CIA NEEDS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000600130019-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 22, 2005
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: January 14, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
A136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX January 14
scorn as the wrecker of the foreign aid pro-
gram.
The truth seems to be, however, that Mr.
PASSMAN knows more about the foreign aid
program than any President has had an op-
portunity to know for the simple reason that
he has studied it longer and in more detail.
He has handled the foreign aid appropria-
tion for 9 consecutive years. Mr. PASSMAN
is not a liberal; he is a conventional Loui-
sianian, but with a flair for rather rakish at-
tire and an endless patience in coping with
one of the really big practical problems of
modern government.
It is only a slight exaggeration to say that
officials of the foreign. aid program would
much prefer it if neither Congress nor the
public knew much about its activities, ex-
cept the puff stories on its great achieve-
ments which are not inconsiderable.
The official attitude about foreign aid is
that it is an instrument of foreign policy
used by the President under his constitu-
tional authority to direct this policy. What
flows from that conception is that Congress
should not, indeed cannot under the Con-
stitution, interfere.
This is an impractical concept, which Mr.
PASSMAN annually demonstrates to be faulty.
However, much of what is done under the
foreign aid program is hidden from the pub-
lic. There was a time when it was a secret
how the money was divided up between vari-
ous countries. Even now the secrecy label
is so widely used that "it looks like a ticker
tape parade when you see us lifting secret
and classified stuff in the hearings."
Every now and then a little something
leaks out, like Lebanese bulls with nine stalls
apiece or extra wives for Kenyan Govern-
ment officials, or air-conditioned Cadillacs
for Middle Eastern potentates. A suffering
public has become more or less conditioned
to this kind of thing and would not aban-
don foreign aid for this alone. Nor is it
likely that the public as a whole would end
all foreign aid, however much annoyed it
may become over waste and incomprehensible
spending abroad when there is so much that
needs improvement in this country.
But it Is clear that a majority in Congress
believes that the country wants to go slower
on foreign aid, be more selective, be more
certain that definite policy alms are being
pursued toward a useful conclusion.
Every year for 9 years the clamor has
come from the White House and the Depart-
ment of State that any cutback will wreck
our foreign policy. And any time there is a
out our foreign policy never seems to be de-
monstrably better or worse off.
A few facts are usful. In this connection.
In the last 8 years Congress has reduced
the White House budget requests by more
than $6.5 billion. Yet every year more money
was appropriated than foreign aid officials
could use. The so-called pipeline funds
from past years which are committed to
continuing projects now amount to more
than $7 billion. Foreign aid could go on
for several years without another penny of
appropriation.
It is not uncommon for officials to make
huge allocations of their funds in the last
2 or 3 days of a fiscal. year so that they
won't have any uncommitted money left,
and can claim they are emptyhanded in
meeting the world's challenges.
Last year the White House, the State De-
partment, and the Defense Department all
said our foreign policy was being wrecked
by a. billion-dollar out. Yet these agencies
finished the fiscal year with a total of $744
million of unobligated funds on their hands.
Basically, the facts do not support any
contention that Congress has either wrecked
the foreign aid program or really harmed it.
Nor does the contention hold water any
longer that the Russians are rushing in
Where we pull out. The Russians have had
their own serious problems with foreign aid.
This appears to be one case where instinc-
tive public reactions are right; that we have
been spending too much on foreign aid and
CIA Needs Watchdog Committee
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI
Or WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 14, 1964
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, day
by day the evidence mounts that a con-
gressional watchdog committee on the
Central Intelligence Agency Is needed;
and day by day public support grows for
the creation of such a committee.
Created as a central agency to gather
and analyze intelligence information, the
CIA has, all too often, been guilty of
formulating foreign policy.
Recently, former President Truman,
under whom the CIA was first organized,
expressed his belief that the CIA had
strayed off course and should be made
to adhere to the original purpose for
which it was created.
I could not agree more. For the rea-
sons set forth by President Truman and
other constructive critics of the CIA, I
have introduced legislation into every
Congress since 1953 calling for the crea-
tion of a Joint Congressional Committee
on the CIA.
My bill, House Concurrent Resolution
2, currently is pending before the House
Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues
on that committee to consider this res-
olution and companion bills as soon as
possible.
Further, under permission granted, I
include an editorial from the January 4
issue of the Milwaukee Journal calling
on Congress to approve a committee
such as that proposed in House Concur-
rent Resolution 2.
TRUMAN: CIA OFF TaAcx
Former President Truman has added his
doubts to many others about the operations
of the Central Intelligence Agency. And he
speaks with authority, for the CIA was or-
ganized during his presidency to serve the
needs of his office.
As organized, Truman says, the CIA was to
bring together intelligence information avail-
able to all branches of Government, valuate
and interpret it for the President. It was
never meant, Truman says, to "be injected
into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."
It was never meant to make policy.
CIA activities have frequently been em-
barrassing to this country in the last decade.
In numerous Instances the Agency actually
has worked counter to our foreign policy.
Certainly we need no agency to work to sub-
vert foreign governments-yet the record
indicates that the CIA has done that very
thing.
Truman is quick to acknowledge the pa-
triotism and the dedication of CIA officials.
He just thinks they have been off the track.
The Agency, he says, should return to its
basic job of gathering and assessing intelli-
gence for the use of the policymakers.
In connection with this, the proposal that
the CIA be audited by a special committee 07
Congress, just as the Atomic Energy Com-
mission is, deserves congressional approval.
The CIA is too much a > a unto itself. For
its own good, and the co =airy's, it should be
Burped and put under c nstant check.
