U.S. AMBASSADOR TO PANAMA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 18, 1999
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: February 25, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

P STATINL
FEB 2.5 1964
STified SA 'd ,fmpproved For Release : CIA-
It 3314 CONGRESSIONAL RECO
eral home loan banksland the Fedpral Sav-
ings and Loan Insurance Corporation to get
tax exemption when Congress has split these
functions between two Federal instrumen-
talitieS and granted exemption from tax to
each. Unless it is tile intention of Congress
to eliminate? the "competition" of the Sav-
ings and Loan Bank of the State of New
York, there is no justification for taxing the
quasi-governmental instrumentality of the
State of New York and exempting from tax
the Federal home loan banks.
This aineuilMent is limited to those insti-
tutions organized prior to July 22, 1932, the
date when the 'Federal Home Loan Bank Act
was enacted by the Congress.
AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1964-
-AMENMENTs
Mr. TOWER submitted six amend-
ments (Nos. 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, and
432) , intended to be proposed by him,
to the bill (11.R. 6196) to encourage in-
creased consumption of cotton, to main-
tain the income of cotton producers, to
provide a special research program de-
signed to lower costs of production, and
for other purposes, which were ordered
to lie on the table and to be printed.
RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS OF
BEEF, VEAL, AND MUT/ION?ADDI-
TIONAL COSPONSOR OF BILL
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that my name
may be added as a cosponsor of the bill
(S. 2525) to restrict imports of beef, veal,
and mutton into the United States, in-
troduced by, the Senator from Montana
[Mr. Mlusrsume] (for himself and other
Senators) on February 20, 1964, the next
time that bill is printed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS OF
BEEF, VEAL, AND MUTTON INTO
THE UNITED STATES?ADDI-
TIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILL
Under authority of the order of the
Senate of February 20, 1964, the names
of Mr. BIBLE, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CARLSON,
Mr. CURTIS, Mr. DOMINICK, Mr. EDMOND-
SON, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. HARTHE, Mr.
HAYDEN, Mr. LONG Of Missouri, Mr. ME-
CHEM, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. YARBOROUGH
were added as additional cosponsors of
the bill (S. 2525) to restrict imports of
beef, veal, and mutton into the United
States, introduced by Mr. MANSFIELD (for
himself and other Senators) on February
20, 1964.
ADDRESSES, EDITORIA.LS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE
APPENDIX
On request, and by unanimous consent,
addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were
ordered to be printed in the Appendix,
as follows:
_ By Mr. JAVITS:
Le4er from officers and members of the
JeWisA Veterans Association to Mrs... Jacque-
line t ezmedy, informing her of the plant-
ing of 100 trees hi the Freedom Forest in
IseraeLin, memory of the late President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Excerpt from a recent address by Nat H.
Hempel, president of the Queens County Bar
Association, describing the present status of
the Queens plan to improve judicial selection.
INDEPENDENCE OF ESTONIA
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, Estonia
became a free and independent Republic
46 years ago, on February 24, 1918; and
Estonians all over the world outside of
their native land are commemorating
that event this February 24. Like the
other Baltic States, Estonia enjoyed 22
precious years of self-rule before she was
overwhelmed by the Soviet Union's ar-
mies. The conflict with Communist op-
pression over the years since then has
been long and costly; but the people of
Estonia continue to struggle on, in the
hope of eventual liberation.
Americans of Estonian extraction and
others who uphold the right of self-de-
termination as a principle of interna-
tional law are determined to keep alive
the desire for freedom, in spite of the
terror that holds this unhappy land in its
grip. In Estonia as in other Baltic coun
tries, the enslaved peoples know tha
their struggle can have only one .conclu
sion?the ultimate liberation of thei
People. I join in that hope, because th
United States will continue to struggl
against Communist aggression until a
the people of the world are again free.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern
pore. Is there further morning busi
ness?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The clerk will call the roll.
The Chief 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 (Mr. IN-
OUYE in the chair). Without objection,
It is so ordered.
ORDER FOR HANDLING OF
TREATIES ON THE EXECUTIVE
CALENDAR
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
after discussion, and with the approval
of the distinguished minority leader and
other Senators who are concerned, I ask
unanimous consent that when the
treaties which are on the calendar are
considered?and I understand they have
been cleared on both sides?one vote be
considered as four separate votes, and
that before they are recorded in the
RECORD, there be entered in the RECORD
an explanation of each executive agree-
ment.
-Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. The only treaty which
concerns me in connection with the
unanimous-consent request is the one
which provides for return of Austrian
assets. Will the Senator from Montana
except it from his present unanimous-
consent request, with the right to include
it a little later in the request? I should
like to consider that treaty, in that "Con-
nection, to be certain.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes?and, of
course, with the proviso that if anything
untoward develops later, inasmuch as
some Senators are not now in the Cham-
ber, the request will be withdrawn.
Mr. JAVITS. Yes?and with the ex-
ception of the treaty on return of
Austrian assets, but with the right to in-
clude it a little later in the request.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I understand that
each treaty will then appear in the REC-
oRD, and the yea-and-nay vote will ap-
pear three times?and possibly four
times, if the distinguished Senator from
New York is satisfied in regard to the
Austrian treaty; and that an adequate
explanation of each treaty will also be in-
cluded in the RECORD, before the yea-
and-nay vote on it is set out. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
f Oi Li I tana? Without objection, it is
s o's^
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO PANAMA
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, it has
been my feeling that had the adminis-
tration acted promptly in naming a new
ambassador last fall, the trouble we are
now having in Panama could well have
been averted. It has been a source of
puzzlement to me, as well as to many
others, as to the reasons underlying the
failure to appoint an ambassador to that
vital nation.
But it is no understatement, to say the
least, that I was astonished to read in
the Washington Daily News of Feb-
ruary 4 the comments by the former am-
bassador to Panama, Joseph S. Farland.
If what Mr. Farland says in Henry J.
Taylor's column is true?and thus far
we have no reason to believe otherwise?
then it goes far in explaining our recent
foreign reversals not only in Panama but
elsewhere as well.
Mr. President, these questions should
be and must be resolved:
First. Why was not Mr. Farland "de-
briefed" upon his return from Panama?
And why had Secretary of State Rusk
apparently been informed that Mr. Far-
land had?
Second. Why were orders given that
Mr. Farland was not to be invited for
consultation with various agencies which
should have had the benefit of his knowl-
edge?
Third. Why was Mr. Farland ordered
not to have any contacts with top CIA
executives and any congressional lead-
ers?
Fourth. Why were Mr. Farland's dis-
patches warning of the Castro buildup
and mounting crisis in Panama ignored?
Fifth. Are there any officials in the
State Department who are hampering
our policies?
These are not idle questions. The
security of our Nation depends upon
their being answered. If they are not,
then it is quite obvious that we will suffer
more reverses such as have occurred in
Panama, and Seuth Vietnam.
Sanitized - Approved For Release-: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-t
1964. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 3313
Joint Resolution 159 be printed in the
RECORD and that it also be held at the
desk for cosponsors until Friday, March
6.
I believe this is the resolution that
designates the fourth Friday in Septem-
ber as American Indian Day.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, the joint reso-
lution will be printed in the RECORD and
will be held at the desk for cosponsors
until Friday, March 6.
Senate Joint Ftesolution 159 is as fol-
lows:
Whereas the Ameraan Indian is the orig-
inal American and has resided on this con-
tinent since time immeinorial; and
Whereas he has made ah indelible imprint
on our national character' and culture, and
history is replete with names and deeds of
many outstanding American Indians who
have contributed immeasurably to our way
of life, our moral standards, and our love
of nature; and
Whereas Indian woods and watklore, arts,
and handicraft are basic in the' manuals
of the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Calup Fire
Gina, Y-Indian Guides of Young Men's
Christian Association, and the many 'other
American patriotism-building youth grdups,
while outdoor enthusiasts, young, and Old,
all over the world, rely on Indian folkwaVs
for guidance and inspiration; and
Whereas the American Indian has made
such other outstanding contributions to our
American economy as the cultivation of
corn, cotton, tobacco, beans, squash, to-
matoes, peanuts, and melons, which have
today become basic American industries; and
Whereas a number of States celebrate "In-
dian Days" in September when traditional
Indian festivals are held in recognition of
the contributions the American Indian has
made to our national life; and
Whereas the special responsibility of the
Federal Government for the American In-
dian makes national recognition particularly
fitting; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America
In congress assembled, That the fourth Fri-
day in September of every year is designated
as American Indian Day, and the President
of :he United States is authorized and di-
rected to issue annually a proclamation set-
ting aside that day as a public occasion and
Inviting the people of the United States to
observe that day with appropriate cere-
monies.
EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAXA-
TION OF CERTAIN NONPROFIT
CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIA-
TIONS?AMENDMENTS (AMEND-
MENT NO. 426)
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, on be-
half of myself, my colleague, the junior
Senator from New York [Mr. Keterm0,
and the Senator from Maryland [Mr.
BEALL], I submit amendments, intended
to be proposed by us, jointly, to the bill
(H.R. 3297) to amend section 501(c) (14)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to
exempt from income taxation certain
nonprofit corporations and associations
organized to provide reserve funds for
domestic building and loan associations,
and for other purposes. I ask unani-
mous consent that a memorandum, re-
lating to the amendments, be printed in
the RECORD.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The amendments will be received,
printed and referred to the Committee
on Finance; and, without objection, the
memorandum will be printed in the REC-
ORD.
The memorandum presented by Mr.
JAVITS Is as follows:
MEMORANDUM ON AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3297
REGARDTNG THE ?NEW YORK STATE SAVINGS
AND LOAN BANK
The Savings and Loan Bank of the State of
New York is a quasi-governmental instru-
mentality of New York. It is a nonprofit
mutual institution. The bank's function is
to maintain a liquidity fund to make loans
to banks which are basically soundbut short
of liquid assetk?the same function as the
tax-exempt Federal home loan banks. The
bank was exempt from income taxation from
its inception in 1915 until 1963 when the In-
ternal Revenue Service reversed its previous
ruling on the narrow ground that the bank
does not fall within the literal language of
code section 501(c) (14). This section was
enacted in 1951 to cover institutions such as
the bank. This technical amendment cor-
rects this apparently unintentional legisla-
tive oversight. -
The Savings and Loan Bank of the State
of New York was created by an act of the
Legislature of the State of New York in 1914
- and commenced operating in 1915 as the
Land Bank of the State of New York. The
original name was cha:nged to the present
one by the New York Legislature in 1932.
From its inception, the Savings and Loan
r'Bank has been a creature of the New York
'tate Legislature. Proposed bylaws for the
ank, the general powers of the, bank and
the restriction on such powers as well as the
couiPosition of the bank's membership and
the rinmber and election of the bank's direc-
tors afe all specifically regulated by statute.
The Savings and Loan. Bank, together with
its capidil, accumulations and other funds
are exempt. from State taxation under sec-
tion 446, article 10-B of the New York State
banking law.'
The Savings and Loan Bank is organized
without capital- stock and membership is
limited to savings, and loan associations in
New York. It is aathorized to extend credit
to, and act as a service bank for, its mem-
bership. The bank is also authorized to ad-
minister a fund for the `Insurance of savings
accounts in savings and loan associations;
however, an amendment to, the New York
banking laws is necessary before the Sav-
ings and Loan Bank can adopt a plan of
insurance.'
By letter dated July 15, 1935, the Internal
Revenue Service ruled that the Savings and
Loan Bank of the State of New Yeft was
exempt from Federal income tax und* sec-
tion 101(4) of the Revenue Act of 1934 Which
provided exemption for domestic building
and loan associations. Congress in 1951
eliminated the tax-exempt provisions for
domestic building and loan associations;
however, a tax-exempt status for State-char-
tered insurance and liquidity funds was ex-
pressly provided in what is now section
501(c) (14). This exemption was expected
to cover the Savings and Loan Bank, and
the Internal Revenue Service by letter dated
December 1, 1952, reaffirmed the tax-exempt
status of the Savings and Loan Bank.
1 At the time this section of the New York
banking law was adopted, there were about
250 savings and loan associations in New
York. A limitation was added that the in-
surance fund could not be established for
less than 100 savings and loan associations.
At the present time there are only about 100
savings and loan institutions in New York
(other than Federal savings and loan asocia-
tions which must obtain insurance from the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corpo-
ration) and some of these are presently in-
sured with the FSLIC.
By letter dated December 4, 1961, the Rev-
enue Service notified the Savings and Loan
Bank of the Service's intention to revoke
the bank's tax-exempt status on the grounds
that the Service had erred in reaffirming the
tax-exempt status of the bank in 1952. It
considered it had erred because the Savings
and Loan Bank did not insure accounts in
savings and loan associations but only pro-
vided reserve funds. By letter dated July 12,
1963, the tax-exempt status of the Savings
and Loan Bank was revoked.
It is apparent that the Savings and Loan
Bank of the State of New York has been the
victim of an unintentional legislative over-
sight. The predecessor of section 501(c) (14)
was added at the behest of the two mutual
deposit guarantee funds in Massachusetts.
No thought was given to New York. The
Ohio Deposit Guarantee Fund did not qualify
under the 1951 amendments and an amend-
ment in 1960 was approved to correct this
discrimination. No relief was considered
for New York because it was considered that
New York was already covered by the ex-
emption. The Maryland Savings-Share In-
surance Corp. is also not covered by section
501(c) (14), it having been organized after
the cutoff date in the statute, and HR. 3297
has been passed by the House of Representa-
tives to alleviate this inequity.
The House Ways and Means Committee
report on HR. 3297 describes the functions
of organizations exempt under section 501
(c) (14) as fellows:
"The organizations covered by this pro-
vision are nonprofit, mutual deposit guaran-
tee organizations without capital stock or-
ganized for the benefit of a group of mutual
savings banks or for a group of building and
loan associations. These guarantee organi-
zations provide two services for their mem-
ber banks. First, they provide a deposit in-
surance fund to aid their members in finan-
cial difficulty and in final extremities to pay
off the depositors in full if a member bank is
liquidated. Second, they also maintain a
liquidity fund (which may or may not be
a fund separate from the deposit insurance
fund) to make loans to member banks which
are basically sound but short of liquid assets.
The deposit insurance fund is built by pre-
mium charges and the liquidity, fund by de-
posits made with the guarantee organization.
In addition, investment income is earned by
the organization on both types of funds al-
though there is little accumulation In the
case of the liquidity funds since interest
generally is paid on these deposits of the
member banks." (H. Rept. No. 459, 88th
Cong., 1st seas. (1963) .)
The first of the two functions of the de-
posit guarantee organizations, that is the
deposit insurance function, is performed un-
der Federal laws by the tax-exempt Federal
Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.
The second of these two functions?main-
taining a liquidity fund?is performed under
Federal laws by the tax-exempt Federal Home
"-Loan Bank system. The State-created insti-
tutions of Massachusetts and Ohio (the only
deposit guarantee organizations presently
covered by the exemption), have combined
these, two functions in one institution.
It iknot maintained that the Savings and
Loan Bank of the State of New York per-
forms the functions in New York of the
FSLIC. It does not. It is submitted, how-
ever, that the Savings and Loan Bank does
perform the functions in New York of the
Federal home loan banks.
Section 13 of the Federal Home Loan Bank
Act (12 U.S.C. 1433) exempts from State
and Federal tax the Federal home loan
banks. This amendment will extend this
same tax treatment to a State-chartered in-
stitution which is performing the same func-
tion as the Federal home loan bank system.
There Is no reason to require that the Sav-
ings and Loan Bank of the State of New York
perform the same functions as both the Fed-
Sanitized - Approved For Release: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
1964
Sanitized - Approved For Release .? CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 3315
I ask unanimous consent that two
articles dealing with the Farland-Pan-
ama Case, one entitled "What's Going on
Here " and the other entitled "Surprise,
Surprise, Surprise?be printed in the
RECORD. ,
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Feb. 4, 1964]
Svesanse, SURPRISE, SURPRISE
(By Henry J. Taylor) -
A firsthand look at what really happened
to our former Ambassador to Panama, Joseph
S. Farland, should explain much about what
confronts President Johnson. And why
dangerous event after event abroad is a sur-
prise, surprise, surprise to those at the top
on whom our security depends.
Ambassador Farland is an ex-FBI agent,
counter intelligence expert, chief-of-mission
for 314 years in Panama before returning last
August and acclaimed as one of the most suc-
cessful ambassadors we've ever had in Latin
America. He resigned last August and re-
turned to private life in Morgantown, W.-Va.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk told the
House Foreign Affairs Committee that he was
taken by surprise by events in Panama.
The committee asked , whether his Depart-
ment had fully consulted the returned
Ambassador whose reports had long bristled
with information about the Castro buildup
and the molinting crisis in the isthmus.
Oh, yes, Mr. Farland has been completely
debriefed," Mr. Rusk testified.
Now, obviously, something or someone
was Wrong some place. Ambassador Farland
has Stated-- publicly that he was asked
nothing, and had sat around Washington for
8 solid weeks without being consulted ("de-
briefed"). So I asked Mr. Farland to tell me
Maly what went on. He agreed to do so.
He said Secretary Rusk in his testimony
apparently relied on a subordinate who re-
ported to him after engaging Mr. Farland
In "a short, and largely irrelevant conversa-
tion," that's all. That State Department
Man Was named Lansing Collins. "We did
hardly more than pass the time of day, Mr.
