelligence Agency transacts busi-
ness with those companies in which Mr.
McCone holds a financial interest.
PROVISIONS OF LAW INVOLVED
Any conflict of interest likely to arise in
the case of the Director of the Central In-
telligence Agency (hereafter referred to as
CIA) as a result of financial holdings by him
of the nature referred to above would prob-
abl? occur in connection with purchases and
contracts made by the CIA. The conflict-
of-interest statute which would be brought
into question in such a situation is section
434 of title 18- United United States Code, which
provides: _
"? 434. Interested persons acting as Govern-
ment agents
"Whoever, being an officer, agent or mem-
ber of, or directly or indirectly interested in
the, pecuniary profits or contracts of any cor-
poration, joint-stock company, or business
entity, is employed or acts as an officer or
agent of the United States for the transac-
tion of business with such business entity,
shall be fined not more than $2,000 or im-
prisoned not more than two years, or both."
The procurement authority of the CIA is
contained in section 3 of the Central Intel-
ligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403a-
403j). It provides:
"PROCUREMENT AUTHORITIES
e p
oscr
ption of sec-
functions the Central Intelligence Agency is lion 434, we think it is appropriate to focus "In view of the statute's evident purpose
authorized to exercise the authorities con- our attention initially on the origin, pur- and its comprehensive language, we are con-
tained in sections 2(c) (1), (2), (3), (4), pose, and scope of the statute. Section 434 vinced that Congress intended to establish
(5), (6), (10), (12), (15), (17), and sections is one of several penal conflict-of-interest a rigid rule of conduct which, as we shall
3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 of the Armed Services Pro- statutes which were designed to prohibit now demonstrate by analyzing each of the
curefnent Act of 1947 (Public Law 413, Eight- Government officials from engaging in con- elements of the statutory prohibition, was
ieth Congress, second session), [now con- duct that might be inimical, to the best in- violated by Wenzell" (pp. 548-551).
tamed in chapter 137 of title 10, U.S.C.]. terests of the general public. It is a re- Particularly worthy of note in the fore-
"(b) In the exercise of the authorities statement of a statute adopted in 1863 fol- going excerpt (third paragraph) is the
granted in subsection (a) of this section, lowing the disclosure b a House C e r ' to to the ef-
the term "Agency head" Sl 0 Pbr RWea 2*Nf@ fy 5 b ective stand-
delegate his powers provided in this section,
including the making of such determinations
and decisions, in his discretion and subject
to his direction, to any other officer or offi-
cers or officials of the Agency.
"(d) The power of the Agency head to
make the determinations or decisions speci-
fied in paragraphs (12) and (15) of section
2(c) and section 5(a) of the Armed Serv-
ices Procurement Act of 1947 shall not be
delegable. Each determination or decision
required by paragraphs (12) and (16) of
section 2(c), by section 4 or by section 5(a)
of the Armed Services Procurement Act of
1947 [now contained in chapter 137 of title
10, U.S.C.], shall be based upon written
findings made by the official making such
determinations, which findings shall be fi-
nal and shall be available within the Agency
for a period of at least six years following
the date of the determination."
It should be noted that the term "Agency
head" as used in section 3(d) above is
defined in subsection (b) to mean the Di-
rector, or the executive of the Agency.
Mississippi Valley Generating base
The most recent decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States construing the
provisions of section 434 of title 18, United
States Code, is the case of the United States
V. Mississippi Valley Generating Company
(364 U.S. 520 (1961) ).
In that case one Wenzell was an unpaid
part-time consultant to the Bureau of the
Budget in connection with preliminary ne-
gotiations which eventually led to a contract
for the construction and operation of- a
powerplant to provide electric power for the
Atomic Energy Commission. At the time
such negotiations were being carried out
Wenzell was also an officer and shareholder
of an investment banking firm which was
expected to profit, in the event the contract
negotiations were successful, by becoming
the financial agent for the project to be
undertaken under the contract. The Court
held that there was a conflict of interest on
the part of Wenzell and that:
"Section 434 forbids a Government agent
from engaging in business transactions on
behalf of the Government if, by virtue of
his private interest, he may benefit fi-
nancially from the outcome of those trans-
actions" (p. 562).
The Court was careful to-emphasize that
the holding quoted above was limited to the
specific facts presented in that case. How-
ever, that case being the most recent one
interpreting section 434, statements made
therein by the Court (three Justices dis-
senting) must necessarily be relied upon in
any attempt to determine the applicability
of section 4.34' to a different set of circum-
stances.
The majority opinion discusses in some
detail the origin, purpose, and scope of sec-
tion 434. - In that discussion the Court said.,
"First. In determining whether Wenzell's
activties fall within th
r
i
ernment agents whose job it was to procure
war materials for the Union armies during
the Civil War. The statute has since been
reenacted on several occasions, and the
broad prohibition contained in the original
statute has been retained throughout the
years.
-"The obvious purpose of the statute is to
insure honesty in the Government's business
dealings by preventing Federal agents who
have interests adverse to those of the Gov-
ernment from advancing their own in-
terests at the expense of the public welfare,
United States v. Chemical Foundation (272
U.S. 1, 16). The moral principle upon which
the statute is based has its foundation in the
Biblical admonition that no man may serve
two masters, Matthew 6: 24, a maxim which
is especially pertinent if one of the masters
happens to be economic self-interest. Con-
sonant with this salutary moral purpose,
Congress has drafted a statute which speaks
in very comprehensive terms. Section 434
is not limited in its application to those in
the highest echelons of Government service,
or to those Government agents who have
only a direct financial interest in the busi-
ness entities with which they negotiate on
behalf of the Government, or to a narrow
class of business transactions. Nor is the
statute's scope restricted by numerous pro-
visos and exceptions, as is true of many penal
statutes. Rather, it applies, without excep-
tion, to 'whoever' is 'directly or indirectly
interested in the pecuniary profits or con-
tracts' of a business entity with which he
transacts any business 'as an officer or agent
of the United States.'
"It is also significant, we think, that the
statute does not specify as elements of the
crime that there be actual corruption or that
there be any actual loss suffered by the Gov-
ernment as a result of the defendant's con-
flict of interest. This omission indicates that
the statute establishes an objective standard
of conduct, and that whenever a Government
agent fails to act in accordance with that
standard he is guilty of violating the statute,
regardless of whether there 1s positive cor-
ruption. The statute is thus directed not
only at dishonor, but also at conduct that
tempts dishonor. This broad proscription
embodies a recognition of the fact that an
impairment of impartial judgment can occur
in even the most well-meaning men when
their personal economic interests are affected
by the business they transact on behalf of
the Government. To this extent, therefore,
the statute is more concerned with what
might have happened in a given situation
than with what actually happened. It at-
tempts to prevent honest Government agents
from succumbing to temptation by making
it illegal for them to enter into relationships
which are fraught with temptation (Rankin
v. United States (98 Ct. C1.-357)).
"While recognizing that the statute speaks
in broad, absolute terms, the - respondent
argues that to interpret the statute as laying
down a prophylactic rule which ignores the
actual consequences of proscribed action
would be a violation of the time-honored
canon that penal statutes are to be narrowly
construed. But even penal statutes must be
'given their fair meaning in accord with the
evident intent of Congress' (United States v.
Raynor (302 U.S. 540, 552); Rainwater v.
 974
Approved For R6fiffiASL4BWW0400040051-2 January 29
viol
th
- __ _-? -----
ere ?s a
and of conduct, and that
of the statute whether or not positive cor- Government, even though that officer or objection to the-request of the Senator
ruption is involved and whether or not any employee possesses substantial financial in- from Pennsylvania?
actual loss is sustained by the Government.' terest in a company with which the depart-
The Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
Court' Indicated that the language of ment or agency in which he serves does have a copy of the document s which
the statute establishes a rigid rule of con- business, if that officer or employee takes the paragraphs the the able Senator
duct for Government officers and employees. no part in the transaction of that business
The Court rejected the argument of re- and has no supervisory or overriding author- from Pennsylvania are a part. This
spondent that since Wenzeil did not partici- ity with respect to the transaction of that document was not furnished by the
pate in the terminal negotiations which led business. The opinion in Mississippi Valley i Central Intelligence Agency to the nom-
to the final agreement his actions were too appears to be grounded upon the premise inee. He therefore knew nothing of the
remote and tenuous to be considered "the. that the chief evil at which section 434 is rules in the document. Fortunately the
transaction of business" within the mean- ' directed is not the mere fact of the posses- -nominee is Completely in the clear the
ing of the statute. In rejecting the argu- sion by a Government officer of a private , cause of his pOSletel before the Com-
ment the majority said: financial interest in a business entity, but
"To limit the application of the statute to : his undertaking to act on behalf of the mittee.
Government agents who participate only in. Government in a business transaction with Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
the final formation of a contract would per- a business entity in which he has such an Senator from Missouri yield?
mit those who have a conflict of interest interest. Therefore, assuming that Mr. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the
to engage in the preliminary, but crucial McCone in his capacity as Director of the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor,
stages' of the transaction, and then to In.. CIA could divorce himself completely from and has been kind enough to yield to
sulate themselves from prosecution under any business transactions involving those
section 434 by withdrawing from the nego?? companies in which he holds a pecuniary me.