No Comp-omis: t n Canal
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
or
HON. DONALD 3ITMSFELD
OF ILLI ' I;
IN THE HOUSE OOF RF I.ESENTATIVES
Tuesday, JanuL y 14, 1964
Mr. RUMSFELO. h r. Speaker, I wish
to insert in the Rnc, ?m the following
Chicago Daily News ea -lorial of January
13, which briefly but o icisely analyzes
the background of the 'anama crisis and
recommends a firm sti ad by the United
States:
No COMpaoMIsi )at CANAL
Facing the first intern.- ,t:onal crisis of his
administration, Prosid@n .sohnson was un-
derstandably eager to 81 tae role of peace-
maker in Panama. We -eve some qualms,
however, that his eagerr- led him to con-
cessions he may regret.
It was essential to seer: a i end to violence
and bloodshed. It was a-o essential.to deal
with the political over ties that quickly
came to the fore. But nc,:aker howling mobs
nor demagogic pol iticiar are likely to be
deterred by weakness, a. ,d in Panama the
United States has ^xhib ai more weakness
than strength.
Why should we adopt a .almost apologetic
attitude either in he U-it?vf Nations or in
the Organization of Amea ~,n States for try-
ing to protect American:. Prom Panamanian
attack? Nothing more if _n self-defense was
involved, and the loss of 1rierican lives and
the extensive dest uctioi 4 U.S. property
are ample evidence that were more timid
in exercising that right ,l,an the circum-
stances justified.
The mobs that stormed she U.S.-controlled
Canal Zone were organize di wo well and too
quickly to qualify n:a an a ?c: dent. The Gov-
ernment of Panama, has :r-'used the people
against Americans in the :'.anal Zone year
after year, for its own pe --.tical benefit, and
this is its harvest. Then I ; good reason to
believe that, Castro-Com_.tuofsts joined the
attacks, if they did not 1.;- 11e instigate them
in the first place.
Panama's quick break diplomatic rela-
tions, and the imXgediate aoand for control
of the canal, seemec'. well ei.earsed. And, as
might have been predict, , the Soviet bloc
plus the anti-American c true in the Latin
republics joined in he he -1; against Ameri-
can "imperialism."
It is clearly true that 1.. history of the
Panama Canal is somewl t checkered, and
that conditions hive c aged since the
United States engineered ' -,ib the canal and
the creation of the R.epubl -, ?,f Panama. But
it is also true that in reoe, :ears the United
States has made ma33y con lions to appease
the Panamanians.
If there are other neg i able grievances,
they can be settled arou I the conference
table when things luiet ?.civn again. But
nothing should be conce cud in an atmos-
phere of bloodshed and b ckmail, for to do
so is to invite more of the same not only in
Panama but elsewhere.
In particular, U.S own: s tip and control
of the Panama Can;+.l mu -..:mot be regarded
as negotiable. If It Wakes Slow of strength
to shut off the threats s the canal, let
strength be shown. That, zi least, is some-
th}ng everybody and irstan 's -and it is more
likely to win respect than . vll]ingness to be
everybody's doormat
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX A135 sin Slandering Congress Is Slandering Our As we all know, our Government was tht at ngess88tli Cocessed set acepeacetimethe
of Government founded on a system of checks and bal- longevity of the
record and allowed only 8 days of
System antes. The executive branch some- vacation for the legislators before the 2d
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
or
HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, December 24, 1963
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the most widely played indoor
game in the United States is that of
slandering-the Congress. It is not a new
game. It has been played with great
fervor and spirit ever since we became
a nation.
Usually, but not always, the tide of
slander arises because Congress has re-
f}lsed to act as a rubberstamp for a
popular President.
The torrent of abuse that- is being
poured out against the Congress today
is not unprecedented, but it is serious
and it is growing in its intensity. News-
paper cartoonists delight in picturing
Members of thelegislative branch either
asegocentric clowns or as mindless slug-
gards: National columnists, ridicule the
Congress unmercifully because we do not
throw our doubts and our convictions
out the window and vote instantly for
measures of which the columnists per-
sonally approve. Since most newspaper-
men are somewhat- more liberal in their
politics than the average American, their
scorn usually falls heaviest on legisla-
tors whom they consider to be conserva-
tive.
There is a dangerous tendency to judge
a Congress- merely by the amount of
legislation it passes. Too many commen-
tators are interested in quantity, not
quality. If a Congress refuses to pass
a flock of laws, regardless of their merit,
it is inevitably tagged with the "do noth-
ing" label, and the inference is that its
leaders are weaklings and its Members
timewasters.
Such people confuse progress with
mere motion. When a man spins around
in a revolving door, Mr. Speaker, he is
not making progress. Neither is he mak-
ing progress when he fallsdown a flight
of stairs.
Because we have moved with delibera-
tion in areas of -enormous importance
to the Nation and to the free world we
have been accused of weakness. Our
t of
i
g
y
e
gn, -no
procedures have been a s
Member of the
weakness, but of strength. The Con- I am proud of being a ventions and the politicking for next No-
gress is a continuing body with roots 88th Congress and I deeply resent the vember.
nders that the irrespon-
l
d
a
s
sunk deep in every corner of the land. libels an
The Members of Congress collectively sible propagandists for instant legisla-
know far better than anyone else what tion have been throwing at us.
the people of the country - think and And, M. Speaker, it is heartening to
what they want and what they are say- know that there is a growing segment of
ing. It is my considered opinion that the Nation's press that is beginning to
the average American citizen is less lib- appreciate the value of the 88th Con-
eral in his thinking than most of the gress. Under unanimous consent, I in-
columnists andcommentators would like sort in the RECORD two recent examples
him to be. And I am absolutely certain of such constructive thinking:
that the average American citizen does [From the Dallas (Tex.) Morning News,
Nation swiftly into vast and continuing
programs as a result of hysterical snap
decisions made at the behest of the ex-
ecutive branch.
times acts as a check on the impulsive-
ness of the legislative branch, and vice
versa. During the past 2 years the 88th
Congress has been a wholesome and re-
straining influence upon Executive ex-
uberance.