Collinp and I," Mr..Tistrland told me.
That the 4vcretary of State himself ad-
mittedly failed to consult Mr. Farland, as
CIA Director John A. McCone likewise failed
even to see him, was inexplicable. How
Come?
"When I arrived home in August," Mr.
Farland answered, "and the State Depart-
ment circulated its customary notice to ap-
propriate agencies listing returned ambas-
sadors availahle for consultation, a man in
the White House went to work. iHis name is
Ralph Dungan. On whose authority he
acted, I do not know. But Mr. Dungau
phoned the various agencies, including the
Pentagon, that I was not to be invited for
consultation."
Mri Farland then coupled this action with
a previous event. "Earlier in the Panama
-crisis," he stated, "when I went to Washing-
ton for consultation in the late fall. a 1962,
Edwin Martin, the then Assistant Secretary
of State for Latin Amerie,an Affairs, stepped
in. Mr. Martin literally ordered me to have
no Contact with top CIA executives and any
congressional leaders. 'We here in the State
'Department will take care of any discus-
sions about Panama with the CIA ourselves.
Further, you are not th have discussions with
Members of Congress on the Hill,' Mr. Martin
directed
Subsequently, Ambassador Farland met
President Kennedy during the late Presi-
dent's conference with_Letin American presi-
dents at Ban Salvado,i last March. "Presi-
dent Neuued,y did not know about - Mr.
Martin's directive to me," Mr. Farland con- 'Details? I repeat here the text of my arti- tory" started in the early thirties, when a
tinued, and in Mr. Martin's presence he ole of February 27, 1963-11 long and decisive group of intellectuals and antigringo ele-
crossed up Mr. Martin on the congressional months ago?including the name of Castro's
angle while Mr. Martin remained silent. The main agent in Panama, only to prove beyond
President told me to see inquiring congres- any possible doubt that no surprise at the
sional leaders on my next trip home. I had top of our Government is permissible.
nothing but courtesy, understanding and, so "Castro's guerrilla fleet is moving fighters
far as I know, approval from President Ken- and thtir arms into Panama. Costa Rican
nedy personally and directly." Communist Julio Sunol is in Havana direct-
I asked about the CIA espionage situation, ing this with support in Costa Rica?on
including Castro penetrations in Panama. Panama's border. The chief debarkation
Mr. Farland described the CIA as an out-of- point is La Colma (Cuba) , now a Soviet-
hand aggregation "underzealous in knowing occupied port. Castro's receiving agent, pro-
what was happening in Panama, overzealous tector and cover in Panama is famous Pena-
in building a CIA empire in the zone." He manian Communist Thelma King?vicious,
revealed, the additional stops and blocks he relentless, competent.
encountered behind the scenes in trying to "By air these groups operate from the
bring this Agency into line. Soviet air base at Sari Julian, 90 miles south- ,
"The station chief had exposed himself as west of Havana, and from San Antonio de
a prominent figure in the high social world," los Banos. They are headquartered in down-
Mr. Farland stated, "and it was easy to see town Cienfuegos and the central radio tool
that the whole thing was loose. They simply is a very modern Russian-built station on
did not know what was going on. I spelled Key Breton."
this out repeatedly to both the State Depart- That was February 27, 1963.
ment and CIA's Washington headquarters in Starting with the Bay of Pigs, after new
terms of isthmus and American security, teams entered the innards of the State De-
Neither acted. It took me nearly a year to pertinent and CIA, the endless pattern of
get the station chief removed?a very de- surprises and failures we have would be
cisive and critical year?and then only when utterly impossible unless our Government
CIA Director McCone himself came to has been infiltrated at the policy level.
Panama and heard the facts direct from me The British, French, West German, Italian,
in my house." Dutch, and Swedish Governments have ex-
perienced such Soviet infiltration. As our
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News, American Ambassador to Switzerland, I saw
Jan. 24, 19641 this happen even there. And we are seeing
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? the success of deep-cover Sino-Soviet agents
and fellow travelers planted here.
(By Henry J. Taylor)
As,it did to Chancellor Adenauer and Prime
Secretary of State Dean Rusk, taken by Minister Macmillan, it must come as a tragic,'
surprise about events in Panama, told the horrible shock to President Johnson. But
House Foreign Affairs Committee on Janu- all legislation and other important duties
ax-y 15 that his Department had consulted fall to nothing compared with the heart-
our returned Ambassador, Joseph S. Farland. breaking, shifty, diabolic problem he con-
"Oh yes, Mr. Farland has been completely fronts: the restoration of internal top-level
debriefed," he testified. security. Moreover, he knows the enemy's
On Ambassador Farland's statement to self-serving alibi of "witch hunt" will auto-
writer Victor Riesel, this is absolutely untrue. matically blare, as always and everywhere,
He was asked about nothing. He sat around the moment he moves.
Washington for 3 solid weeks without even? May all intelligent citizens and thoughtful
or ever?being consulted (debriefed) . Hey, newspapers across our country help give him
Mr. Secretary, the strength to reach each discoverable
It is vital now for President Johnson to truth, place security above every other con-
find out who in the State Department ar- sideration and let the chips fall where they
ranged to misinform his Secretary of State. may. This Nation is in absolute peril?with-
Repeated failures to be informed, failures in Washington.
of subordinates to level with their boss,
calculated sabotage of information such as
APPEASEMENT IN PANAMA: SINCE THE EARLY
the Farland brushoff, and repeated denials
THIRTIES WE HAVE BEEN GIVING IN TO A
of the undeniable mistakes confront us again
GROUP OF LEFTISTS AND OTHERS WHO HATE
with the same mysteries we faced in the days
THE UNITED STATES
of Yalta and of Alger Hiss.
Each crisis is a surprise?Soviet missiles (By Edward Tomlinson) '
in Cuba, Laos, the Berlin Wall, Nehru's in- Article III of the Isthmian Canal Conven-
va.sion of Goa, the Dominican revolution, tion between Panama and the United States,
the Cambodian backlash, Zanzibar. Panama. signed on November 18, 1903, states: ,
Surprise, surprise, surprise. In the sacred "The Republic of Panama grants to the
name of the security of the United Sattes, United States all the rights, power, and au-
what's going on here? thority within the zone mentioned and de-
Like Secretary Rusk, CIA Director John A. scribed in article II of this agreement and
McCone also failed inexplicably to consult within the limits of all auxiliary lands and
Mr. Farland when the Ambassador returned waters mentioned and described in said ar-
from Panama, although Mr. Farland's dis- ticle II which the United States would possess
patches bristled with information about the and exercise if it were the sovereign of the
Castro buildup and mounting crisis. An territory within which said lands and waters
ex-FBI star, counterespionage expert, the are located to the entire exclusion of the
chief of mission and admittedly the most exercise by the Republic of Panama of any
succesful Ambassador we've had in Latin such sovereign rights, power, or authority."
America for many years, Mr. Farland was The tide of anti-American propaganda in
utterly ignored. Who in the CIA and State Panama has become a seething campaign to
Department kept him away from the tops? oust Uncle Sam from control of the Panama
And why was no new Ambassador to Panama Canal.
appointed for 5 critical months after Mr, It is being spearheaded by leftist university
Farland's return home last August? students, volatile nationalists, and Com-
- Now, one of the things Mr. Farland knew, munists. /t has the ardent support of the
and that I knew, too, was that the CIA in majority of the most prominent political
? both Cuba and Panama had been infiltrated leaders and the powerful merchants associa-
wholesale by the Soviet-trained Castro tion- of Panama City and Colon, as well as
agents. This disclosure was proven by the that of the leading riewspapers and radio
systematic murders and tortures that greeted stations.
Cuban and Panamanian anti-Communists This campaign against what the extremists
pfofhptly after being recruited bY the CIA.
call "U.S. domination of Panamanian terri-
-
anitized Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
_
Sanitized - Approved 5or Release.: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
3316 CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD ? SENATE February 25
ments set up an organization to "promote
the internationalization of the canal."
The organization was called "The Pana-
manian Society for International Action,"
and its founder was the late Dr. Rivera
Reyes. In 1934 Dr. Reyes declared that the
original treaty, granting the United States
a 40-mile-long, 10-mile-wide strip of terri-
tory (known as the zone) through which the
waterway extends from the Caribbean to the
Pacific, "was born of fraud, prefidy, and dis-
honor."
"This great waterway," the doctor said,
"should be sold to an international corpora-
tion in which are represented all the naticins
of the world." Apparently at that time
neither Dr. Reyes or any other prominent
Panamanian had given any serious thought
to nationalization of the "big ditch."