Mr. CLARK. Of course if the Senator
tiations at the final, and often perfunctory interest, he would certainly escape. any con-
stage of the proceedings. Congress could flict contemplated by section 434. Whether from Missouri does not want this in-
not possibly have intended such an obvious he could in fact (1) remove himself from formation in the RECORD, and if he
evasion of the statute" (pp. 554-555). all questionable transactions to the degree -therefore wishes to object, I shall be
This statement by the Court makes it necessary to insure that no conflict of in- happy to withdraw my request. But
quite clear that an agent of the Government Merest would arise, or (2) remove himself these particular rules have been fur-
who participates only in the formative stages from all questionable transactions and per- nished at my request-
:,, t of I form the functions of the CIA in the best . nished WT-
and
by the --wid
e- -
----- -- -
solve the-question of whether an agent wno 1
participates only in the terminal negotia- i cannot be answered here. point is that these rules and regulations,
tions, particularly if the participation is Conclusions part of which the able Senator is plac-
nothing more than perfunctory, transacts Although the Court in the Mississippi Val- ing the RECORD, were not given by the
business within the meaning of section 434. ley case was careful to limit its holding to 'CIA to the nominee.
It would not be unreasonable to conclude, the facts before it in that case, the expres- Mr. CLARK. I never said they were.
on the basis, of the Court's statement con- sions therein contained would seem to sup- Mr. SYMINGTON.. I know; but I
cerning the lack of knowledge of a conflict port the following inferences: mentiol; this because the nominee has
of interest on the part of Wenzell, that its 1. If Mr. McCone were to serve as Di- been entirely willing to abide nominee the
ruling would be the same in both instances. (rector of the CIA, section 434 of title 18, bemmittte of the Senate before which
With respect to that aspect of the case the United States Code, could have no applica- co has now appeared, as he ore before
Court said: tion unless, during his incumbency, the CIA
"However, even assuming that Wenzell did did in fact have business transactions with the other committees before which he
not think there was a conflict, that fact is one or more of the companies in which he previously appeared.
As we have shown, the statute then had a financial interest. I thank the Senator from Pennsyl-
irrelevant
.
establishes an objective, and not a subjective 2. If in his capacity as Director of the CIA vania for his courtesy in yielding.
standard, and it is therefore of little moment Mr. McCone were to participate on behalf Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator
whether the agent thought he was violating of the Government in a business transaction from Missouri for his courtesy to me,
the statute if the objective facts show that `with a company in which he is financially which is always very great, indeed.
there was 'a conflict of interest" (p. 560). interested and from which he might realize Let me ask whether the Senator from
In the Mississippi Valley case, the respond- financial gain, the provisions of section 434
ent asserted that Wenzell's activities did not would become -applicable whether or not Missouri desires to object to the request
fall within the statute because the torpor- Mr. McCone believed his actions to involve I have made.
ation of which he was an officer had no more a conflict of interest. Mr. SYMINGTON. No, Mr. Presi-
than a mere hope that it might receive the 3. The meaning of the term "transacts dent. I simlly wished to make this
financing work if the contract negotiations business," as used in section 434 has not point for the RECORD.
were successful. Again, the Court rejected been fully determined. Clearly a direct or Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator
the argument saying that: indirect personal participation at any stage from Missouri.
"If a contract between the Government in the negotiation or execution ofaparticu-
and the sponsors was ultimately agreed lar contract on behalf of the Government Mr. President, I renew my request.
upon, there was a" substantial probability would be included. The decision in Missis- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
that, because of its prior experience in the sippi Valley suggests that the giving of ap- objection?
area of private power financing, First Boston proval to a contract negotiated by others There being no objection, the memo-
would be hired to secure the financing." (p? probably would be regarded as such a par- randum was ordered to be printed in the
555). ticipation. What other forms of action RECORD, as follows:
This language suggests that certainty of taken by a Government officer with respect CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RULES ON
financial gain is not a necessary' element of to a contract which may be regarded as EMPLOYEE CONDUCT, AUGUST 29, 1961
section 434, but that a substantial that See- participation remains undecided.
Ity of such gain will suffice under that See- Respectfully submitted. Pursuant tp Executive Order 10939, issued
tion. 'Indeed, the Court in its technical hold- May 5, 1961, calling on "each department and
ing ncheld ia 1f a fm his -era t agent may benefit HUGH C. EVANS,
violates Assistant Counsel. agency head (to) review or issue internal
?'' Snancially from his transactions he violates directives appropriate to his department or
the statute (p. 562). Mr. CLARK. Mr. -President, I ask agency to assure the maintenance of high
Discussion 'unanimous, consent that the Central In- ethical and moral standards therein", 'the
CIA issued rules on "employee conduct" on
ObdioLisly, section 434 would not come in- telligence Agency rules on employee August 29, 1961. The rules contain the fol-
to operation if the `CIA, during the period conduct-dealing with conflict of inter- lowing sections:
of Mr McCone's service as Director, were to est, and dated August 29, 1961-be
have no business transactions with any of "III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
"b. Conflicts of interest.
the companies in which he may lie financially printed at this point in the RECORD, in
interested. Accordingly, the question to be connection with my remarks. "(1) DEFINITION. -A conflict of interest is
considered here is whether an individual The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there defined as a situation in which an Agency
serving as Director of the CIA would come objection to the request of the Senator employee's private interest, usually but not
within the provisions of section 434 If the from Pennsylvania? necessarily of an economic nature, conflicts
CIA were to transact business with one or or appears to conflict with his Agency duties
more of the Gompaiiies in which that`D!rector Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, and responsibilities. The situation is of
reserving the right to object may I first th th ,,Hitt
a co
h
o
o er
holds sti stantial financial interests. concern to the Agency w
It is believe q~y+f~4v t> 1:{_ ~nyP64B00346R0(U4000 aZn ."
Mf section 434 rnbTd not be successfully ILL-- 1Vli1.tL21, +NY?
 1962 Approved For P6 000400040051-2
i 0175
"(3) Regulatory provisions. (a) to brokers, agents, attorneys, and ment might bring him into conflict with the
"(c) Financial Interests. Employees may other persons with Whom trust business is section quoted above.
not (a) have direct or indirect financial in- transacted; The trust agreement indicates that it is
terests that conflict substantially, or appear (b) to Mr. McNamara to the extent re- contemplated that the trust property would
to conflict substantially, with their respon- quLred by him "for making reports or re- be invested principally in "common stocks
sibilities and duties as Agency employees." turns to any government authority"; and and equity securities." To the extent that
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I now (c) to Mr. McNamara to the extent that such investment were to be made in business
such information reflects the "net income entities having no business transactions with
ask unanimous consent to have printed and taxable income of the trust estate." the Department of Defense, no problem would
at this point in the RECORD, in connec- 8. Mr. McNamara would reserve the right occur. However, the proposed trust agree-
tion with my remarks, a memorandum at any time to: ment contains no express limitation with
prepared by the Office of, the Legislative (a) alter or revoke the trust agreement; regard to the class of business entities in
C 1f b
Oun
th
S
that situation with respect to possible plan: be assumed that under the proposed service as Secretary. Therefore, the present
plan: inquiry requires consideration of the ques-
conflict of interest because of stock 1. Mr. McNamara would not serve concur- tion whether any such investment might
holdings and the situation in regard to rently as Secretary of Defense and as an offi- bring Mr. McNamara into conflict with the
the nomination of Mr. McCone to be cer, agent, or member of any business entity provisions of section 434.
Director of Central Intelligence Agency. which transacts business with the Depart- 2. Significance of a beneficial interest
There being no objection, the memo- meant of Defense. in securities
randum was Ordered to be printed in 2. Mr. McNamara, before assuming the if, under the terms of the trust agreement
the RECORD, as ollows: office of Secretary of Defense, would dispose or through any other means, Mr. McNamara
[U.S. Senate, Office of the Le islative of all personal financial interests . which were to acquire knowledge of the identity of
Counsel] g might give rise to conflict-of-interest impli- any corporation in which the trustee had in-
cations, and that during his service as Secre- vested trust funds through the purchase of
MEMORANDUM FOR SENATOR BYRD OF VIRGINIA tary of Defense he would acquire no such share capital and which was transacting
Re possible conflict-of-interest aspects of a interests other than those which might be business with the Defense Department, his
trust agreement proposed to be executed acquired by the trustee under the terms of possession of a beneficial interest in securi-
by a designee for appointment as Secre- the proposed trust agreement; , ties of that corporation probably would bring
tary of Defense 3. The trust agreement would be continued section 434 into application.
This memorandum is transmitted pur- in effect without material change by Mr. Mc- In a previous memorandum construing
suant to your request for comment as to Namara during the period of his service as section 434, dated January 19, 1953, this office
su
possib
ant le cyour r o uesterest aspme of the secretary of Defense; expressed the following view:
trust agreement rfurned herewith. 4. No requirement of State or Federal law "The evident purpose of that section was
sACtue rued herew ,. would necessitate the disclosure by the trus- to prevent an officer or employee of the
tee to Mr. McNamara of information con- United States from transacting business with
It is understood that Mr. Robert S. Mc- cerrdng the identity of corporations or other a corporation or other entity in such a way
Namara, formerly president of the Ford Mo- organizations in which investments had been that his action might result in direct or
tor Co., and recently designated for appoint- made by the trustee; indirect personal gain through the acquisi-
ment as Secretary of Defense, has indicated 5. Mr. McNamara would not seek or ac- tion of money or some other thing of value.
that he contemplates entering into a trust quire any such information from any other Inclusion of the word `indirectly' in the
agreement in that form for the purpose of source . during his service as Secretary of phrase 'directly or indirectly interested in
placing his personal affairs in such condi- Defense; the pecuniary profits or contracts of such
tion that action taken by him in the per- e. Mr. McNamara, while serving as Secre- corporation' suggests that the section ex-
formance of the duties of the Office of the tary of Defense, would take no action inci- tends to private gains which flow recogniza-
Secretary of Defense would not place him dent to the procurement of any contract or bly from profits or contracts even though the
in violation of the Federal statutes com- the prosecution of any claim which might gains pass through other hands or instru-
monly referred to as conflict-of-interest be in violation of section 281 or 283 of title mentalities before realization by the officer
statutes. 18 of the United States Code; and concerned.