By acting with thoughtful delibera-
tion we are making certain that human
rights are being preserved; that prop-
erty is being properly protected, and
that individual liberty is not being im-
periled by expediency.
Over the centuries, Congress has built
a structure of laws upon a foundation
of precedence. Because we have built
this structure with thoughtful delibera-
tion, it is the soundest legislative - struc-
ture in the world today.
Our critics, Mr. Speaker, make the
claim that our refusal to act impulsively
is proof that our legislative processes
are not efficient. Although I deny the
allegation, I also maintain that bloodless
efficiency is not the sole aim, or even the
principal aim, of Government. A rep-
resentative democracy, such as ours, is
not nearly as efficient according to your
definition of efficient, as a Fascist or a
Communist despotism, where the merest
whims of the dictator have the iron ef-
fect of law. But who would exchange
the comparatively inefficientfreedom of
this land of ours for the prisonlike ef-
ficiency of the slave state?
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the value
of a Congress should not be measured
merely by the number of bills it passes.
In many cases, as we all know, it takes
harder work and a great deal more cour-
age to resist legislation than it does to
ride complacently with the tide. It also
takes courage to insist upon the
thoughtful shaping and refinement of
legislation so that it will achieve the
maximum good for the maximum num- committees and the rules of Congress have
ber of people, when the strident voices of been extremely hypocritical.
the propagandists are demanding that When seniority, committee power, and the
we pass it instantly, without debate or rules are used to promote liberal legislation,
deliberation. it takes courage, in short, the liberal critics are not loud with their
"to keep one's head when all about are complaints. They make noise usually when
losing theirs, and blaming it on you." these factors work against legislation they
This is riot the spectacular brand of would like to have passed.
One thing is sure: The next session will be
courage, but it is something immensely shorter. Though the number of requests in
valuable to the Nation. It is the brand the President's program may be greater than
of courage that the 88th Congress has ever before-with a civil rights bill and tax
exhibited in abundance. cut proposals left over, plus a revival of medi-
to come up-Congress-
The fact that we have been able to care and other issues
do so, Mr. Speaker, is a tribute to your men from both parties, both liberals and
own firm and understanding leadership. conservatives, will be anxious to adjourn
o home for the primaries, the con-
to
arl
Barely 30 hours before the end of the old
year, Congress adjourned--if that's what you
can call it. It might be more correct to say
session is called to order January 7.
There has been a tremendous amount of
criticism leveled against Congress lately for
being slow and failing to enact legislation.
Most of-. this criticism is unfair.
Americans for Democratic Action refers to
Congress as the "iceberg on Capitol Hill,"
charging that it is run by a "reactionary-
conservative" coalition. Roy Wilkins of the
NAACP says Negroes are "disenchanted"
with the whole legislative process.
Walter Lippmann, in a recent column, goes
so far as to charge that the "88th Congress
has been paralyzed by * * ? a conspiracy to
suspend representative government." He
adds, referring to efforts by Congress to
prohibit credit guarantees for sale of wheat
to Red nations, that the legislative branch
has been attempting to usurp the Presi-
dent's constitutional power to conduct our
foreign relations."
Such charges are not altogether valid.
With respect to the wheat deal, as one of
our readers pointed out in a letter on this
page Wednesday, article I, section 8 of the
Constitution grants Congress the power "to
regulate commerce with foreign nations."
How can Congress be engaged in "a con-
spiracy to suspend representative govern-
ment" when it is essentially the most repre-
sentative branch of government?
Congress-is-closer to the people than the
President or the Court can ever be.
The fact that Congress has refused to grant
certain Presidential requests or failed to act
on others does not mean that we have a "do-
nothing" Congress, as frequently charged.
It might, and often does, mean that Con-
gress thinks some of these requests are not in
the best interest of the Nation. Or it might
mean simply there have been too many
requests.
Every year-- the President asks more of
Congress; and in the last session the admin-
istration kept coming back with the same
requests for second and third tries after
initial attempts to win congressional approv,-
al failed. -
Most of -the people who attack the con-
gressional seniority system, the power of
CONGRESS AND THE AID PROGRAM-PASSMAN'S
BATTLES BELIEVED REFLECTIONS OF PUBLIC
REACTION TO WASTE SPENDING
(By Richard Wilson)
OTTO ERNEST PASSMAN, 63, is a Congress-
man from Louisiana. Annually, Mr. PASS-
MAN gets into a fight with the White House
over spending for foreign- aid. He Is chair-
man of the House Appropriations Subcom-
mittee which handles this troublesome item.
It is usually said that Mr. PASSMAN is try-
ing to superimpose his judgment on that of
four Presidents of the United States and any
number of other outstanding personalities.
This devastating remark is supposed to- crush
Mr. PASSMAN and hold him up to public
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
panies of America and, as a matter of
fact, Project Gasoline was initially begun
by one of the major coal producers of
America. So there is a great deal of re-
search, a lot of which has been encour-
aged by the Federal Government. May I
say to the gentleman that in addition to
the research projects, coal mined by
automation has attempted to make itself
more competitive. The price of coal to-
day is less per ton than it was in 1947.