With the passing of Dr. Reyes, the move-
ment for internationalization lost momen-
tum; but demands for economic and financial
concessions began to increase. In 1936 Presi-
dent Harmodio Arias came to Washington
and got the first substantial treaty revision
from the Roosevelt administration. In these
negotiations little was said about political
matters. President Arias seemed to be well
satisfied with an increase in the annuity
from $250,000 to $430,000, the ceding to the
Republic of certain lands of the Caribbean
coast, curtailment of commissary privileges
? to persons living outside of the Canal Zone,
arid other economic considerations.
. Today Dr. Arias, through his newspapers,
the Panama American and La flora, is one of
the leading spokesmen for "zone sovereignty."
A year and a half ago he declared to this
writer: "I will never rest until I see the flag
of my country flying over both the zone and
the canal."
Agitation for the "return to Panama of
sovereignty over the zone" began in earnest
In 1939. Following the Spanish Civil War,
which ended with the fall of Madrid to the
Pranco forces, many of Spain's liberal in-
tellectuals and prominent Republicans mi-
grated to the Americas. One group made
Its way to Panama, and there several of its
members were employed as instructors in the
nawly reorganized National University.
Within weeks after they assumed their
duties, they became involved in isthmian
politics. They helped to organize the Partido
del Pueblo, one of the first Communist politi-
cal parties in the Caribbean. The PDP was
made up of remnants of the old Rivera Reyes
movement, radical professors and students,
and a considerable number of leftist labor
leaders. The party as such has not been too
open in its activities, but its members and
camp followers have consistently flailed away
at the "Imperialist Yankees" for "forcibly
occupying a part of our sacred territory."
In the early days of World War II the
anti-U.S. movement got a powerful assist
from Nazi-racist-leaning President Arnulfo
Arias, a younger brother of Dr. Harmodio.
Arnulfo, as he is popularly known in Panama,
was later overthrown and exiled for the dura-
tion of the conflict. But the moment the
Axis Powers asked for an armistice, all the
leftists and flaming nationalists, the stu-
dents and the newspapers, along with the
leading politicians, launched another drive
against "U.S. disregard of Panamanian
sovereignly."
They insisted that the government expel
U.S. forces from several wartime airfields and
other military bases outside the Canal Zone:
these had been leased to us during the emer-
gency for the defense of the canal and the
hemisphere. The National Congress sat in
special session to condemn this "further
occupation." ,
After we had bowed to these condemna-
tions, vacated the wartime bases, and with-
drawn all our forces into the Canal Zone,
there were still more demands for treaty
revisions. In 1956 President Eisenhower in-
vited Jose Antonio Remon to Washington
and agreed to increase the 'annuity from
$430,000 to $1,930,000 a year, gave over to
the Republic some $25 million worth of real
estate in Panama City and Colon, agreed to
blind a new $27 million bridge across the
canal for the Republic's special use, and
granted innumerable other financial and
economic benefits. "
But even these favors failed to satisfy the
extremists. They have continued to demand
political concessions. In fact, they led the
Panamanian public to believe that Washing-
ton had agreed to recognize Panamanian
sovereignty over the zone and to permit the
flag of the Republic to fly there. Of course,
no such promises were actually made.
Then in 1956 came the Suez incident.
Nasser took over the Middle Eastern water-
way. Even while the crisis was at its peak,
and the French and English were attempt-
ing to drive the Egyptians out of Suez ter-
ritory, university students whipped up
frenzied anti-U.S. demonstrations in Pan-
ama City.
In July of 1958 the student unions issued
a new manifesto, which was endorsed by
most of the press and political firebrands,
calling for liquidation of the Panama Canal
Company and a 50-50 division of the gross
(not the net) annual receipts of the canal.
They further demanded that residents of the
Canal Zone be compelled to speak Spanish
instead of English and that "Members of
the U.S. Congress and citizens of the United
States be prohibited from uttering uncompli-
mentary remarks against Panama's dignity."
In fact, from then on nationalization?
not internationalization?became the chief
goal of all the nationalist elements as well
as that of the Reds and their dupes. Ever
sincl then an enormous streamer bearing
the slogan "The canal is ours" has flown on
the university campus.
Dr. Roberto Arias, Cambridge University
graduate and son of Dr. Harmodio Arias, was
then his cotmtry's youthful Ambassador in
London, and he made himself spokesman in
Europe for the nationalization movement.
Later he resigned, largely because President
Ernesto de la Guardia failed to back him up.
In April of 1939 young Arias enlisted the
help of followers of Cuba's Fidel Castro in
an attempt to overthrow the de la Guardia
administration. Meantime, members of this
ill-fated expedition revealed that in addition
to ousting the government, they had been
scheduled to make a "token invasion" of the
Canal Zone. Apparently the purpose of this
move was to create an international in-
cident or an excuse to take the dispute to
the United Nations. Had this been accom-
plished, the Russians and the Arab States
would have been able to join openly in de-
mands for "justice to Panama."
Although this stratagem failed, the plan-
ners devised still other schemes to harass
Uncle Sam. Drs. Aquilino Boyd and Ernesto
Castillero, former Minister of Foreign Relaa
, tions and Vice Minister of Foreign Relations
respectively, announced plans to celebrate
Panama's independence from Colombia on
November 3, 1959, by a "march on the Canal
Zone." Boyd said this would be a "peaceful
demonstration," merely to show the flag in
the zone.
Even if Boyd had been sincere, the Com-.
muntsts and extremists had other plans.
When the march began, they sent their agi-
tators and goons into the procession and
turned it into a bloody riot in which at least
75 Americans?soldiers, police, and civil-
ians--were injured. "Plants" in government
telephone exchanges and radio stations
passed out word that the National Guard
was to remain in barracks, which it did, leav-
ing the Canal Zone police and military forces
to battle the attackers alone.
When the American forces stood their
ground?against degrading insults, threats,
stone throwings, and foolhardy onslaughts
against tear gas bombs?the rioters, like the
immature kids they were, slunk away into
Panama City and vented their angry emo-
tions on U.S. business firms and properties.
But the masterminds behind the scenes had
not given up. Three weeks later they led
another demonstration against the Canal
Zone. This time the Panamanian National
Guard managed to get on the job and quell
the rioters.
Meantime, the State Department had sent
Under Secretary of State Livinston T. Mer-
chant to Panarha City to confer with officials
of the Republic and the Canal Company re-
garding the difficulties. Although Mr. Mer-
chant insiste dthat Panamanian authorities
maintain order and protect U.S. life and
property in the Republic, he indicated that
Panama is the "titular sovereign" over the
Canal Zone, whatever that means.
Pana.manians insist that the Under Secre-
tary agreed that their flag might be dis-
played in the zone. In fact, it is the opinion
of a number of people high in our own Gov-
ernment that this concession would not im-
pair our rights.
Mr. Merchant had hardly arrived back in
Washington when the Panamanian Foreign
Minister, Miguel J. Moreno, Jr., complained
to the press in Panama City that he had "not
yet received any word from the U.S. Gov-
ernment that It intends to satisfy Panama's
complaints." He expressed impatience that
the State Department had not taken action
to have the flag hoisted.
At the moment a hot presidential cam-
paign is on, with election scheduled to take
place in early May. Meantime, no Pana-
manian official or politician is likely to coun-
sel moderation, much less take a stand
against anti-U.S. attacks.
Latin American diplomats in Panama City
have reported to their governments that
more violence and demonstrations are to be
expected.
The most responsible Americans on the
isthmus are agreed that the Panamanian
politicians as well as the merchants will not
only continue to insist upon but, will take
all the material concessions they can get
and will encourage the Communist-Na-
tionalist groups to keep calling for national-
ization.
The strategy now is evident, and it bears
unmistakable Communist earmarks. First,
keep stoking the propaganda mills, keep
shouting about "Injustices heaped upon
helpless little Panama by the powerful
Yankee colossus." Eventually a lot of peo-
ple will begin to believe it.
Second, it may be possible somewhere
along .the line to create an incident, perhaps
the accidental killing of a Panamanian stu-
dent by a U.S. soldier or policeman. Then a
wave of righteous wrath will sweep all Latin
America. As one diplomat puts it: "There
will be demands in the Organization of
American States, the United Nations, and
throughout the Communist world for an end
to unilateral domination of this world
waterway."
Indeed, most Panamanians already are
convinced that eventually they will be able
to pressure us into sharing jurisdiction over
the canal as well as the zone. We ourselves
have given them good reason to believe their
dream can come true. Their efforts so far
have borne abundant fruit. We have yielded
to pressure and have made two major revi-
sions of the original treaty. Each time the
Panamanians received more than any of
them ever expected to get.
They consider our position regarding Suez
as a precedent. In effect, we approved the
nationalization of that waterway by Egypt.
Some of our most influential political
leaders have come out for what they call "a
new approach" to the canal question. Way
back at the Potsdam Conference, President
Harry S. Truman started the ball rolling.