For present purposes, the principal fea- 7. While serving as Secretary of Defense, "In the light of the relationship existing
tures of the proposed trust agreement may Mr. McNamara would receive no "salary" between a corporation and its shareholders,
be described as follows: from any source other than the United it seems quite clear that the interest of a
1. Mr. McNamara would transfer to the States, "in connection with his services as shareholder in a corporation is of the kind
corporate trustee designated In the agree- such an official," prohibited by section 1914 included within that phrase. However, as
ment certain identified property, and such of title 18, United States Code. a criminal statute, section 434 will be strictly
other property as Mr. McNamara might construed, and it is very doubtful that the
transfer later to the trustee, STATUTE INVOLVED bare existence of such an interest would be
2. For the duration of the trust, the trus- Upon the assumptions which have been regarded as sufficient ground for the visita-
tee would have full power to invest, rein- made, any conflict-of-interest implications tion of criminal consequences. A clear
vest, manage, and control; subject to the in- of the trust agreement which has been de- showing of the presence, in a material de-
vestment directions of an investment adviser scribed would appear to arise from the pro- gree, of the substantive evil at which the
designated in the agreement, all property visions of section 434 of title 18, United section is directed would seem to be a nec-
transferred by Mr. McNamara to the trustee. States Code, which provides: essary element of proof. The existence of a
3. The trustee would be authorized to in- 434. Interested persons acting as Govern- nominal or trivial interest, such as the pos-
vest the trust property (in conformity with ment agents session of a single qualifying share, or the
directions received from the investment ad- "Whoever, being an officer, agent, or mein- possession of naked legal title to shares in
visor) principally in common stock and ber of, or directly or indirectly interested in which the beneficial interest is held by
equity securities," and would not be limited the pecuniary profits or contracts of any cor- others, probably would not be enough. But
as to any particular class or category of poration, joint-stock company, or association, a showing of an actual and beneficial inter-
securities. est of such magnitude as to demonstrate a
4. During the existence of the trust, the ness or s 'entity, Is or partnership,
or acts oas an ther busi-
trustee would pay, from the income and or -agent , is ects s- ofo o influence upon the official ac
o bbe
oof the United ad States for r the e trans- nof the he officers concerned would seem to be
principal of the trust property, to Mr. Mc- action of business with such business entity, sufficient."
Namara and to other persons and organiza- shall be fined not more than $2,000 or im- The foregoing expression assumed knowl-
tions designated by Mr. McNamara, such prisoned not more than two years or both." edge by the shareholder of the identity of
sums as may be prescribed from time to time the corporation in which his investment was
in written directions given by Mr. McNa- DISCUSSION made. It also suggested the probability that
mara. 1. The question presented the apply the interest shareholder might t applt the terof
6. During the existence of the trust, and There is no indication that Mr. McNamara the shareholder a quantitative test of the
while Mr. McNamara serves as Secretary of would continue as an "officer, agent, or mem- magnitude of his interest in determining the
Defense, neither the trustee nor the invest- . ber" of any business entity after his ap- application of section 434 to particular cases.
ment advisor would disclose to Mr. McNa- pointment as Secretary of Defense. Accord- The validity of that suggestion has been
mara or to any other person "any informa- ingly, it would seem that the question for thrown into question by expressions con-
tion concerning the investments of the trust consideration is whether his beneficial in- tained in the majority opinion of the
estate," except that such information could terest in any securities acquired by the Supreme Court in United States v. Missis-
be given: tr stet
Approved For Release" ~~4 ~3/ p? At BOCf3 6 OD0 X0054- o 26, October
- or
e
enator from Virginia ( ) remove or replace the trustee; and which trust funds may be invested. Accord-
[Mr. BYRD] at the time when the nom- (c) cause a new investment advisor to be ingly, it is possible that such funds might
ination of Mr. McNamara to be Secre- designated. be invested in concerns which will be en-
 976
Approved For R eR J//a?JJ: 8RB64B 800400040051-2 January 29
Term, 1960, decided January 9, 1961. In inherent in this class of offense, even when
that opinion it was stated that section 434 not expressed in a statute. Congressional
established "an absolute standard of con- silence as to mental elements in an Act
duct" which leaves no room for equitable merely adopting into federal statutory law
considerations (pamphlet opinion, pp. 37, a concept-of crime already so well defined
43). A discussion of possible implications in common law and statutory interpreta-
of that opinion is set forth hereinafter. tion by the states may warrant quite con-
3. Significance of the element of knowledge trary inferences than the sames silence in
The novel element presented by the creating an offense new to general law, for
instant case arises from the provisions of whose definition the courts have no guidance'
except the Act. * * *"
the trust agreement which (with stated ex- The Court in the Morissette case, however,
ceptions) appear to be intended to insulate reaffirmed the decision in the case of United
McNam ide. ty of ara from knowledge as io the States v. Valint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922), which
identity t any business
may invested. . That held that knowledge was not a necessary
whmhent the rust the question he whether the e element in a violation of, the Narcotic Act
element presents se of December 17, 1914 (38 Stat. 785). In so
possession of such knowledge by Mr. Mc doing, the Court recognized and discussed
Namara would be necessary to bring section the evolution of a class of legal offenses
434 into application. which have become known as "public welfare
Section 434 does not expressly condition its offenses" in which intent is not an element
a of a shareholder upon xwinn knowledge by necessary to the particular offense involved.
a s shareholder of th he existence e of his interest Commenting upon such offenses, the Court
in a business organization with which he said (pp. 255-256) :
may transact business as a Government of- "This has confronted the courts with a
titer. Re se notw, the section would multitude of prosecutions, based on statutes
to such a case notwitned hhss in tandd fact ing ing had the fact no that
such hat hat or administrative regulations, for what have
the ge concerned been aptly called " ubllc welfare offenses."
knowllededge. Any relief from the rigor of such rM . ass do not fit neatly into any of
which the element of knowledge would be such accepter classui-,- _ ~?_ _ ..
read into section 434 as a matter of Congres- offenses, such as those against the state, activities fall within the proscription of Sec-
sional intent or as a requirement necessary the person, property, or public morals. tion 434, we think it is appropriate to focus
to sustain its validity. The legislative his- Many of these offenses are not in the nature our attention initially on the origin, purpose,
tory of section 434 provides no answer to the of positive aggressions or invasions, with scope the statute. Section
ret 434 is onquestion whether Congress intended such which the common law so often dealt, but of of ev penal anal coan itsepof-itento est statutes
government
knowledge to be an element of the crime are in the nature ofneglect where the law ofwhich designed to ficials from engaging in conduct that might
described therein, and no opinion of any requires care, or inaction where it imposes a inimical to the best interests of the fight
gen
Federal court appears to have given express duty. Many violations of such regulations be be inimical It is a restatement of a statute
riirrrt. or immediate injury to eral public.` ~,--,~-.
consideration to that P4KU1-- -V- - erson or but merely create the ttu~N~? _?=?~-o section 434. That question was not directly P property House Committee of scandalous corruption
involved in the determination by the danger or probability of it which the law on the art of government scandalous agents whose job
Court of the recent case of United seeks to minimize. While such offenses do it was to procure war materials for the Union
i
Supreme
States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., not threaten the security of the state
n armies during the Civil War. The statute
No. 26, October Term, 1960, decided January 9? the manner of treason, they may be regarded has since during reenacted on sTheal acute
1961 as offenses against its authority, for their has
and the.nroad prohibition contained
In some instances the courts will read into occurrence impairs the efficiency of controls the original statute has been etainin
a criminal statute a requirement of knowl- deemed essential to the social order as pres- throughout the years.
edge that is not set forth by explicit language, ently constituted. In this respect, whatever roug otithe purpose of the statute is to
contained in the statute. In other instances the intent of the violator, the injury is the "The
the courts wil decline to do so, and will en-, same, and the consequences are injurious or insure honesty in the Government's business
force the statute acording to its literal not according to fortuity. Hence, legislation dealings by preventing federal agents who nterests terms. -See Sayre, Francis B., "Public Wel?' applicable to such offenses, as a matter of have int from adverse t these of the Gov-
fare Offenses," ' 33 Columbia Law Review 55 policy, does not specify intent as a necessary ernme own
(1933). Determination whether a criminal element. The accused, if he does not will States the Chemical the public we1f7r . 1i ed
statute falls into one or the other of those the violation, usually is in a position to Foundation, U.S. , 18.