All of the factors along the line economi-
cally with respect to coal have been
rather stable, but when we continually
lose great market areas such as New Eng-
land-and I for one would not for 1 min-
ute say that we have to turn all of New
England back to the private domain of
coal; I do not suggest that at all but sim-
ply say in my remarks we ought to have
a level which this should not go beyond.
In other words, the continual raiding of
markets, no matter how swift our re-
search might be or how vastly improved
automation in the mining of coal be-
comes, makes it hard for us to keep pace
when they take the markets away from
us in such an unfair competitive situa-
tion.
Mr. WHARTON. Then, the gentle-
man would say these programs are defi-
nitely worthwhile in making the state-
ment ? from your own personal ex-
perience?
Mr. MOORE. With respect to re-
search, I hold out great hope for the fact
that the programs which are now under-
taken and the various contracts that the
Office of Coal Research has engaged in,
will make a major contribution which
would encourage a greater use of coal in
many areas of the country.
Mr. WHARTON. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. MOORE. I yield back the balance
of my time, Mr. Speaker.
But much of the criticism directed at
the CIA is not constructive. It cannot
possible be, as it is not based on facts.
It is based on half-truths and distortions.
Indeed, some of it constitutes complete
untruths, with no foundation whatever
in fact or in reason. This is what con-
cerns me. Something once said, how-
ever false, is readily oft-repeated and in
time is accepted as a fact although an
outright falsehood. And we know there
are those who would, if they could, dis-
credit the CIA. Others of us, having no
such intention, unwittingly become their
victims.
Let me present one illustration. I re-
fer to the much publicized, much dis-
cussed case of the Polish defector,
Michal Goleniewski. I refer to the ir-
responsible series of articles concerning
the CIA that has been recently pub-
lished in the New York Journal Amer-
ican.
Among these wild accusations is that
the CIA has attempted to prevent Michal
Goleniewski from appearing before the
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.
They go so far as to charge that the
CIA has quashed subpenas. That sim-
ply is not true. A simple telephone call
to the chairman of that subcommittee
would have brought forth the informa-
tion that going back to last August,
when the first subpena was served on
this man, the executive branch of the
Government has been cooperative with
the Senate subcommittee throughout.
Contrary to what has been reported
in the press, the postponements of
Michal Goleniewski's appearance before
the Senate subcommittee were at the
request of the man himself. And the
subcommittee agreed to his request.
I might add that the CIA subcom-
mittee, of which I am a member, went
into every aspect of this case. I am
personally satisfied that the publicized
statements purported to come from
Michal Goleniewski are not correct.
The information as reported in the press
is not in agreement with the information
Michal Goleniewski has made available
to many departments of Government.
Stories such as have been circulated
on this case display a reckless regard of
the truth. They can be harmful, and
those who circulate them do a great dis-
service to maintaining public confidence
in the CIA.
Before commenting further with re-
spect' to the CIA and unfounded criti-
cisms of it, perhaps I should first take
cognizance of the criticism of the CIA
Subcommittee, of which I am a member.
It is quite understandable that some
Members of Congress might feel we are
not as well acquainted with the opera-
tions of the CIA as we should be. No
one, except members of the subcommit-
tee itself, has any knowledge of just how
extensively and intensively we inquire
into the activities of this intelligence
agency. We hold no public hearings.
We issue no reports. We cannot do
otherwise and preserve the effectiveness
of the CIA as a secret fact-gathering
agency on an international scale. We
can only hope that the House has suffi-
cient confidence in our subcommittee, as
individuals and as a committee, to accept
our assurances that we are ' opt well in-
formed and we have no t a: ?itancy of
keeping a close eye and 1 on CIA
operations.
I was very much distsesse :.o read an
article in Esquire maFa7inr- written by
a distinguished Member of Congress-
one of the best and one f my good
friends-in which he :says:
The members of four siibcomi tees them-
selves, by definition, have r ?e tively low
status.
Not because I am a mem of one of
those subcommittees, out f? the other
members of our Armed Scrv Subcom-
mittee on CIA, I must take exception to
the implication of that sta. went as to
their status.
The membership of our sloaommittee
is comprised of the di::tinguis)ied chair-
man of the House Armed & -ices Com-
mittee, the gentleman fr -x. Georgia
[Mr. VINSON]; the dist ngui !i(d ranking
majority member, the geni. anan from
South Carolina [Mr. RIVER ]: and an-
other distinguished raxtking '.I mber, the
gentleman from Louisi _mna [ tr. HEBERT] .
Serving with them are th( other very
distinguished member,,:: Th Gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. PRICE], tl .entleman
from Indiana [Mr. BRAY], tl:z :;entleman
from Florida [Mr. BEN NETT the gentle-
man from California I Mr. I; soN 1, the
gentleman from Alabama I Jr. HUDDLE-
sTON], and the gentleman fr ;n,. New Jer=
sey [Mr.OsMERS].
I am not at liberty to a-pounce the
members of the other subei rnmittees in
the Congress dealing with (:ri matters;
but I can assure the House hey are not
"by definition, of relatively cw status."
The article to whic'i I r ;e r goes on
to state:
But even had those subcon 3nittees both-
status and time, the dibiculti, -nvolved in
dividing jurisdiction among tl. - our would,
I think, be insuperable.
This point deserver. ant: ,, is. Since
the proposed solution to V matter of
low status and little time "ould be to
establish a Joint Committe, ( n Foreign
Information and Intellige co. several
questions arise.