With "Old Joe" Stalin listening, Mr. Tru-
man proposed that all strategic waterways
Sanitized - Approved For Release: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
?
1964
Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA-RDP75-00149R00920060006-6
3317
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
be internationalized, and he has repeated the
proposal.
A few weeks ago presidential hopeful Sen-
ator HUBERT EIJAIPEIRRY took up the
idea. The Minnesota Senator said, in effect,
that we have tWO alternatives in the Panama
Canal zone. We can work out a cooperative
program with the Republic of Palladia, giving
Panama more voice and rights in the Canal
Zone. Or we can go to the United Nations
and Offer to internationalize the canal pro-
viding the same is done for other inter-
national waterways.
Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, chair-
man of thg Senate Foreign Relations Sub-
committee op Latin Ameriek recently hired
a study group from Northwestern Univer-
sity, at the taxpayer's expense, to look into
and recommend a plan for disposing of the
Panama Canal question. The report recom-
mends what it terms "regionalization" of the
waterway; that is, giving the nations of this
hemisphere some say in the affairs of the
canal. The Northwestern 'University pro-
fessors went on, to say :that the Council. of -
the Organization of American States' might
establish an advisory canal Commission;
which would supervise traffic studies "in-
cluding the long range problem of arrang-
ing for a second canal across Nicaragua."
The group also said that later moves might
include, giving the Organization of American
States representation on the Board of Direc-
tors of the Canal Company and the transfer
of canal stock in small blocks to the hemis-
phere body. "By regionalizing the canal in
this wag," the Professors Concluded, "We avoid
the political dilemma of internationalizing it
through a divided United Nations, or having
it eventually nationalized despite otirselves
by the Panamanians."
UnfOrtunately, too few of our own
people-those in authority as well as aver-
age Citizens?seem to know the main facts
about the Panama Canal, its origin, and pur-
pose. The isthmus has always been a stra-
tegic artery of transportation. It was the
matte the Spanish conquerors took to west-
ern South America, to the riches of Peru,
Bolivia, etc., in the 16th century.
In 18,58, when our own people were pio-
neering to California, U.S. citizens built a
railroad across the iathrnuS and tnousands
of 'settlers traveled te, the Pacific co,ast
that route. In 1880, a French company
headed by Ferdinand de Lesseps, who pre-
viously had dug the ,Suez Canal, attempted
to" build a canal across Panama. Lack, of
money, the ravages of disease, and innumer-
able difficulties, and hardships forced De
Lesseps to give up.
By then (1880 we were becoming a great
naval power. During the Spanish-American
War we had Mind it a hazardous Under-
taking to transfer our fleet from the Atlantic
to the Pacific by way of Cape Horn. Also
our Pacific coo* and the new Territory of
Alaska were practically undefended. It be-
came Matter of the utmost strategic
urgency to find a shorter route.
In 1890, the United States bought the
French rights and holdings, but found ob-
jections from Colombia, of which Panama
was then an isolated northern province. On
November 3, 1903, the Panamanians seceded
from Colombia, and President Theodore
Roosevelt recognized the newly organized
Panamanian Government on November 6.
Twelve days later we signed a treaty with
the new Republic, which gave us the right
to construct an?operate the Canal.
Artj.cle II of that document grants, the
.TJ'nitedAtates "in perpetuity" complete Jur- _
leAtetlqp.sver.1,15t: square miles that_
Make the Cone. rt1ele III further states
that 'Pertain-a grants to the United States
" 8,11 the rights, power, and authority Within
the Zone mentioned and desetthed in article
'II * * * to the entire exclusion Of the exer-
,
else by the Republic of Panama of any such
sovereign rights, power, or authority."
To seal the bargain, we paid the new Gov-
ernment $10 million in cash and pledged
ourselves to pay annually thereafter $250,-
000, which in 1955 was upped to $1,930,000.
During Woodrow Wilson's administration
we paid Colombia $25 million, as a friendly
gesture and in token of damages it had
sustained.
It probably is too much to expect even
intelligent Panamanians to admit that what
we actually got from them by treaty, and
for which they received what then was a
considerable sum of money, was a mere strip
of sodden, disease-ridden jungle and marsh-
land, most of it totally uninhabited.
Since 1903 we have built a canal that ac-
commodates the ships of the whole world.
Our scientists and doctors turned the
swamps, as well as the two main Panamanian
cities, into virtual health resorts. We have
built hospitals, schools, homes, highways,
stores, and shops, as modern as any in the
world. We have also built all the facilities
necessary to operate and defend the biggest
single Government-operated industrial setup
outside the United States itself.
- Although we are accused of reaping billions
from this project, to date U.S. taxpayers have
spent more than a billion and a half dollars
on its construction and maintenance; but
they have received from it only a little over
$965 million in tolls.
Meantime, the Panamanians who spent
nothing to put it there, and who take no
risks in making it function and pay its way,
daily reap a windfall of benefits and profits
from it.
But regardless of what happened in the
past, and entirely aside from the question of
whether this country has or has not been
financially generous to the Government and
the people of Panama, the question now
arises: What is for the ultimate best inter-
ests of all concerned in the operation and
maintenance of this vital waterway?
Obviously it is of the utmost importance
to the other nations of this hemisphere and
to the world in general, as well as to our own
country and to Panama, that it be main-
tained in perfect condition and operated by
highly trained personnel and experienced
directing heads. Those in charge should
also be men of unusual economic and finan-
cial ability, if they are to make wise policies
for a multimillion-dollar corporation that by
law has to be self-supporting.
Anybody with even a cursory knowledge
of the Panamanian population knows that
the little Republic does not have the means or
the know-how to do either. Even if enough
Panamanians were technically trained to do
the job, the instability of the country would
be a danger to the safety and dependability
of the canal's operation. From 1949 to 1959
there have been seven different Presidents,
almost one a year. not one of whom served
out his term. President de la Guardia may
succeed in squeezing through until next
May, although he already has experienced
several close calls.
The Panamanians Still insist that we do
not pay their people the same wages that we
pay North Americans. Of course, this is not
true. It may have been in the past, but not
since the last treaty revisions. Since then, a
Panamanian who does the same job that a
North American does gets the same pay, the
same promotions, the same benefits.
Since so many Panamanians engaged in
.azitation_a_gainst the UnIteil?4tes,e_xid par-
ticipaied in vi.T2ient, Atha? on canal' prop-
erties, the question of security of the instal-
lations becomes an all-important considera-
tion.? Those responsible for any organization
as vital to national and hemisphere de-
fense as the Panama Canal would hesitate
, .?
to promote or put Panamanians or any other
than U.S. citizens in charge of strategic posts.
The Panama Canal is not only a vital ar-
tery of transportation but also a critical link
in our own national defense. It is equally
important in the defense of all the southern
Republics. None of them likes to admit it,
of course, but not one of the 20 countries
could defend itself against an attack by
modern weapons.
The United States is Latin America's sole
defense in any major war. The canal is the
sole means of shifting war vessels from one
ocean to another quickly; it is also an indis-
pensable supply line. Unless we control it,
it would be of little use in any emergency.
Aside from the fact that nobody else put
a penny into its construction, least of all
the Panamanians, these were among the
chief reasons for making a treaty which gave
us complete jurisdiction over the zone in the
first place. Divided authority and jurisdic-
tion, which could cause disagreement and
confusion at a critical moment, would give
an enemy great advantage and would kill the
efficiency of the operations in normal times.
The very fact that we are committed to
NATO, the Rio Defense Treaty, the Western
Hemisphere, and the Southeast Asia alli-
ances, is a further reason for maintaining
the political provisions of the 1903 treaty.
Especially since we still are in the midst of
a dangerous cold war with Communist na-
tions.
Nor is the mere fact that _Panamanian.
leaders have changed their minds and now
want to revise the treaty, not to say, nullify
it, sufficient reason to go along with them.
No doubt Mexicans would like to revise the
treaty that. ceded California to us, so that
their flag might again fly over this rich ter-
ritory. France might like to have the treaty
by which we acquired Louisiana and the vast
western territories that went with it over-
hauled.
The insistence upon flying the Panamanian
flag in the zone, "as a token of titular sov-
ereignty," now the prime goal of the isth-
mian crusaders, is merely a ruse, a Trojan
horse. Once there, it would be pointed to
as an acknowledgement of total, not titular,
sovereignty. It would be an excuse for the
extremists to demand more tokens of Pana-
manian power. They could point to the flag
as a supreme demonstration of U.S. deceit?
"Washington admits the canal is ours but
won't let us rule over it."
Even If it were logical and wise to make
political concessions, or if there were no
threats of a future war, this is no time even
to discuss the matter. You don't make con-
cessions when an organized mob is converg-
ing on your house.
We have become the great Western power,
but we don't act the part. We are still
anxious to be loved by everybody. We cringe
every time some government, even a shaky
one, or some extremist group criticizes or
throws spitballs at us.