categories frequently is difficult. As stated prevent it with no more care than society The e mooral has its foundation rinci ple le upon upon in whiich ch the Biblical statute
ute
by the Supreme Court in Morissette v. United might reasonably expect and no more exer- monition that no man may serve two ad-
States, 342 U.S. 246, 260 (1952) : tion than it might reasonably exact from one maxim which Is two especially
this Court nor, so far as we are who assumed his responsibilities." t ser , Matt. that
i624, o of the m which happens to
e economic self-interest. Consonant with
aware, any other has undertaken to de- The offense described by section 434 ap- bp
lineate a precise line or set forth a compre- pears not to be one "well defined in common salutary mpurpose, Chas
which speaks Congress
very toms
s this drafted a astatute ry moral
hensive criteria for distinguishing between law," or one for which the state court this sa
crimes that require a mental element and have consistently retained the requirement prehensive terms. Section 434 is not limited
crimes that do not. We attempt no closed of intent." It does not appear to be a penal in its application to those in the highest
definition, for the law on the subject is provision having as its main purpose the echelons of government service, or to those
neither settled nor static. punishment of an Individual for. a wrong government agents who have only a direct
In that case the Court held that intent committed by him, but rather a provision financial interest in the business entities
was an essential element of an offense of law enacted primarily for the purpose of with which they negotiate on behalf of the
charged under 18 U.S.C. 641 which provides protecting the public against persons who Government, or to a narrow class of business
in part that "whoever embezzles, steals, put- might compromise their positions as officers transactions. Nor is the statute's scope re-
loins, or knowingly converts" property of or employees of the Federal Government for -stricted by numerous provisos and excep-
the United States is punishable by fine or their own personal gain. As such, it would tions, as is true of many penal statutes.
imprisonment even though intent is not an appear to fall into the category described Rather, it applies, without exception, to
element specifically prescribed by the by the Supreme Court as "public welfare "whoever" is "directly or indirectly inter-
statute. The Court said (pp. 260-262): offenses," with respect to which the courts ested in the pecuniary profits or contracts"
"Stealing, larceny, and its variants and will not read in a requirement of knowl- of a business entity with which he transacts
equivalents, were among the earliest offenses edge which is not expressly set forth In the any business "as an officer or agent of the
known to the law that existed before legisla- statute. The reasons for belief that section United States."
tion; * * " State courts of last resort, on 434 is to be so regarded are described more the
whom fall the heaviest burden of interpret- fully in the following paragraphs of this "It statute is does also not significant, specify as we think, elements that t the - of
ing criminal law in this country, have con- memorandum. crime that there be actual corruption or
farce y-type offenses. es. If any t has 4 implications of the Mississippi Valley that there be any actual loss suffered by the
sistently
d, the exception has any state has Generating Company case Government as a result of the defendant's
in ate
interest
deviated, been Val
Com
ion Indicates ceviated, the called to our attention on nor disclosed by our panyecase, refered tole aby einvolved he that conflict thef st tute esThis objective
research.
"Congress, therefore, omitted any express application of section 434 to the activities standard of conduct, and that whenever a
prescription of criminal intent from the of one Wenzell who, while serving as a tem- government agent fails to act in accordance wit enactment before us In the light of an wl^ porary oneouslf the officthe theihis~tthat a~tute, rregardl ss ofgwh their th reins ofa stituent broken course sttates 6fMl{~ i osl~26 *iif&es~4A"Wd9a Ac+ DR64BOO34~'R0 'eoU4M aV2 The statute is thus di-
n gii6dld
on behalf of the United States in
ticipated
negotiations looking toward the formation
of a Government contract in the execution
of which that banking corporation - might
have been expected to participate. The
Court held (3 justices dissenting) that sec-
tion 434 "forbids a government agent from
engaging in business transactions on behalf
of the Government if, by virtue of his private
interests, he may benefit financially from the
outcome of those -transactions" (Pamphlet
opinion, p. 40), and that on the showing
made in that case Mr. Wenzell had violated
the provisions of that section. Accordingly,
it determined that the contract could not be
enforced against the Government (Pamphlet
opinion, pp. 40-44).
The narrow, technical holding of the ma-
jority in that case is not directly determina-
tive of the question considered in this memo-
randum. However, the majority and minor-
ity opinions of the Supreme Court in that
case do contain the most recent and the
most comprehensive expressions of the Court
with respect to the application of section 434.
The following extract from the majority
opinion (pamphlet opinion, pp. 26-29) dem-
onstrates the broad scope given to that sec-
tion by the Court:
 Approved F UN ~ONA / RiaA DP SENATE 8000400040051-2
rected not only at dishonor, but also at
conduct that tempts dishonor. This broad
proscription embodies a recognition of the
fact that an impairment of impartial judg-
ment can occur in even the most well-mean-
ing men when their personal economic in-
terests are affected by the business they
transact on behalf of the Government. To
this extent, therefore, the statute is more
concerned with what might have happened
in a given situation than with what actually
happened. It attempts to prevent honest
government agents from succumbing to
temptation by making it illegal for them to
enter Into relationships which are fraught
with temptation. Rankin v. United States,
9$ Ct. Cl. 357.
"While recognizing that the statute speaks
in broad, absolute terms, the respondent
argues that to interpret the statute as laying
down a prophylatic rule which ignores the
actual consequences of proscribed action
would be a violation of the time-honored
canon.that penal statutes are to be narrowly
construed. But even penal statutes must
be "given their fair meaning in accord with
the evident intent of Congress." United
States v, Raynor, 302 U.S. 540, 552; Rain-
water, v. United States, 356 U.S. 590, 593;
United States v. Corbett, 215 V.S. 233, 242.
In view of the statute's evident purpose and
its comprehensive language, we are convinced
that Congress intended to establish a rigid
rule of conduct which, as 'we shall now
demonstrate by analyzing each of the ele-
ments of the statutory prohibition, was vio-
lated by Wenzell."
The majority opinion clearly indicated that
violation of section 434 requires no showing
of any harm actually sustained by the Gov-
ernment, saying (pamphlet opinion, p. 37) :
"'It may be true, as the respondent asserts,
that none of Wenzell's activities to which
we have alluded adversely affected the Gov-
ernment in any way. However, that question
is irrelevant to a consideration of whether
or not Wenzell violated the statute. As we
have indicated the statute is preventive in
nature; it lays down an absolute standard
of conduct which Wenzell violated by enter-
ing into a relationship which made it dif-
ficult for him to represent the Government
with the singleness of purpose' required by
the statute."
The majority took the view that knowledge
by Mr. Wenzell with regard to the existence
of a conflict of interest arising from his
duality of allegiance was Immaterial, saying
(pamphlet opinion, pp. 38-39) :
"However, even assuming that Wenzell did
not think there, was a conflict, that fact is
irrelevant. As we have shown, the statute
establishes an objective, and not a subjective
standard, and it is therefore of little moment
whether the agent thought he was violating
the statute, if the objective facts show that
there was a conflict of interest."
The majority also rejected the contention
that equitable considerations should pre-
clude the application of section 434, saying
(pamphlet opinion, pp. 39-40) :
"The thrust of the arguments made by
the respondent and adopted by the Court of
Claims is that it would be unjust to apply
the statute to one who acted as Wenzell
did in this case. We cannot agree. The
statute is directed at an evil which endangers
the very fabric of a democratic society, for
a democracy is effective only if the people
have faith in those who govern, and that
faith is bound to be shattered when high
officials and their appointees engage in ac-
tivities which arouse suspicions of malfea-
sance and corruption. The seriousness of
this evil quite naturally led Congress to
adopt a statute whose breadth would be suf-
ficient to cope with the evil."
977
an organization while he possesses such an
interest therein.
Viewed in that light, the expressions of
the majority in the Mississippi Valley case
suggest more strongly the probability that
the Court might consider as immaterial the
factor of knowledge by the officer of the
existence or nature of his private financial
interest. So regarded, the majority opinion
would stand for the general proposition that
it is the affirmative obligation of one who
undertakes to act for the Government in
the transaction of business with a private
business organization to insure by all means
available to him that he does not in fact
have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in
that organization.
The minority opinion in the Mississippi
Valley case does not appear to be in conflict
with that view. Mr. Justice Harlan, writing
for the dissenting justices, invited attention
to the fact that decision with regard to the'
element of knowledge in section 434 was not
required in that case (pamphlet opinion, p.
3, footnote 3). However, he indicated agree-
ment with the majority of the Court as to
the basic purpose and effect of the section
by stating (pamphlet opinion, p. 4) : -
"The policy and rationale of the statute
are clear: an individual who negotiates busi-
ness for the Government should not be ex-
posed to the temptation which might be
created by a loyalty divided between the
interest of the Government and his own self-
interest; the risk that the Government will
not be left with the best possible transac-
tion is too great."
The apparent ground for the dissent of
three justices was their conviction that sec-
tion 434 had been misapplied by the ma-
jority.because at the time of the performance
by Mr. Wenzell of his activity on behalf of
the Government there was no certainty that
the bank corporation with which he was as-
sociated would engage in the performance of
any contract which might be entered into
through the participation of Mr. Wenzell.
If, in a case such as that of Mr. McNamara,
a Government officer were to participate in
the transaction of business on behalf of the
Govermnent with business organizations in
which he had in fact a financial interest, and
the Court thereafter were to hold his knowl-
edge thereof was immaterial, such a holding
would throw into question the validity of all
contracts entered into by that officer with
such business organizations.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is considered
not improbable that, on the basis of the ex-
pressions of the Supreme Court in the Mis-
sissippi Valley case, a Federal criminal court
might regard the provisions of the trust
agreement proposed in the case of Mr. Mc-
Namara to be ineffective to preclude the ap-
plication of section 434 of title 18, United
States Code, to any situation in which he
were to represent the United 'States in a
transaction with a business organization in
which the trustee under that agreement then
held securities for the benefit of Mr. Mc-
Namara.
Respectfully submitted.
JOHN C. HERBERG,
Senior Counsel.
JANUARY 14, 1961.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President,. I also
ask unanimous consent that a statement
of facts prepared by my staff, at my re-
quest, from the hearings before the Sen-
ate Armed Services Committee, dealing
with Mr. McCone's financial holdings,
including stock in Standard Oil of Cali-
a
ent
-
mi
interest
a
-
-- .,.-...
...
.