In addition to CIA the: are other
intelligence activities which are compo-
nent parts of the Departr :- it of De-
fense, the Department of S Lne and the
Atomic Energy Commissioi I do not
believe that the Housc F. --i:4n Affairs
Committee, the Armed Servi Commit-
tee or the Joint Cons mnitte, .)n Atomic
Energy would be likely to rel:eiuish their
responsibilities for le?islati -e oversight
of the components of those ]eoartments
which are presently under ti cir jurisdic-
tion. We would thus be e: tablishing a
Joint Committee on Foreign. [i itelligence
that would, in fact, be sup( -inposed on
the existing committees and Aibcommit-
tees. This brief analysis do s not begin
to delve into the jurisdiictio.. a problems
that would thus be raised within the
congressional commits ee st ucture and
the Congress itself.
In the same Esquira art: it is as-
serted In connection with lie, Bay of
Pigs situation, and I now q,,iote, "Not
only was CIA shapin=g pol v --perhaps
understandable becau::e of .1e absence
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
PRICE). Under previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
ARENDS] is recognized for 20 minutes.
(Mr. ARENDS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, one of
the most important agencies of our Gov-
ernment, particularly during this period
of international uncertainties and anx-
ieties, is our Central Intelligence Agency.
The time has long since arrived when
someone should take cognizance of the
baseless criticism that has been and con-
tinues to be heaped upon it. That is
my purpose here today, as a member of
the CIA Subcommittee of the Commit-
tee on Armed Services since its establish-
ment. I do not purport to speak as an
authority on all the functions and activi-
ties, of the CIA. But I do presume to
speak with some factual knowledge about
the CIA as an organization and how it
functions.
I do not mean to imply that the CIA
should be above criticism. No agency
of Government should be above criticism.
Constructive criticism makes for im-
proyer rit, and j:here, is always room for
Improvement.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 6168
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Mardi-26
of direction from policymaking organs
of the Government-but that policy was
patently at odds with State Department
thinking." The author of the article
then adds that he does not wish to fully
rehearse the events which preceded the
Bay of Pigs, nor do I. This accusation,
however, is not founded in fact but, on
the contrary, is flatly inconsistent with
the truth. It will be recalled that the
White House issued a statement on
April 24, 1961, saying:
President Kennedy has stated from the
beginning that as President he bears sole
responsibility for the events of the past few
days. He has stated it on all occasions and
he restates it now so that it will be under-
stood by all. The President is strongly
opposed to anyone within or without the
administration attempting to shift the re-
sponsibility.
To assume or assert that CIA shaped
policy and then executed it when that
policy was at odds with the official policy
of the Department of State not only
demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the
coordination and control procedures in,
the executive branch but further implies
that the Director of Central Intelligence
or other officials of the CIA are violating
their oath of office by willfully disregard-
ing the views and instructions of the
President. Based on my knowledge, the
assertion and implications of the state-
ment are false.
The Esquire article indicates the au-
thor's recognition that a high degree of
secrecy is essential to the workings of
the intelligence community and with this
I agree. But the article continues by
saying there are dangers if public con-
fidence in the intelligence establishment
erodes. The article continues by stat-
ing:
[Such erosion] is less likely if a body of
the people's representatives properly consti-
tuted and carefully chosen by the leader-
ship of the two Houses of Congress remains
continuously aware of the activities of the
intelligence community.
Based on my long-term membership
of the CIA Subcommittee, I again can
assure the House that the subcommittee
has been continuously aware of agency
activities. I must reemphasize that this
subcommittee in fact is properly con-
stituted and carefully chosen by the dis-
tinguished chairman of this committee.
The statement has been made that
CIA meddles in policy. This is an often
heard allegation about the Agency, but
the facts do not support it. CIA is an in-
direction from the policymakers. The
late President Kennedy commented on
this in October 1963 when irresponsible
sources were alleging that CIA was mak-
ing policy in Vietnam. He said:
I must say I think the reports are wholly
untrue. The fact of the matter is that Mr.
licCone sits in the National Security Coun-
cil. I imagine I see him at least three or four
times a week, ordinarily. We have worked
very closely together in the National Securi-
ity Council in the last 2 months attempting
to meet the problems we face in South Viet-
nam. I can find nothing, and I have looked
through the record very carefully over the
last 9 months, and I could go back further,
to indicate that the CIA has done anything
but support policy. It does not create
r,olicy; it attempts to execute it in those
areas where it has competence and respon-
sibility.
The President went on to say:
I can just assure you flatly that the CIA
has not carried out independent activities
but has operated under close control of the
Director of Central Intelligence, operating
with the cooperation of the National Security
Council and under my instructions. So I
think while the CIA may have made mis-
takes, as we all do, on different occasions,
and has had many successes which may go
unheralded, in my opinion in this case it is
unfair to charge them as they have been
charged. I think they have done a good
job.
This was President Kennedy's state-
ment.
It has been asserted that there are
no effective checks on the Agency's activ-
ities. The facts are that every activity
the Agency engages in is approved in
advance at the appropriate policy level.
It is also said that "Crucial decisions are
made for us and in our name ofwhich
we know nothing." This is not true.
The subcommittee, of which I am a mem-
ber, -is kept informed on a current- basis
of the activities of the Agency and, as I
mentioned before, this organization Is
not a decisionmaking body but one which
carries out the instructions of others.
The magazine article I mentioned
speaks of the personnel In the Agency,
and acknowledges that CIA officials are
among the most distinguished In the en-
tire Federal establishment. With this I
would readily agree. But the author of
the Esquire article is in error when he
says that CIA is "served by only one
politically responsible officer." Both the
Director and Deputy Director of the
Agency are appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate, and I would
note that all other, employees of the
Agency can be terminated by the Director
on his own authority. The implication
that they are not responsible is beneath
reply. He says that CIA relies heavily
on the services of retired military officers.