Nobody loves a great power. Nobody Loved
England when Britannia ruled the waves.
But they respected her. She went straight
down the road of what she thought was her
duty. She lived up to her treaties and ob-
ligations and expected others to do like-
wise.
The U.S. Government has the same right
and the same obligation to demand that Pan-
ama, the other party to the treaty of 1903,
live up to its obligations, to its word, its sig-
nature. That is what the treaty was for.
Finally, it is time for the administration
and the Congress to stop trying to please
everybody; such efforts mean that we usual-
ly end up pleasing nobody. It would be an
innovation, and the people of the United
States no doubt would shout "Hosanna," if
the White House and Capitol Hill would act
3318
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE February 25
as the responsible protectors of American
rights abroad that they are supposed to be.
One thing is certain: Our lights and our
obligations in the matter of the Panama
Canal and its operation and protection, are
at stake.
At least it is time for our leaders to speak
with one voice, and not as if they were the
inmates of a tower of Babel.
THE AMERICAN LEGION'S POSITION
At the 41st National Convention of the
American Legion, August 25-27, 1959, the
committee on foreign relations reported:
"1. We reaffirm our opposition to any pro-
posal or effort to change, in any way, the
status quo of the Panama Canal."
'The convention adopted a resolution (No.
645) that galled upon "our Government to
praMptly and vigorously use all means
within our power to prevent the establish-
ment or continuance of any Communist or
Communist-controlled government within
the Western Hemisphere," and urged "all
American Republics to join with our Govern-
ment in the elimination of this threat to the
freedom of the people of the Western Hemi-
sphere and of the world."
BEEF IMPORT AGREEMENT?
RECTION OF THE RE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
February 20, 1964, I addressed the Sen-
ate on the new beef import agreement
and the general subject of beef imparts.
Al; the conclusion of my remarks I had
Intended to hisert a copy of a letter my
colleague [Mr. METCALF] and I addressed
to the U.S. Tariff Commission on the cat-
tle and beef import situation. Inadvert-
ently the attachment was a letter to the
U.S. Tariff Commission, but on the sub-
ject of copper imports.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the body of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD my statement
"Beef Import Agreement" and the cor-
rect attachments.
There being no objection, the state-
ment and attachments were Ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BEEF IMPORT AGREEMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Preeident, on Monday,
the Department of State and the Depart-
ment of Agriculture announced a voluntary
agreement with Australia and New Zealand
orc beef imports. These two countries pro-
vide approximately 80 percent of our im-
ports of fresh and frozen beef and veal. The
agreement, as I understand it, is subject to
renew after 3 years.
In brief, the agreement guarantees foreign
exporters of beef to the United States ap-
proximately 11 percent of our domestic
market, holding Australian and New Zea-
land exports to the United States at the
1962-63 average, allowing for consumption
growth.
Mr. President, this is a small step?a very
small one?in the right direction; but it is
not enough. It provides little protection
for our domestic industry at a time when
,prices are down. During the ,current calen-
der year, it will provide a 6-percent reduc-
tion, as compared with 1963 imports.
The idea of a voluntary negotiated agree-
ment with these two major beef exporters is
excellent?but certainly not one that guar-
antees foreign suppliers such a major foot-
hold on our beef market. We cannot blame
Australia and New Zealand when they can
get an agreement which will permit them to
contihue to export to the United States at a
rate comparable to those of the two highest
years in history. The American cattle in-
dustry is the one that is being hurt. It
Would have been far more realistic if the
average imports had been computed over the
past 5 years, instead of the last 2 years.
In addition, I am somewhat concerned
about the effect such an agreement will have
on efforts to aid the domestic livestock in-
dustry, in light of the delicate state of our
international trade negotiations. Frankly, I
am anxious to see a much more realistic
quota established, either through U.S. Tariff
Commission recommendations or congres-
sional action. It is for this reason that my
colleague [Mr. METCALF] and I have prepared,
for introduction, legislation which would
establish a quota system on beef imports,
based on the past 5-year average.
Mr. President, I introduce this bill, on be-
half of myself, my colleague, the Senator
from montane [Mr. METCALF], the Senators
fr. . North Dakota [Mr. YOUNG and Mr. Bua-
0. the Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
ovitax], and the Senators from Iowa [Mr.
HI ENLOOPER and Mr. MILLER] ; and I ask
u imous consent to have printed at the
co lusion of my remarks the text of this
pr osed legislation and a letter on the same
iss which my colleague, the Senator from
M tana [Mr. METCALF] and I addressed to
thI B. Tariff Commission.
. President, I also ask unanimous con-
se to have the bill held at the desk, for
ional cosponsors, until Monday, Febru-
ary 24.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill will be received and appropriately re-
ferred; and, without objection, the bill and
letter will be printed in the RECORD, and the
bill will be held at the desk, as requested by
the Senator from Montana.
The bill (S. 2525) to restrict imports of
beef, veal, and mutton into the United
States, introduced by Mr. MANSFIELD (for
himself and other Senators), was received,
read twice by its title, referred to the Com-
mittee on Finance, and ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
total quantities of beef, veal, and mutton
(in all forms except canned, cured and
cooked meat, and live animals) originating
In any country which may be entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
during any period of twelve months shall not
exceed the average annual quantities of such
products imported from such country dur-
ing the five-year period ending on December
31, 1963: Provided, That beginning January
1, 1965, there may be an annual increase in
the total quantities of such products which
may be entered, or withdrawn from ware-
house, for such purpose, corresponding to
the annual rate of increase in the total
United States market for such products, as
estimated by the Secretary of Agriculture."
The letter presented by Mr. MANSFIELD is
as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., February 17, 1964.
Mr. BEN D. DORFMAN,
Chairman, U.S. Tariff Commission,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR, CHAIRMAN: In response to a
resolution adopted by the Senate Finance
Committee, the U.S. Tariff Commission will
soon begin an investigation of the impact
of foreign cattle and beef imports on the
domestic market. This is a matter of con-
siderable importance to the State of Montana
as one of the leading prdoucers in the live-
stock industry.
The problems now plaguing the ranchers
are many and complex. Each day our mall
brings new and more desperate appeals for
aid in stopping the present decline in cattle
prices. There is an immediate need to
stabilize the cattle and beef market or we
fear we will be faced with a situation of
momentous proportions.
This is a many sided problem, but one of
the major causes is the increasing share of
the domestic market that is being taken over
by the importers. The trend over the past
several years has been in this direction until
we now find that imported beef equals more
than 11 percent of 'U.S. production. What
has been a threat has now been compounded
into an unfair and difficult situation.
As the members of the Commission know,
the United States is the only major beef
market without quantitative restrictions
and very low duties. Also, we take 51 per-
cent of the world trade in beef. On the
basis of these facts, we wish to support the
industry in its request for an establishment
of a quota system or tariff protection based
on domestic consumption and production.
The executive branch of our Government
has the authority to provide relief to the
cattle industry. The need is amply demon-
strated. The Nation's Government must
take the initiative to prevent a very serious
economic depression in one of our basic in-
dustries. The Tariff Commission can recom-
mend the necessary relief to the President.
If the Federal Government does its part, it
will then be up to the industry itself to
handle problems such as excessive marketing,
new marketing methods, and consumer
preferences.
With best personal wishes, we are,
Sincerely yours,
MIKE MANSFIELD,
U.S. Senator.
LEE METCALF,
U.S. Senator.
SERVICE OF REPRESENTATIVE
HAROLD C. OS ITiliTAG
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, yes-
terday our distinguished colleague in the
other body, Representative HAROLD C.
OSTERTAG, announced that he would not
be a candidate for reelection as a Mem-
ber of Congress from New York. Repre-
sentative OSTERTAG represented the dis-
trict geographically adjacent to mine
when I served in the other body. He has
had a distinguished career there. As a
member of the Appropriations Commit-
tee, he has been in conference with
many Members of this body, who must
have learned from those conferences how
sound and conscientious he is in the
performance of his duties.
Congressman OSTERTAG fought for his
country in World War I, enlisting in the
74th Infantry, 27th Division. He served
with the 55th Pioneer Infantry in the
American Expeditionary Force.
He has served as State vice com-
mander of the American Legion. He is
a member of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, the Elks, and the Attica Grange
and the Wyoming County Farm Bureau.
His adult life has, in fact, been dedi-
cated to public service in his district?
the 37th District?his State and his
country.
He is leaving the Congress in full vigor
and in good health. I am sure he leaves
with the good wishes of all of us who
have served with him and who know of
his outstanding service to his country.
I express the hope that he will enjoy
his retirement.
Before his service in the Congress, he
served for many years in the New York
State Legislature, so he has had three
decades of dedicated and distinguished
public service. I wish him and his wife
and family great happiness and the en-
joyment of a long life.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will my
colleague yield?