---- ---
- entity,-,,but..
the. -
question to be enforced against the Govern- officer in a business
., action
... stantial stockholder, and certain
ship-
ment, the majority stated (pamphlet opin- of such an officer in undertaking to act for , ping interests be printed in the RECORD
ion, p. 41) Approved For R112 0f41 }3#25de A-R BO 6RGG.O 4& 't 2
"As we have indicated, the primary pur-
pose of the statute is to protect the public
from the corrupting influences that might
be brought to bear upon Government agents
who are financially interested in the busi-
ness transactions which they are conducting
on behalf of the Government. This protec-
tion can be fully accorded only if contracts
which are tainted by a conflict of interest
on the part of a Government agent may be
disaffirmed by the Government. If the Gov-
ernxnent's sole remedy in a case such as that
now before us is merely a criminal prosecu-
tion against its agent, as the respond-
ent suggests, then the public will be
forced to bear the burden of complying with
the very sort of contract which the statute
sought to prevent. Were we to decree the
enforcement of such a contract, we would
be affirmatively sanctioning the type of in-
fected bargain which the statute outlaws
and we would be depriving the public of
the protection which Congress has conferred.
The majority regarded its determination
of nonenforceability to be a necessary con-
sequence of the public policy underlying
section 434, saying (pp. 42-43) :
"The Court of Claims was of the opinion
that It would be overly harsh not to en-
force this contract, since the sponsors could
not have controlled Wenzell's activities and
were guilty of no wrongdoing. However, we
think: that the court emphasized the wrong
considerations. Although nonenforcement
frequently has the effect of punishing one
who has broken the law, its primary pur-
pose is to guarantee the integrity of the
federal contracting process and to protect
the public from the corruption which might
lie undetectable beneath the surface of a
contract conceived in a tainted transaction.
Cf. Crocker v. United States, 240 V.S. 74, 80-
81. It is this inherent difficulty in detecting
corruption which requires that contracts
made in violation of Section 434 be held un-
enforceable, even though the party seeking
enforcement ostensibly appears entirely in-
nocent. Cf. Hazelton v. Sheckells, 202 U.S.
71,..79. Therefore, even if the result in a
given case may seem harsh, and we do not
think that such is the case here, that re-
sult is dictated by the public policy mani-
fested by the statute."
The emphasis given by the majority opin-
ion of the Supreme Court in that case to (1)
the remedial purpose of section 434, (2) the
absolute standard of conduct established
thereby, and (3) the immateriality of such-
factors as actual harm sustained by the
Government, corrupt intentions on the part
of the Government officer concerned, equi-
table considerations, knowledge by the actor
that ' he was engaged in activities having
conflict of Interest implications, or the
harshness of consequences which might flow
from a strict application of the letter of
the statute, suggests that it is more than a .
mere possibility that the Court might hold
that absence of knowledge by' a Government
officer of the identity of a business organi-
zation in which' he has a beneficial financial
interest would not preclude the application
of section 434 to his action in. transacting
business on behalf of the Government with
that organization.
That view is suggested also by the man-
ner in which the Court stated its technical
holding: As formulated by'the Court (pam-
phlet opinion, p. 40), its holding' appears
to lay emphasis upon the prohibition of
action taken by an officer in transacting
business on behalf of the Government with
an organization "if, by virtue of his private
interests, he may benefit financially from
the outcome of those transactions." This
suggests that the chief evil at which the
statute Is directed is not the possession of
 978
Approved For Re6RN8/.: J14BkFff0400040051Auary 29, 1962
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows :
ously entered, the Senate adjourned
until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 30,
1962, at 11 o'clock a.m.
STATE?4E ?NT OP FACTS FROM HEARINGS BEFORE
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON
NOMINATION OF JOHN A. MCCONE JANU-
4R1 18; 19112
1. STOCKHOLDINGS IN STANDARD OIL OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. McCone stated that he owned a little
in excess of $1 million of stock in Standard
Oil of California (hearings, p. 55). He
stated that the company had "extensive re-
serves in Arabia and in the offshore island
in the Persian Gulf of Bahrein, and also ex-
tensive reserve in Sumatra, and Venezuela"
(p. 67).
Standard Oil of California is one of the
four compaflies which makes up the Arabian-
American Oil Co. (Aramco), along with the
Texas Co., "standard Oil of New Jersey and
Mobil Oil. Aramco, according to Mr. Mc-
Cone, does have relationships with the gov-
efnments of Arabia and Bahrein (p. 69).
(Note: Standard Oil of California 8/1/61
report to stockholders lists Mr. McCone as
owning 18,618 shares and as receiving 915,
additional shares by way of stock dividend.
Total holdings: 19,233 shares.)
-2. SHIPPING INTERESTS
Mr. McCone stated "I have direct Interest
in Trans-World Carirers. * * a I have person..
ally acquired and own now the great ma?.
jority of the stock in San Marino Corp.
and Joshua Hendy Corp. ond, there..
fore, through the sole ownership of Joshua
Hendy, practically halt of Trans-World Car-
riers at this point." (p. 66)
Joshua Bendy Is exclusively engaged in
the shipping business; in carrying ore to the
South American trade; and in United States
intercoastal trade, principally in chemicals.
The company owns- three or four ships in
the intercoastal trade (pp. 68=69).
Senator 'CASE of South Dakota indicated
that . the ships in Mr. McCone's shipping
enterprise and affiliated interests are engaged
th carrying oil for Standard Oil of California,
(p.67).
Mr. CLARK., Mr. President, I intend
tomorrow to address myself more fully
to the problem as to'whether the Senate
should or should not confirm this nolmi.-
nation. I put these memoranda in the
RECORD now so that all Senators may be
advised of them when the debate re-
sumes tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the
Senate January 29, 1962:
U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY
Jacob D. Beam, of New Jersey, to be an
Assistant Director, U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency.
U.S. MARSHAL
Alvin Grossman, of New York, to be U.S.
marshal for the western district of New York
for the term of 4 years, vice George M.
Glasser.
The following-named officer under the
provisions of title 10, United States Code,
section 3066, to be assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility designated by
the President under subsection (a) of sec-
tion 3066, in rank as-follows:
Lt. Gen. Earle Gilmore Wheeler, 018715,
Army of the United States (major general,
U.S. Army), in the rank of general.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate, January 29, 1962:
BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FEDERAL RESERVE
SYSTEM
George W. Mitchell, of Illinois, to be a
member of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System for a term of 14
years from February 1, 1962.
DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE
William E. Stevenson, of Colorado, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten-
tiary of the United States of America to the
Philippines.
ENVOY
William A. Crawford, of the District of -Co-
lumbia, a Foreign Service officer of class 1,
to be Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Rumania.
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Fred Korth, of Texas, to be Secretary of
the Navy.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
Neil E. Harlan, of Massachusetts, to be an
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
Frederick t4. Dutton, of California, to be
an Assistant Secretary of State.
UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE
George W. Ball, of the District of Colum-
bia, to be Under Secretary of State.
George Q. McGhee, of Texas, to be Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE POPULATION COMMIS-
SION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Dr. Ansley J. Coale, of New Jersey, to be the
representative of the United States of Amer-
ica on the Population Commission of the
Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations.
U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
AGENCY
William C. Foster, of the District of Co-
lumbia, to be Director of the U.S. Arms Con-
trol and Disarmament Agency.
Adrian S. Fisher, of the District of Colum-
bia, to be Deputy Director of the U.S. Arms
Control and -Disarmament Agency.
PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE AND AD-
vfsER ON AFRICAN, ASIAN, AND LATIN AMERI-
CAN AFFAIRS, AND AMBASSADOR AT LARGE
Chester Bowles, of Connecticut, to be the
President's special representative and ad-
viser on African, Asian, and Latin American
affairs, and Ambassador at Large.
DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE
"U.S. AMBASSADORS
John 0. Bell, of Maryland, a Foreign Serv-
ice officer of class 1, to be Ambassador Ex-
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Unit-
ed States of America to Guatemala.
John H. Burns, of Oklahoma, a Foreign
Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Central
African Republic.
Parker T. Hart, of Illinois, a Foreign Serv-
ice officer of the class of career minister, now
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten-
tiary of the United States of America to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Envoy Ex-
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of
the United States of America to the Kingdom
of Yemen, to serve concurrently and without
additional compensation as Ambassador Ex-
traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the State of
Kuwait.
William J. Handley, of Virginia, a Foreign
Service Reserve officer of class 1, to be Am-
bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the United States of America to the Re-
public of Mali.
Ridgway B. Knight, of New York, a For-
eign Service officer of class 1, to be Ambas-
sador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
the United States of America to the Syrian
Arab Republic.
Henry R. Labouisse, of Connecticut, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten-
tiary of the United States of America to
Greece.
Armin H. Meyer, of Illinois, a Foreign
Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to the Republic
of Lebanon.
Raymond L. Thurston, of Missouri, a For-
eign Service officer of class 1, to be Ambas-
sador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
the United States of America to Haiti.
John M. Cabot, of the District of Colum-
bia, a Foreign service officer of the class of
career minister, to be Ambassador Extraordi-
nary and Plenipotentiary of the United States
of America to Poland.
ADJOURNMENT TO 11 A.M.
TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if
there is no further business'to come be-
fore the Senate, I move that the Senate
adjourn, under the order agreed to, un-
til 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The motion was agreed to; and, as in
legislative session (at 5 o'clock and 10
minutes p.m.), under the order previ-
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25: CIA-RDP6 346R000400040051-2 1093
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SEN14
Philadelphia banks, borrowers in the larger There being no objection, the editorial review of the Nation's transportation in-
categories could be well accommodated. was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, dustry.