The facts do not support this as there
are very few retired military officers in
the Agency. Of the top 46 executives
in the Central Intelligence Agency, only
two are retired military officers, and the
proportion of retired military officers to
professionals throughout the Agency is
even smaller. He says that the Agency
relies heavily on services of political refu-
gees. It is true that it does on occasion
use political refugees, but a misimpres-
sion is given here. These individuals
are used when their expertise and area
knowledge Is required and the informa-
tion they provide Is extensively cross-
checked against a great variety of other
sources.
I would note also that my esteemed
colleague in one paragraph indicates that
the daily chore of coordinating and
cross-checking intelligence data is the
responsibility of the Defense Intelligence
Agency. According to the National Se-
curity Act of 1947, the Central Intelli-
gence Agency is actually charged by law
with the coordination of intelligence.
The law reads:
For the purpose of coordinating the intel-
ligence activities of the sereval Government
departments and agencies in the interest of
national security, it shall be the duty of the
Agency, under the direction of the National
Security Council-to make recommendations
to the National Security Council for the co-
ordination of such intelligence activities of
the departments and agencies of the Govern-
ment as relate to the national security.
As a matter of actual practice the re-
sponsibility for coordination over the
years has been that of the Director of
Central Intelligence, who has been sup-
ported in this regard by the CIA.
The magazine article also makes the
statement that CIA is both the chief fact
gatherer and the chief agency for co-
ordination. As I have just mentioned,
the Agency is charged by law with co-
ordination, and it is also charged, and I
quote:
To correlate and evaluate intelligence re-
lating to the national security, and provide
for the appropriate dissemination of such
intelligence within the Government.
In effect, what this means is that the
CIA takes intelligence from all different
sources, departments and agencies and
produces the national intelligence re-
quired by the policymakers.
During the years that I have served
on the CIA Subcommittee I have sat
many hours questioning the Director and
other Agency officials about their ac-
tivities and how they go about their work.
On many occasions this subcommittee
has quietly looked into some of the then
current accusations against CIA.
Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that
we have always received the information
needed. Also, we have been privileged to
learn of many events in the secrecy of
our meetings before the events have hap-
pened.
The CIA officials who have been before
our committee have at all times been re-
sponsive and frank in their discussions
with us.
I do not believe that baseless charges
against the CIA are serving the national
interest. If there are those who have
information which they believe would be
of assistance to the CIA Subcommittee in
its review of Agency activities let them
come forward-we would welcome such
information. Let me make it clear,
however, that those who would expect
the subcommittee then to report on its
findings will be due for disappointment.
By the very natureof the Agency's-mis-
sion, revelation of its activities will truly
destroy it.
It is my view that the establishment
of CIA in 1947 by the Congress was ex-
tremely wise and showed amazing fope-
sight into the problems that would face
this country in the years to follow. The
wisdom of the Congress in establishing
this Agency to provide the President with
the necessary information on which to
base our foreign policy has been borne
out by the performance of the Agency.
I do not claim that the Agency has been
100-percent correct. But I do believe it
has provided the President and our
policymakers with the tools that they
must have.
Certainly the Armed Services Commit-
tee and the Appropriations Committee of
both Houses have been enabled to judge
more correctly our defenseneeds on the
basis of the information CIA has been
able to provide. While the Agency is a
newcomer in the history of the Nation
and among its foreign -cofht r s" -T
wish to' state now that it probably is the
finest intelligence agency in the world
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 1064
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 6169
today. I believe that the Congress and
the country should applaud the dedi-
cated and highly professional career offi-
cers of CIA for the magnificent job they
have performed over the years.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ARENDS. I yield to the gentle-
woman from New York.
Mrs, KELLY. I thank the gentleman
from Illinois for yielding to me at this
moment for a few remarks, and I hope he
will answer a few questions.
I was the first one to introduce a res-
olution in this House in 1953 for the
establishment of a Joint Committee on
Intelligence Matters. During my first
year on the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs I found the need for such a com-
mittee, and in 1953, together with two
of my colleagues, Congressman ZABLOCKI
and Congressman Judd, I introduced a
resolution to accomplish this. The pur-
pose of my, resolution was not to make
charges against the CIA, or to criticize
the CIA. It was an endeavor to make
sure that the CIA operate properly, co-
ordinate intelligence gathered by the
various Government agencies, evaluate
it, and get it to the President. I also
felt that a joint committee of the Con-
gress was the most appropriate instru-
ment to accomplish this task and make
sure that our Chief Executive receives
total and full information based on the
data gathered by all intelligence agencies
of the Federal Government.
,In 1961 I introduced House Concur-
rent Resolution 3 an by now I think
there are several doze Members of Con-
gress who have introduced similar reso-
lutions.
I want to ask the gentleman, who is a
member of the Committee on Armed
Forces, several questions. I am not sat-
isfied with the performance of the CIA.
I realize that all agencies of Government
have problems and do not at all times
meet with success in all their efforts.
When I was in Europe some years ago,
Secretary of State Dulles was there at
the Geneva Peace Conference, and a rev-
olution took place in Hungary. At the
same time we had an arms deal with
Russia. Many people in our Government
did not seem to be on top of the situation
in those instances, and our Ambassador
to Hungary was not there at the time.
Cuba, South Vietnam, the information
that has come out of these countries in
some instances, and the developments
then, took the country by alarm. I think
the need for a joint resolution is more
important today than it ever was. I feel
that had we had that resolution back in
1954 and a committee like this formed,
many of these Instances would not have
happened. But the problem involved is
that they do not trust the Members of
Congress to receive this information.