Mr. KEATING. lam happy to yield.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
STATINTL STATINTL FEB 2 1 1964
/964 Sanitized - Appromtfoisftimottalik
CIVILIAN SCLENTIPIC mast:wry., or, BOARD
USCG "NORTHWIND," OCEANOGRAPHIC CRUISE,
1963
William H. Gladfelter, senior scientist
oceanographer, U.S. Naval Oceanographic
Office.
James P. Sullivan, oceanographer, U.S.
Naval Oceanographic Office.
James J. McConnell, geologist, U.S. Naval
Oceanographic Office.
Harris D. Saunders, oceanographer, U.S.
Naval Oceanographic Office.
Viet L. Howard, oceanographer, U.S. Naval
Oceanographic Office.
Michael J. Linck, Jr., cartographer (photo) ,
U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office.
Norman E. Carroll, meteorological tech-
nician, U.S. Weather Bureau.
Louis A. Codispoti, University of Wash-
ington.
Harvey C. Peterson, University of Wash-
ington.
Frederick S. Osell, University of Wash-
ington.
Lloyd B. Ellis, University of Southern
California.
Dr. Kenneth Hunkins, Lamont Geophysical
Institute.
.* Mr. Perry Parks, University of Wisconsin.
Mr. Steven den Tiartog, University of Wis-
consin.
COAST GUARD OCEANOGRAPHIC PERSONNEL ON
USCG "NORTHWIND," OCEANOGRAPHIC CRUISE,
1963
Lt. James S. Washburn.
Chief Aerographer Donald C. Bailey.
Aerographer Second Class Michael L.
Smith.
Aerographer Second Class Gerald F. Ming-
worth.
Aerographer Second Class Russel L. Rey-
nolds.
Seaman William M. Shearer.
WYOMING STATE TRIBUNE EDI-
TORIALIZES ON INCOME TAX
auxins FOR COLLEGE -EDUCA-
TION
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, al-
though it is entirely academic since the
Senate has passed the administration's
tax reduction bill, I should like to call
my colleagues' attention to an editorial
from the February 3 Wyoming State
Tribune alluding to a tax bill amendment
offered by Senator RIBICOFF, which I sup-
ported.
The Senator from Connecticut had
proposed that a percentage of certain
college-connected expenses be made de-
ductible from Federal income tax. I felt
this proposal was sound. It would al-
leviate the great burden placed upon
families sending their children to col-
leges without increasing the already sig-
nificant power of the Federal Govern-
ment in the field of education. I regret
that the amendment did not gain ma-
jority support.
So that some of the thinking in Wyom7
Mg on this subject can be made known,
I ask that the Wyoming State Tribune
editorial by James Flinchum be printed
:Ln the body of the RECORD.
There being no objection, the edit
was ordered to be printed in the RECO D,
as follows: ,
prom the Cheyenne (Wyo.) State Trib
Feb. 8, 19641
REAL AID TO EDUCATION
Senator RIBICOFF, of Connecticut, is
ing to make a thoroughly palatable pro
tion a part of the tax reduction bill. It is a
feature combining both aid to educat on
and a decrease in the Federal income tax,
and yet for a clearly specified reason the
Johnson administration appears to be op-
posed to the measure.
Mr. Risicom, who was Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare in the Kennedy ad-
ministration before successfully running for
the Senate, offers an idea that will be en-
thusiastically accepted by both Republicans
anti Democrats alike, particularly those par-
ents who have college-age children or who
have offspring whom they intend to send to
college.
The Ribicoff proposition is this: A Fed-
eral income tax credit would be granted on
the first $1,500 of tuition fees, books, and
supplies of a student at an institution of
higher education; this credit would be ex-
tended on a sliding scale formula with re-
spect to students at public and private edu-
cational institutions, and it would be made
available to each and every person who pays
tuition., The credit also would be limited
so that it provides greater benefits to lower
income families, thus serving as an increased
incentive for them to send their children to
college.
The Senate vote on the tax cut bill to which
Senator Rnacore seeks to attach his college
credit proposal, will come this week. The
latter already has been defeated by a close
vote of 10 to 7 in the Senate Finance Com-
mittee apparently on Johnson administration
orders.
Interestingly enough, the idea advanced by
Mr. Ramon* originally was proposed by
President Kennedy; but for some reason it
now has been discarded by the present ad-
ministration despite its avowed pledge to
carry out the Kennedy program. What
happened to bring about this change of
mind cannot immediately be determined.
But it is worth pointing out that the
present administration's opposition is based
oh the idea that aid to education can best
be supported through Federal grants.
Said the Baltimore Sun in an editorial of
January 23: "The [Senate Finance] Com-
mittee majority opposes the Ribicoff pro-
posal following the administration's con-
tention that education can be financed more
efficiently through grants and loans."
But the Sun also asks: Can it? It pro-
ceeds to point out that any administrative
effort would involve considerable cost.
The Ribicoff proposal is direct tax relief;
It is the kind of Federal aid to education
that can be welcomed by all because it in-
volves no strings, no direction, and still ac-
complishes the same purpose.
The great fear about Federal aid to edu-
cation is that besides the costly administra-
tive operation, adding to the already stagger-
ing burden of operating the Government,
it imposes the threat of Federal controls.
This is not a theory; it is fact. Washing-
ton seeks to govern through the granting of
largesse. The Ribicoff proposal would take
away this element of doubt involved in Fed-
eral aid to education; in fact, it is similar in
format to the proposition advanced by Sen-
ator GOLDWATZR last year that taxpayers
be granted tax credits on the basis of local
school district taxes they pay. This also
amounted to simple, direct, and untram-
meled Federal aid to education, but the ex-
ecutive department of the Government has
displayed a notable reluctance to even ac-
latiki*that such a proposition exists.
s very likely that the college aid
idea of the Senator from Connecticut will
die aborning, which is too bad.
AMBASSADOR FARLAND AND
PANAMA
Mr. SIMPSON*. Mr. President, syndi-
cated columnist, Henry J. Taylor, in a
No. 31-3
column published February 3, tells o the
treatment Joseph S. Farland, former
Ambassador to Panama, received upon
his recent return to the United States
and to private life. Although Farland
has been acclaimed as a Latin American
expert virtually without peer and as a
person of high integrity, his advice and
counsel on the crisis brewing in Panama
were apparently not sought by the State
Department.
Of special significance is a quote by
Columnist Taylor that:
We here in the State Department will take
care of any discussions about Panama with
the CIA ourselves.- Further, you are not to
have discussions with Members of Congress
on the Hill.
This statement was allegedly made by
Edwin Martin, the then Assistant Secre-
tary of State for Latin American Affairs
to Ambassador Farland. Had the Am-
bassador been able to tell his story to
Congress or to someone with a receptive
ear, much of the bloodshed in Panama
might have been averted.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi-
dent, that the Henry J. Taylor article
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
A,MBASSADOR Nov CONSULTED
(By Henry J. Taylor)
This firsthand look at what really hap-
pened to former Ambassador of Panama
Joseph S. Farland should explain much
about what confronts President Johnson.
And why dangerous event after event abroad
is a surprise, surprise, suprise to those at the
top on whom our security depends.
Ambassador Farland is an ex-FBI agent,
counterintelligence expert, chief of mission
for 8% years in Panama before returning
last August, and acclaimed as one of the
most successful ambassadors we've ever had
in Latin America. He resigned last August
and returned to private life in Morgan-
town, W. Va.
State Secretary Dean Rusk told the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, January 15, that
he was taken by surprise by events in Pan-
ama. The committee asked whether his De-
partment had fully consulted the returned
ambassador whose reports had long bristled
with information about the Castro buildup
and the mounting crisis in the Isthmus.
"Oh, yes, Farland has been completely de-
briefed," Rusk testified.
Now obviously, something or someone was
wrong some place. Ambassador Farland has
stated publicly that he was asked nothing,
and had sat around Washington for 3 solid
weeks without being consulted ("de-
briefed"). So I asked Farland to tell me ex-
actly what went on. He agreed to do so.
Be said Secretary Rusk in his testimony
apparently relied on a subordinate who re-
ported to him after engaging Farland in a
short, and largely irrelevant conversation,
that's all.
That State Department man was named
Lansing Collins. "We did hardly more than
pass the time of day, Collins and I," Far-
land told me.
That the Secretary of State himself ad-
mittedly failed to consult Farland, as CIA
Director John A. McCone likewise failed even
to see him, was inexnlie-b1". How come?
"When I arrived home in August," Far-
land answered, "and the State Department
circulated its customary notice to appro-
priate agencies listing returned ambassadors
available for consultation, a man in the
White House went to work. His name is
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6
3204 Sanitized - ARibigegActsfteingocAAAWNI00149R000209g0,99,16A/
Ralph Dungau. On whose authority he
acted I do not know. But Dungau tele-
phoned the various agencies, including the
Pentagon, that I was not to be invited for
consultation."