This ignores again the realities of the situa- as follows: Several days ago I proposed such a re-
tion and the positive testimony that in the TVA's TRIBUTARY PROGRAM MODEST, BUT view by a Presidential commission. Now
larger industries, there is a decided reluc- SOUND, START I note that the Nashville Tennessean, in
tance on the part of financial officers to be
made the subject of participating loans. In his budget message to Congress yes- an editorial on January 19, 1962, sug-
With the originating bank, there is also an terday, President Kennedy proposed a $2.5 gests that the Interstate Commerce Com-
aversion to these loans as it req{lires con- million appropriation next year to initiate mission undertake a review of the entire
siderable negotiation and technical handling a tributary stream development program in rail system. However we may differ as
which is to be avoided wherever possible. the Tennessee Valley. to detail, we agree on the need for a study
The evidence demonstrated beyond perad- Under this proposal, developed by the Ten- not confined to this proposed merger
venture of doubt that the Philadelphia area, nessee Valley Authority following a couple alone, and on the principle that mo-
plus parts of Delaware and New Jersey, and Of Presidential promptings, the Beech River alone, must be avoided, competition
also New Yo;k City, as well as most of the watershed of west Teni essee would be de-nolioly n
phis, ortheastern part of the United States, is vetoed commercial edms and 80 sermiles ies of of 14 small channel ultipur- p eterVed and the public interest pro-
the area mercial active competition for P e ment, at an estimated total cost of $6 mil- I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
discloses that lion. torial appear at this point'in the RECORD.
merged bank. The testimony for testimony the proposed d
the competitive effect upon all Philadelphia It is a modest beginning. But it is a start. There being no objection, the editorial
commercial bank's will be minimal. The And a sound principle has been established was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
larger bank, however, will be able to com- for completion of the river basin develop- as follows:
pete on better terms and in a better atmos- ment job upon which TVA embarked more SYSTEMS REVIEW NEEDED
phere with the banks of other cities- and than a quarter century ago. RAILROAD
suggested are en- Formal agreement to merge the nation's
States that have been draining this area of The financing proposals sbanking business which might well be and tirely sound, Local and State participation two largest railroad systems-the Pennsyl-
perhaps properly should be handled here, are involved, it is true, but recognition is vania and the New York Central-is sympto-
and which cannot be handled under pres- given to two facts upon, which this news- matic of deep-rooted troubles in the entire
ent circumstances. That it will benefit the paper has predicated its Insistence that capi- rail industry which foreshadow other con-
city and area has been established, clearly tal financing and planning originate at the solidations.
by a fair preponderance of the evidence as Federal level: The two lines, which together represent
forth in the findings of fact 1. Local governments in Tennessee simply some $5.4 billions in assets have agreed on
mer er terms Many obstacles, including ap-
-
oI the aeieuua-a f+.cv..,.,v.y ----?? --
There Is nothing in this record which sup- dertake the broadly based basin-type de-
ports. the averments of the complaint that velopment which commonsense and good
the proposed merger involves an unlawful conservation practices dictate. With de-
combination in restraint of trade; would re- mands growing upon-the State for more rev-
sult in or tend toward monopoly, or violate enue for education, highways, etc., it is like-
the provisions of the Clayton Act, if applica- ly Tennessee, too, would find difficulty rais-
ble; and the proposed merger certainly vio- ing the needed funds.
lates no provision, either express or implied, 2. TVA, long since created for the very
contained in the Bank Merger Act of 1960. purpose this proposal entails, is the proper
Since the proposed merger contains none agency to develop the plans, to control proj-
of the defects alleged in the Government's ects which are an integral part of the main-
case and will be in the public interest, it stem system, and therefore to supply the
follows that judgment must be entered in capital funds necessary.
favor of the defendants and against the. In its announcement of the Beech River
plaintiff. program, TVA has taken note of the lack of
1 al revenues but there is nothing at all
TVA'S TRIBUTARY PROGRAM
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, the
proposed budget for fiscal year 1963
which President Kennedy recently sub-
mitted to the Congress envisages an im-
portant and historic step for the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority.
It is proposed that the TVA spend $2.5
million during the coming fiscal year to
begin work on the multipurpose develop-
ment of the Beech River in west Ten-
nessee. What distinguishes this re-
amiss in its suggestion that "under this
plan the portion of the system which is pri-
marily beneficial to the local area would pay
for itself." And we know by long experience
that this sort of development produces both
the benefits and the local revenues men-
tioned.
It was our hope that TVA would em-
bark on a bit more ambitious plan such
as the Elk River basin offers. But it seems
the directors want to utilize the Beech River
watershed program as something of a pilot
project, and we see nothing wrong in this
as long as they do not forget there are other
areas of perhaps more significant need.
In which TVA has heretofore engaged. a broadening of -this prograrh with its multi-
Is: First, it represents TVA's first major purpose functions, designed to lend greater
move in the development of tributaries emphasis to the conservation-development
of the great Tennessee River; and, sec- role of the Authority.
In a conservative Congress, approval of
end, it calls for a sound new demonstra- the TVA-Presidential request is not assured,
tion of the partnership for progress that of course. It is therefore imperative that
has always existed among the TVA, the valley delegation, which has a vast fu-
'State and local people in the Tennessee tore stake in this program though only one
Valley. congressional district is immediately in-
One of the most enthusiastic and ar- volved, stand united behind the traditional
ticulate advocates of the principle of principles to which the people of this State
tributary development by the TVA has and valley adhere.
been one of the Nation's great news-
papers, the Nashville Tennessean.
Therefore, it speaks with energetic au-
thority in its comments of the Beech
River project in an editorial appearing
in that newspaper_ on January 19, 1962.
NEED FOR A REVIEW OF NATION'S
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, more
than any similar event of recent years,
the merger agreement by the Pennsyl-.
sent that the editorial be printed in the - vania and New York Central railroads
RECORD at this point. has pointed up the need for an overall
proval by the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, lie ahead, however. These could de-
lay action possibly 2 years or more.
Both lines had rough going last year, al-
though the Pennsylvania managed to end
the year in the black. The merger, which
would result in a 20,000 mile network formed
by the two parallel systems, is estimated to
save $100 million a year.
Many of these lines' financial troubles
stem from overcapacity and excessive dup-
lication of service. Few would argue that
elimination of these weaknesses would, of
themselves, bring about the kind of monop-
oly in railroad operation which made crea-
tion of the ICC necessary.
In various stages of negotiation are other
mergers, including the Atlantic Coast Line
and Seaboard Air Line; the Great Northern,
Northern Pacific, and Chicago, Burlington,
and Quincy; the Norfolk and Western and
Nickle Plate; and the Chesapeake and Ohio
and the Baltimore and Ohio. Each of these
mergers would result in multimillion dollar
operating cost economies.
The dilemma of the railroads, in fact, has
reached such proportions that a, piecemeal
attack by separate consideration of individ-
ual merger plans is no longer adequate.
What is indicated is a comprehensive re-
view by the ICC of the entire rail system.
It should be reshaped to meet the de-
mands of the times, with primary emphasis
on protection of the public interest.
This means preservation of real competi-
tion, and protection of shippers, passengers,
railroad workers, and the towns the roads
serve. Crippling of the nation's lifelines
TO VOTE AT 2 P.M. WEDNESDAY,
JANUARY 31, 1962, ON THE NOMI-
NATION OF JOHN A. McCONE TO
BE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL IN-
TELLIGENCE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
should like to have the attention of the
Senate.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate
will be in order.
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 1094 Approved for Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 30
The Senator from Montana may pro- tender my services and offer a live pair ter it through the universities and colleges
ceed. . to. the senator in question, because I rather than through a state commission.
Mr, 1h MANSFIELD. The Senate will presume his vote would be opposite mine. Colleges and universities administer the ". 11 1 rGall at some time earlier it gave its I make that tender now. present loan program of the national Defense
coflsellt to vote on the McCone nomirsat Mr. MANSFIELD. I do not know how Education Act without criticism. -
to on
tion at 2 o'clock this coming Wednesday. our absent colleague would vote. He I would
oints glad .