I thought that in 1962 we might have
a revision, because the then President,
when he was a Member of the other body,
had accepted the same resolution. Many
others had done it. Now, when they get
into the executive branch they feel there
is no need to inform the Members of
Congress on what is going on to insure
that the proper information is collected
and sent to the proper agencies of Gov-
ernment.
Mr. ARENDS. I will try to answer the
gentlewoman. There is a great deal of
difference of opinion about that matter.
The gentlewoman stated there are short-
comings in the CIA, which I mentioned
in my speech, and that certainly is true.
They are human beings. I am talking
of the overall picture of the value of the
CIA. But in this particular respect you
would have a joint committee set up be-
tween the Senate and the House, and
there would be a certain number of peo-
ple on that committee. I do not know
how you would go about getting the in-
formation disseminated to the Members
of Congress, because we will never get
to the place where every Member of
Congress knows exactly at all times ex-
actly what is going on.
Then we finally get to the place where
I think we have to be like the fellow who
when he was asked if he could keep a
secret replied, "Don't worry about me
keeping a secret, you have to worry about
the people I tell it to."
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, supple-
menting the statements of the distin-
guished gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
ARENDS], I must say that I have seldom
read an article so misleading and so re-
plete with errors as the article to which
he refers.
The Central Intelligence Agency is not
a policymaking agency. It has no con-
trol or oversight of military programs.
It is purely a factfinding service.
I- may also add that after years of
close association with the present per-
sonnel of the Agency and those who have
preceded them, I do not believe there is
another group of men more dedicated to
duty or of higher integrity or more effec-
tive in the discharge of their assign-
ments, than those who constitute and
have constituted the personnel of this
important service.
So far as its budget is concerned, it is
perhaps more carefully scrutinized than
any other of the estimates processed by
the committee.
Necessarily, its relations to the com-
mittee and the Congress are executive.
For the same reason it is not at liberty
to answer the many irresponsible
inuendos carried in the press and con-
tributed to periodicals seeking the head-
lines.
In conclusion, may I express apprecia-
tion of the statement just made by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS],
and at the same time may I take advan-
tage of the opportunity to express my
appreciation and warm regard for the
CIA, individually and as a whole.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A JOINT
COMMITTEE ON THE CIA AND IN-
TELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
PRICE). Under previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. LINDSAY] is recognized for 30 min-
utes.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Sneaker, would the
gentleman be good enough to yield be-
fore he procetds evi,~i his main speech?
Mr. LINDSAY. I } ield the gentle-
woman.
Mrs. KELLY. I ama vex sappy, Mr.
Speaker, that the genitlem-..n from New
York [Mr. LINDSAY] has o,roduced a
resolution similar to the on; I have spon-
sored. I have asked the entleman to
yield at this time in order t, comment on
the remarks of the previous ;beaker. We
are dealing with a problem ;' Ach relates
to intelligence activities tl ai affect our
national security-to the c )ordination
and utilization of such it _.elligence by
various departments and a elicies of the
Government. I do not pre { se that the
Congress of the United Sta as a whole 11. be kept fully informod on each intelli-
gence operation, on eac and every
"cloak and dagger" activi ;,). and I am
sure there are many Memb(s of the Con-
gress who would not want ') know these
details. I have never sot t t classified
information from the A, ,r~iic Energy
Commission, for example. a=id I know
there are many others a_n~: ig my col-
leagues who have likewise n 'ver sought
such information. We Pu cur trust in
these matters and re..pect h- judgment
of those of our colleagues o sit on the
duly constituted corn nitt& _ ? which have
jurisdiction and ovi,rsigh over these
activities. By the so~.me t )ken, we feel
that there should be a du y constituted
congressional "watchdog" cmmittee to
oversee the affairs of the 1 `entral Intel-
ligence Agency and of tl , intelligence
community in general.
I thank our colleaguue, t ie gentleman
from New York [Mr. `BINDS i, for yield-
ing to me and I am very a ipreciative of
the fact that he has had t titles pub-
lished pointing out the end for the
establishment of such a con -.r ittee.
Mr. LINDSAY. I than the gentle-
woman for her statement w)d I should
like to associate mysc If wi' 1i her remark
when she says that then is not any
Member of the Con ress l.o wants to
uncover even for themselc 's the secrets
of the CIA. Congres.: neec! not know the
details of clandestine operations, the
names and numbers of the .1 flyers. The
gentleman, from Illinois i' us remarks
on that point entirely mi., -e : the point.
Mr. Speaker, I rerret tot my good
..friend and distingui.hed league, the
gentleman from Illirois d d not ask for
more time than 20 mini, : as I had
hoped he would which we .1 1 have per-
mitted me, while he was the well of
the House, to submii, to c, estions from
the floor, instead or jus eading his
prepared text. It is :or ti- 3 reason that
I asked for 30 minutes c ny own, in
order to permit pro er d oate to take
place on the floor of the ?I,+use on the
merits or demerits of the cu stion. The
question is whether it it desirable to
create a Joint Congi ossio: -0 Committee
on Foreign Informati?)n are - ntelligence.
I hope the gentle man -5 om Illinois
will remain on the foor v 11 le I discuss
this subject as I will he some com-
ments to make about the :) ech he just
made and will point. out o eas of dis-
agreement and also areas c * rror, in my
judgment.
The gentleman rei erred to an article
that appeared irf Esqu a magazine
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 6170
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 296
which he said was written by a "dis-
tinguished Member of the Congress" and
"one of the best" and "one of my good
friends." He did not identify the Mem-
ber of Congress. I am the Member of
Congress who wrote that article. It was
based on an hour-length floor speech
that I gave in the well of this House 7
months before the article appeared. It
was a condensation and simplification
of that floor speech. Most everything
that was stated in the article had been
stated on the floor of the House by me
and by other Members of the Congress.