Parland then coupled this action with a
previous event. "Earlier in the Panama
crisis," he stated, "when I went to Washing-
ton for consultation in the late fall of 1962,
Edwin Martin, the then assistant Secretary
of State for Latin-American affairs, stepped
In, Martin literally ordered me to have no
contact with top CIA executives and any
congressional leaders."
"'We here in the State Department will
take care of any discussions about Panama
with the CIA ourselves. Further, you are
not to have discussions with Members of
Congress on the hill,' Martin directed."
Subsequently, Ambassador Farland met
President Kennedy during the late Presi-
dent's conference with Latin-American presi-
dents at San Salvador last March.
"President Kennedy did not know about
Martin's directive to me," Farland con-
tinued, "and in Martin's presence he crossed
up Martin on the congressional angle while
Martin remained silent. The President told
me to see inquiring congressional leaders on
my next trip home. I had nothing but cour-
teay, understanding and, so far' as I know,
approval from President Kennedy personally
and directly."
I asked about the CIA espionage situa-
tion, including Castro penetrations in Pana-
ma. Farland described the CIA as an out-
of-hand aggregation "underzealous in know-
ing what was happening in Panama and
overzealous in building a CIA empire in the
Zone." He revealed the additional stops
and blocks he encountered behind the scenes
in trying to bring this agency into line.
"The station chief had exposed himself as
? a prominent figure in the high social world,"
Irarland stated, "and it was easy to see that
the whole thing was loose. They simply did
not know what was going on. I spelled this
out repeatedly to both the State Department
and CIA's Washington headquarters in terms
of Isthmus and American security. Neither
acted. It took me nearly a year to get the
station chief removed?a very decisive and
critical year?and then only when CIA Di-
rector McCone himself came to Panama and
heard the facts direct from me in my house."
Bravely, Ambassador Farland gives one
phase of the maze President Johnson faces.
Aad our public, too.
? Dr. Squirm challenged Castro's as-
sertion that the revolution is "every-
thing," saying that as a student of law:
I came to the conclusion that those regimes
[ the Communists] are incapable of giving
that minimum guaranty that is still being
offered by the democracies.
Freedom cannot be surrendered either to
give water to the thirsty, to give food to the
hungry, or to clothe the ragged, because
freedom is more than clothing, more than
bread, more than water, and more than the
air itself. Freedom is the possibility of the
spirit.
Mr. President, I recommend this letter
by Dr. Squirru to the attention of my
colleagues and readers of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD who might question the
worth of cultural programs in the Or-
ganization of American States, and I ask
unanimous consent that excerpts of the
letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PAN AMERICAN UNION,
July 24, 1963.
I read the last issue of "El Como" with
much interest and care. The content of this
issue is of great interest for its quality. I
have some objections to make about the
statements made by Fidel Castro Rus, which
I consider to be fallacious. His final state-
ment sums up his entire thinking: "(for
those who are) with the revolution, every-
thing: (for those who are) against the revolu-
tion, no rights at all." The whole problem,
to my way of thinking, rests in who inter-
prets this final doctrine and how he inter-
prets it. When impartial judges are lacking,
every guarantee of justice is automatically
vitiated, and when I refer to judges I mean
an independent judicial power. As a student
of law, I thoroughly investigated these condi-
tions within the Fascist and Communist ma-
chinery, and I came to the conclusion that
those regimes are incapable of giving that
imum guarantee that is still being offered
the liberal democracies, despite all the
rtcomings and imperfections that can be
ibuted to them. On the plane of the
ggle for power, it makes no difference
them tyranny is exercised by rightist or
le 1st extremists. For the thinking man
knows of freedom, and I use the term
"k ow" (saber) in its double connotation
of knowing and enjoying, there can be no
com romise in this respect, even though the
heart-rending banners are waved.
Freedom cannot be surrendered either to
give water to the thirsty, to give food to
the hungry, or to clothe the ragged, because
freedom is more than clothing, more than
bread, more than water, and more than the
air itself. Freedom is the possibility of the
spirit. When absent, what there is, is some-
thing else and that something else is what is
expressed by all those who try to be artists
in the regimes where freedom does not exist.
It is because I have experienced life in com-
munities where there is no freedom that I
find empty all the words that are written
without the basis of this essential human
dignity: the obligation of the intellectual,
which is not to serve anything but the pur-
pose of his own revolution?the great
struggle he must wage with himself.
RAFAEL SQUIRRU,
Director, Department of Cultural Affairs.
OAS CULTURAL AFFAIRS DIRESTamminge
REPLIES TO FIDEL CASTR
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Amer-
ican preoccupation with the dollars and
cents aspect of the struggle against com-
munism in Latin America sometimes
overshadows another important round of
the conflict?one that is fought not with
ballets and violence but with pages and
eloquence.
For several years a few modest pub-
lications aimed at the Latin American
intelligentsia have been the sounding
board for avant-garde thought on both
sides of the ideological fence.
One such publication?El Corno?fea-
tured a letter some months ago that
was written in reply to an 'effusion by
Cuba's bearded dictator who had hoped
to use the magazine to laud his Com,
munist revolution.
The retort came from Argentina born
Dr. Rafael Squirru, the articulate and
dynamic Director of Cultural Affairs of
the Organization of American States in
Washington.
TRIBUTE TO SENATORS WHO AU-
THORED THE ORIGINAL GI BILL
IN 1944
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the World WarII GI bill helped lift teen-
. .
agers born in the depression years to an
educational level where many are now
the leaders of the 1960's. The Korean
conflict GI bill further proved the bene-
fits of this kind of legislation for veter-
ans of military service.
It is hard for me to understand how
such forcible demonstrations of good ef-
fects from GI bill educational assistance
can be pushed aside. No legislation will
ever prove its value more fully than have
the GI bills of the past. It is essential
that we use what we have learned from
them to continue educational assistance
to military veterans. If we had contin-
ued it since the end of the Korean con-
flict, our country would be better pre-
pared now and in the next decade to
handle the technological and scientific
problems we face.
That is why I am working for passage
of the cold war GI bill, S. 5, which is co-
sponsored by 38 of my colleagues.
Of nearly 8 million GI'S who received
training under the original GI bill, more
than 2 million went to college, 31/2 mil-
lion more got precollege training, and
millions more got vocational or other
training.
The two previous GI bills materially
added to the Nation's welfare and pro-
ductivity by giving us 180,000 doctors,
nurses, and medical personnel, 113,000
physicists and research scientists, 450,000
engineers, and 230,000 schoolteachers, in
addition to other occupations and pro-
fessions. The contribution made and to
be made by veterans is incalculable, espe-
cially in light of our still desperate need
for more teachers, more scientists, and
more engineers.
Mr. President, I think it appropriate at
this time, on the eve of George Washing-
ton's birthday, to pay tribute to those
in the Senate who sponsored the original
GI bill. They are names easy to remem-
ber; a few of them still serve in the
Senate. I honor them today for their
vision and wisdom.
The bill was S. 1767, 78th Congress. It
was sponsored by the following Sena-
tors:
Mr. Clark of Missouri, Mr. George, Mr.
Vandenberg, Mr. Walsh of Massachu-
setts, Mr. Barkley, Mr. Connally, Mr.
O'Mahoney, Mr. Bailey, Mr. McKellar,
Mr. Guffey, Mr. Bankhead, Mr. Wagner,
Mr. Thomas of Utah, Mr. Johnson of
California, Mr. Johnson of Colorado, Mr.
Radcliffe, Mr. Lucas, Mr. La Follette, Mr.
Davis, Mr. Tydings, Mr. Thomas of
Idaho, Mr. Butler, Mr. Capper, Mrs.
Caraway, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Maybank,
Mr. McCarran, Mr. McClellan, Mr. Hill,
Mr. Scrugham, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Bilbo,
Mr. Truman, Mr. Brewster, Mr. Brooks,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Stewart, Mr.
Clark of Idaho, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Gurney,
Mr. Langer, Mr. Overton, Mr. Thomas of
Oklahoma, Mr. Eastland, Mr. Millikin,
Mr. Wherry, Mr. Willis, Mr. Moore, Mr.
Wheeler, Mr. Gillette, Mr. Wallgren, Mr.
Bone, Mr. Nye, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Rever-
comb, Mr. Murray, Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
Smith, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Buck, Mr.
Tobertson, Mr. Tobey, Mr. Welsh of New
Jersey, Mr. Green, Mr. Chandler, Mr.
Pepper, Mr. Holman, Mr. Bushfield, Mr.
Hawkes, Mr. Russell, Mr. Downey, Mr.
Mead, Mr. Aiken, Mr. Weeks, Mr. Mur-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-00149R000200650006-6