I think, h any oftheas
ow, It
The request was made, on the assume- did request, though, that the vote be become f a very bad bill and sh
ouldr not be
tion that the American congressional held up until his arrival. We have tried passed in this form under any circumstances.
delegation to the Punta del Este Confer- to comply with that request. The time I am certain it is bad for the state of
ence would return to Washington, P.C., was set for 2 P.M. on Wednesday next. Missouri.
at 9 a.m. Wednesday morning and that It appears that there is no possibility Cordially,
therefore the rights of a Senator would of obtaining a further extension. So at ELMER ELLIS.
be well protected if the vote .were taken this time I will make no further request.
at?2 pm. that afternoon. I'thank the distinguished Senator from
COMMITTEE U SENATE
OMMIT TEE ON ON LABOR
Due to, the fact that the Punta del Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] for his offer. AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Este Cpnference is still in session; that
..-
decisions have not been reached; that a Hon. EDWARD V. LONG, October 5, 1961.
particular member - of the delegation AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION U.S. Senate.
asked that the vote,on the nomination Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi- DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for bringing to
my
e furtherance l his arri al; at this time, dent, last fail I acted as an intermediary the September 19,t 1961 letter addressed t to
view the circumstances request uet antlved, d in in a very important exchange of corre- you by President Elmer Ellis of the Univer-
view basis the ic absence of a Senator spondence between Dr. Elmer Ellis, pres- sity of Missouri.
due to a presidential appointment of the University of Missouri and The points raised by President Ellis paral-
ppointment in ef- the senior Senator from Oregon CMr. lel views expressed by other educators In our
feet to -enable him to attend a confer- MORSE] chairman of the Senate Subcom- hearings on S. 1241. I would only point out
ence, I wish to ask that the vote on the mittee on Education. that, as indicated in the testimony of Presi-
McCone nomination.be held over until Dr. Ellis in this correspondence raised dent Case of Colgate, which may be found on
2 o'clock Ck On Friday next. page 287 of the hearings, the committee did
Mr. on STALL. Mr. President, 2 a number of objections to S. 1241 as re- receive testimony that the loans are needed,
ported. are one y g g
shall object. It will be the first time in He questioned its program of loans practical cad miof meeting the would urgent
17 years I have objected to a unanimous demands of academic facilities and would be
consent request. I shall object t because for the construction of academic used to the full extent of the $300 million
I consent request.
extremely because e facilities. He also questioned its provi- a year authorized for the 5-year period.
sions for the States rather than institu- It is true, that President Case would wel-
agency and I-believe that we should act tions of higher education to determine come matching grants to institutions of
upon the Nomination promptl The .higher education. However, as I am sure
nomination has been held over now for who receives scholarships. In place of you realize, in view of the controversy which
more than a week since the Commitfor S. 1241, he offered a number of alterna- has enveloped other educational bills this
m Armed Service than the nominee tive suggestions to aid higher education, past session, it might be most difficult to en-
tio nn rmediService Since this bill will be laid before the act an across-the-board grant proposal.
o
Because of the importance to our na- Senate soon, I believe all Senators will These difficulties can be summarized
find this correspondence of great inter- somewhat as follows:
tional use and or because to of all our a the
problems involved, I object. est. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent If grants to public institutions of higher
t
'
hat Dr. Ellis
original letter, the reply of education only were to be adopted then
I say to the distinguished majoritty
leader to I believe distinguished
it is shed clear t the senior Senator from Oregon, and the strong protests could be expected from non-
non-
be lithy e further letter of Dr. Ellis be printed at public institutions of higher education on
nomer hot the gentleman quite,
this point in the RECORD, the grounds of discriminatory treatment. It
firmed, but in order to be courteous to would be said that "the unity of higher edu-
any Senator who is away on a presiders- There being no objection, the come- cation" was threatened. If grants are pro-
al Senate swh I .shall bo glad is give spondence was ordered to be printed in posed for both private- and church-related
that gentleman a live pair r glad
I am told the RECORD, as follows: institutions of higher education serious ob-
that g ntleman leader f i here is and OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, jection could be expected to be heard from
Memby the majority leader that commission UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, a broad spectrum of the American public
who b a of that presidential nwishes s ion Columbia, Mo., September 19, 1961. which holds, with sincere conviction, that
Senator EDWARD V. LONG, such a course in all probability would be
against thenomination of Mr. McCone. U.S. Senate, repugnant to the first amendment of the
I say now publicly to the majority leader, Washington, D.C. Constitution. Furthermore, the claim
if he will give me his word. that man DEAR ED: I notice that the Senate Commit- could be made, and with considerable justi-
wishes to vote "Nay" I shall give the Seri- tee on Labor and Public Welfare has ap- fication, that if such benefits were to be
ator a live pair, but I object to further proved a version of Senate bill 1241 which conferred upon both public and private
postponement of the vote on the norm- is directly contrary to the interests of all institutions of higher education, then in all
nation. State universities and colleges. equity equivalent benefits should be made
1. It offers loans but not grants for con- available to the nonpublic or church-related
Mr. MANSFIELD. . Mr. President, I struction of academic facilities. This is alb- secondary and ,elementary schools. I am
appreciate the courtesy of the Senator solutely of no use to any public institution aware that there are those who would at-
from Massachusetts, and I shall keep his in Missouri and almost no private college tempt to draw a strict distinction between
suggestion in mind. He is always kind or university, elementary and secondary education on the
and considerate. 2. It offers grants for construction of aca- one hand and higher education on the other,
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- demic facilities only to public community based upon the criterion of compulsory at-
sent colleges. in view of the request made by our colleges. This is highly discriminatory tendance. While I am cognizant of this line
absent colleague, that the vote on the against 4-year colleges and universities, of reasoning, I find it personally very dif-
public and private, and is highly discrimina- ficult thus to segmentize the Constitution.
,M,g
c nomination be deferred from 2 fury against certain States that do not have I have no doubt, however, that Interest-bear-
., next until 2 P.M. On many junior colleges. While we will have lag loans can meet the constitutional test,
Thursday next. more in Missouri in the future, still -States and that, as indicated by testimony, such a
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I like California, Iowa, and Texas which have loan program would meet a current and
shMe the same feeling of distress President, great many, would get most of this money. pressing financial need of-many institutions
Moreover, why should the Federal Govern- for instructional facilities. I suspect that
objecting. I know many Members have ment discriminate against 4-year institu- present legal barriers under State law would
:made plans contingent upon the vote . tions If that is what other States-need? be quickly overcome if the loan money were
coming on Wednesday as originally 3. The bill would establish a Federal schol- to be made available.
scheduled. arship program administered through state With respect to the grants contained in
I am very reluctant to object. I think commissions rather than through the col- S. 1241 for the encouragement of junior
in the interest of the Senate, and the leges and universities. Personally, I have no college construction, I would point out the
implied commitments that were made, particular enthusiasm for big scholarship testimony presented to us indicated that
I would haveJp d FooRRIel~~se21f ~' 14~lGIr~p 1 4~~11:7fAi3~ 5 t team In the fall f 1959,
 Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
1962 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 1115
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration
of executive business.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate messages from the
President of the United States submit-
ting several nominations, which were re-
ferred to the Committee on the District
of Columbia.
(For nominations this day received,
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
The legislative clerk read the nomina-
tion of Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., to be a
member of the National Mediation
Board.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
U.S. ARMY
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the U.S. Army.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that these nomi-
nations be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations will be con-
sidered en bloc; and, without objection,
they are confirmed.
If there be no reports of committees,
the clerk will state the nominations on
the Executive Calendar:
U.S. AIR FORCE ,
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the U.S. Air
Force.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that these nomi-
nations be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations will be con-
sidered en bloc; and, without objection,
they are confirmed.
U.S. NAVY
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry nominations in the U.S. Navy.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
.ask unanimous consent that these nomi-
nations be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations will be con-
sidered en bloc; and, without objection,
they are confirmed.
U.S. MARINE CORPS
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry, nominations in the U.S. Marine
Corps.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that these nomi-
nations be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations will be con-
sidered en. bloc; and, without objection,
they are confirmed.
ROUTINE NOMINATIONS ON THE
SECRETARY'S DESK
THE ARMY
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
sundry routine nominations in the Army.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that these nomi-
nations be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations will be con-
sidered en bloc: and, without objection,
they are confirmed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
unanimous consent that the President be
immediately notified of the confirmation
of all these nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the President will be notified
forthwith.
I
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE
The Senate resumed consideration of
the nomination of John A. McCone, of
California, to' be Director of Central
Intelligence.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it is
my understanding that the Senate is now
in executive session, and that the pend-
ing business is the nomination of John
McCone, of California, to be the Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, when the
nomination of Admiral Strauss to be
Secretary of Commerce was before the
Senate for confirmation in 1959, I pre-
pared a memorandum for my constitu-
ents, in which I stated my reasons for
opposing the nomination. In that mem-
orandum I outlined five characteristics
which I believe any nominee for high
public; office should have if the Senate is
to confirm his nomination for that office.
Those characteristics are, first, integrity;
second, stability; third, good judgment;
fourth, adequate experience; and, fifth,
associations, which of necessity would
involve an inquiry as to whether any
conflict of interest under the statute was
involved.
I should like to discuss the pending
nomination in the light of those stand-
ards. First, however, let met say that
the nomination of Mr. McCone to be Di-
rector of Central Intelligence raises no
issue between liberals and conservatives.
It has nothing whatever to do with parlor
pinks or members of the John Birch
Society.
Those of us who support the President
in practically all of his policies, as I do,
and who with some regret differ with
him on occasion, must nonetheless as-
sure ourselves, in my view, that every
nominee whom he recommends to us
does have those characteristics of which
I speak. I hope that everyone who calls
himself a liberal and everyone who calls
himself a conservative will measure up
to the same standard with respect to
these five characteristics, because in my
opinion they have nothing whatever to
do with one's political opinions.
I should like to discuss each of the five
characteristics in turn. First, I, have no
question as to the integrity of the
nominee. He is a man who has worked
his way to the top of the business com-
munity, with not only consummate abil-
ity but also without any doubt of any
kind being thrown on his honesty and
integrity.
Second, I raise no question as to the
nominee's stability. He has conducted
himself under heavy pressure in an ad-
mirable manner during the course of
both his private and public service.
I do have some question as to the
nominee's experience for this job, and
that point I shall discuss in a moment.
I have no question as to the nominee's
business judgment. Clearly it is good,
for he has made a fortune. I have no
question as to his judgment when he
served, I believe, under the Secretary of
the Air Force or when he served as
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission.
I do have some question as to his
good judgment in terms of this particu-
lar office to which the President has
nominated him. However, I would have
to admit that my views in this regard
must of necessity be speculative, because
we cannot tell until after the event just
how the strongly held views of a nominee
on certain subjects might well affect his
intelligence judgment-not his intelli-
gence, but his judgment in the field of
intelligence-and how they might or
might not affect the public interest.
I believe that in the area of his asso-
ciations, namely, the conflict-of-interest
statute and its interpretation, there is
very serious legal question as to whether
it is not necessary for him to dispose of
his stock in the Standard Oil Co. of Cali-
fornia or, in the alternative, whether in
his own interest it would not be wise to
do so.
I shall return to that matter a little
later in my speech.
First,,I wish to discuss the subject of
experience. The nominee himself has
testified that he had had no experience
for this job.
Perhaps this is not particularly im-
portant. I certainly had no prior expe-
rience before I became city comptroller
of Philadelphia, before I became mayor
of the city of Philadelphia, or before I
became U.S. Senator. I am perhaps ar-
rogant and conceited enough to think
that despite that lack of experience I
was able adequately to fulfill my duties.
Yet the position which the nominee is
to fill upon the nomination of the Pres-
ident is not an elected public office but
an appointed one. I believe a very real
question arises as to whether it is sound
practice to nominate for a position of
this sort a man who heretofore has been
without experience in the intelligence
field.
Certainly this is the first time in the
history of the Central Intelligence Agen-
cy that this has been done.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Pennsylvania
yield?
No. 13=16
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
 1116
Approved For Release 2004/03/25 : CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE _ January 30
Mr. CLARK. I would be happy to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Missouri, and yield to him continuously.
I do have a more or less logical argu-
ment I should like to present, but I shall
be happy to.yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I appreciate the
courtesy of the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania.
During the hearings when Mr. Mc-
Cone came before the Committee on
Armed Services, Senator SMITH voted
that all previous nominees had had ex-
perience in the intelligence field. I said
that that statement, to the best of my
knowledge, was incorrect with respect
to General Vandenberg. I was incorrect
in that statement; General Vandenberg
served 6 months, from January to June,
1946, as the head of intelligence on the
General Staff. I am saying this to cor-
rect the record. As usual, the able
senior Senator from Maine knows her
facts.
Mr. CLARK. I appreciate what the
Senator from Missouri has said. Gen-
eral Vandenberg was never Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency, be-
cause that office was not created until
1947; and whatever intelligence duties
General Vandenberg performed must, I
believe, have been before the present
statute.
Mr. SYMINGTON. General Vanden-
berg was the head of the Central Intel-
ligence Agency, to the best of my mem-
ory, after Admiral Souers and Admiral
Hillenkoetter. The point I wished to
make was that General Vandenberg did
have some intelligence experience.
In my opinion, no one could have been
Under Secretary of the Air Force, which
Mr. McCone was at the request of a
Democratic President, without having
obtained much experience in the intel-
ligence field. No one could be chairman
of the Atomic Energy Commission, per-
haps the most sensitive position in the
Government from the standpoint of in-
telligence except the CIA, without ac-
quiring at least some experience in the
intelligence field.
The nature of the positions which M:r.
McCone has held under three Presi-
dents-because actually he has been
running the Central Intelligence Agency
now for 2 months-I think justifies my
position.
I now find that General Vandenberg
was head of Central Intelligence before
that agency became a statutory agency.
He followed Admiral Souers and pre-
ceded Admiral Hillenkoetter.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is cor-
rect in saying that the Central Intel-
ligence Agency was not a statutory
agency until 1947.
Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator
from Missouri.
-I resume my argument with the sug-
gestion that since the Central Intel .i-
genre Agency was organized by statute,
juj-,z-;&Lit whether his
judgment in too cn,_e field will
be good; and, second,' the conflict-of-
interest question-I shall digress for a
moment to discuss what is the nature
of the position to which the nominee
has been appointed by the President,
subject to confirmation of the nomina-
tion by the Senate. If one is to review
the statute under which this agency was
created, he does not get much guidance
as to the actual workings of the job. Yet
I think that in an empirical sense we
who have been around Washington for
awhile could summarize the job by say-
ing that it consists of three parts: First,
a substantial job of collecting, evaluat-
ing, and disseminating information with
respect both to matters of foreign policy
and of national security; second, the job
of coordinating the collection, evalua-
tion, and dissemination of information
ofan intelligence nature by others, such
as the intelligence systems of the Army,
the Navy, and the Air Force-and there
are others, which need not be brought
out in this debate; third, the operation
of covert enterprises, colloquially known
around Washington as the "Department
of Dirty Tricks."
This is a function which we are told
has been engaged in by governments
since the beginning of civilization, and .
perhaps even before then. It is a func-
tion which we are told is absolutely nec-
essary to our national security. It is a
function in which the ordinary rules of
right and wrong, of morality, of fair
conduct between men and between na-
tions, go by the board. It is a rather
sad function. It is more or less a denial
of all of the attributes of man in which
we take the greatest pride. It is a func-
tion which most of us are most reluctant
to see our Government engage in. I
think almost every Member of this body
would hope that it would not be neces-
sary in the national interest to engage
in the work of this "Department of
Dirty Tricks." Yet I am not advocating
that we no longer conduct such covert
operations, whether in connection with
the elimination of an unfriendly govern-
ment in Guatemala-in the hope that
our role would not be discovered; or in
the conduct of undercover operations in
the. Middle East, with the assistance of
oil companies, in order to try to hold the
Middle Eastern oil for the West and to
prevent the taking of adverse action by
various" Arab and Mohammedan gov-
ernments who occupy territory in that
area; or whether it be the overthrow of
Mossedegh, in Iran; or the conduct of
covert operations in southeast Asia. -All
of these actions may be necessary in the
national interest; I do not say they are
not. What I do say is that, first, the
President, and, second, the Secretary of
State, and, third, at least some Mem-
bers of Congress-and Congress has the
power to declare war-should have
.
each of the three men who have been was deficient-the only one of the five knowledge in advance and should be kept
its chief has had substantial experience categories to which I referred before- currently informed as to what the "De-
in the intelligence field before he became I doubt that I would, on that ground partment of Dirty Tricks" has up its
Director. The first of those men was alone, feel compelled to oppose the sleeve. The last and most notorious in-
Rear Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter, who nomination. cident of that kind was, of course, that
served from May 1, 1947, and was the Before I discuss the two areas in which in Cuba.
first statutory Director of the CIA. The I have serious reservations respecting the It was said by the nominee and, in-
second was Lt. APOWN WPl sent ' T3 '4,: ftbp ' 0t13 (td Sip he course of the hear-
who served from October 7, 1950, to Feb-
ruary 9, 1953. The third was Mr. Allen
Dulles, who served from February 26,
1953, to November 29, 1961. '
My position would be that any mem-
ber of the Armed Forces of the United
States of necessity, -from the time he
has gone through Annapolis or West
Point, or whatever preliminary school
he attended to qualify him for a com-
mission in the Armed Forces, has an
almost daily contact with intelligence,
the collection, evaluation, and dissemi-
nation of information; and in most
cases-and I think this is true of the
members of the Armed Forces who served
in this capacity as Director of the CIA-
has, in one or another of his assign-
ments, been in charge of the intelligence
function, with whatever staff or com-
mand he might have been serving.
Mr. Dulles,-as is well known, served for
2 years as Deputy Director of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency before he be-
came Director; and before that had had
a long career in various most important
offices affecting our foreign policy, our
relationships with other countries, and
the whole problem of the intelligence
function, which involves, as I say, the
collection, evaluation, and dissemination
of information.
I do not quarrel much with the views
of the Senator from Missouri in this
regard. I should merely like to read into
the RECORD a question asked at the hear-
ings by the distinguished senior Sena-
tor from Maine [Mrs. SMITH], -and the
nominee's reply, as they appear on page
53:
Senator SMrrn. It is my recollection, Mr.
McCone, that all of your predecessors had
some prior training or experience in the
field of intelligence prior to their appoint-
ment as Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency. Will you tell the committee what
training or experience you had in the field
of intelligence prior to your appointment to
that position?
Mr. McCome. None.
The Senator from Missouri [Mr.
SYMINGTON] may well be correct in say-
ing that Mr. McCone was -unduly mod-
est; that in his capacity as Under Sec-
retary of the ? Air Force and as Chair-
man of the Atomic Energy Commission
he acquired adequate experience. But
apparently the nominee himself thought
otherwise.
While I think it unfortunate that for
a position which the distinguished
senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Rus-
SELL] described, perhaps correctly, as
second in importance only to that of the
President of the United States, the
President of the United States has seen
fit to nominate an' able businessman,
who himself says he has no experience
in this field, I may also say, along the
lines of the, speech of the distinguished
junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
MCCARTHY] yesterday that if this were
matter in which the nominee
the only
 T 962 Approved F RR~~ 220p 4/gq3/25 CIA-RDP64B00346R000400040051-2
leftfA I~NAL RECORD -7 SENATE 1117
ings-and, in fact, it has been empha- in mind a reorganization of the CIA. For the United Nations on the 25th of
sized-that the Director of the Central that, I commend him. I suspect-al- September.
Intelligence Agency plays no part, in the though I do not know-that it is badly What does all this have to do with the
making of policy. This may well be needed. I would hope very much that nominee, one may ask? I think it has
true with respect to his primary func- covert operations would be separated ad- just this to do with it. As someone said
tion, which is the collection, evaluation, min:istratively from the collection and during the course of the hearings, or in
and dissemination of intelligence; or evaluation function. In my judgment, one of the speeches-I guess it was the
with respect to his secondary function, those covert operations should be di- junior Senator from Minnesota-prob-
which is the coordination of that work vorced from the responsibility of the ob- ably with reference to one of the execu-
with the work of other agencies of the jective, judicially minded individual who +a