I regretted at the time that I spoke,
7 months ago, that so little attention was
paid to it. I did not hear the gentleman
from Illinois make any comment with
respect to it and I think a debate at that
time, as now, would have been a very
healthy thing.
As the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. KELLY] pointed out, this proposal
for a joint congressional committee on
the subject of intelligence community,
comparable to the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, has been sponsored by
19 Members of the House of Representa-
tives-14 Democrats and 5 Republicans-
which makes it bipartisan. The gentle-
woman from New York introduced the
proposal long ago. She is a member of
the Foreign Affairs Committee and knows
a good deal about this subject. Other
members who have introduced this reso-
lution are the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. ZABLOCKII; the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. DADDARIO] ; the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. MINSHALLI; the
gentleman from New York, [Mr. RYAN];
our distinguished colleague, the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. ROGERS], who is
on the floor today and who has taken
a leadership position on this whole ques-
tion; also the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. GIBBONS] ; the gentleman from
Idaho [Mr. HARDING]; the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. UDALL] ; the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. WRIGHT] ; the gen-
tleman from North Carolina [Mr. KoR-
NEGAY] ; the gentleman from New Mex-
ico [Mr. MONTOYA]; the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. LONG] ; the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. MORSE]; the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. AN-
DERSON]; the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. FULTON] ; the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. MORRIS] ; and the gen-
tleman from Connecticut [Mr. SIBAL].
This proposal came to a vote in the
Senate, in 1956, and was defeated. It
was sponsored by the distinguished Sen-
ator from Montana, Mr. MANSFIELD, now
the majority leader. Among those who
voted for the bill was the then Senator
from Massachusetts, Mr. John F. Ken
nedy.
So I disagree with the implication
made by the gentleman from Illinois,
who, I am sorry to say, has left the floor
and is no longer present, that there is
something radical or irresponsible about
this proposal and our reasons for being
for it.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I commend
the gentleman for his previous speech
on the floor and for his action in spon-
soring this vitally needed legislation to
form a Joint Committee on the CIA and
its intelligence activities. He joins a re-
sponsible group concerned about this
problem.
The Hoover Commission first looked
into this problem and recommended that
a special committee be formed. I do
not believe anybody would say that the
Hoover Commission was an irresponsible
body. This Commission, after great
study, considered it a necessary thing
to have a watchdog committee on the
CIA.
Furthermore, former President Tru-
man, in an article in 1963, stated that
he was the one who really formed this
Agency and he now saw the need for it
to be looked into. He said:
But there are now some searching ques-
tions that need to be answered. I, therefore,
would like to see the CIA be restored to its
original assignment as the intelligence arm
of the President, and that whatever else it
can properly perform in that special field-
and that its operational duties be terminated
or properly used elsewhere.
He further said:
We have grown up as a nation, respected
for our free institutions and for our ability
to maintain a free and open society. There
is something about the way the CIA has been
functioning that is casting a shadow over
our historic position and I feel that we need
to correct it.
Furthermore, the Washington Post,
in an editorial, commented on the need
for this joint committee and the fact
that something needed to be done, be-
cause of the concern all of the American
people have for this Agency acting with-
out any bridle at all.
I believe it is interesting to note that
one could term the Washington Post "a
most liberal paper," in its viewpoints, yet
it also suggests something should be
done. The editorial stated:
The proposal for a congressional watchdog
committee paralleling the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy is neither novel nor rash.
The Hoover Commission strongly urged the
creation of such a committee. The chief
proponent in Congress in years past was
Majority Leader MIKE MANSFIELD, who on
three occasions introduced the needed legis-
lation. And the idea is alive again in Con-
gress, as it should be.
No other intelligence agency In the free-
world has the scope and nonaccountability
enjoyed by the CIA. In Great Britain, the
CIA's counterpart is directly answerable to
Cabinet officers, who in turn must face the
scrutiny of Parliament. In addition, the
British separate the intelligence and opera-
tional functions, whereas the CIA has re-
sponsibility in both areas. This has been at
the root of much criticism of the Agency's
activities. -
Furthermore, it says that Congress has
given it a perfunctory supervision.
Senator SALTONSTALL has been one of
those whom the Post called nominal
watchdogs, and Senator SALTONSTALL
said:
The difficulty in connection with asking
questions and obtaining information is that
we might obtain information which I person-
ally would rather not have.
That was his attitude. Of course, ac-
cording to Senator SALTONSTALL, they--
have questioned Mr. McCone 'perhaps
only once or twice a year.
So there is a vital need for the Con-
gress to be aware of the actions of this
Agency and to establish a joint commit-
tee, go that Members can be kept in-
formed and know what the Agency is
doing. This has been called for widely
from many sources, from sources of
leadership, and from the very President
who founded the Agency. I believe that
the gentleman is on most sound ground
in his proposal.
Certainly he did the public a service
in his speech and in sponsoring the leg-
islation, and I think also in the very fine
article that he wrote.
Mr. LINDSAY. I thank the distin-
guished gentleman from Florida [Mr.
ROGERS]. He is an expert on national
security affairs. He has made it his
personal duty to see to it that national
security affairs are checked by Congress.
I thank him for his knowledgeable con-
tribution.
I wish to point out to the House that
at the conclusion of my remarks I will
ask unanimous consent to insert in the
RECORD the Esquire article I wrote. It
hasalready been put in the Appendix of
the RECORD by the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. MORSE], but I would like
to have it reappear at this point because
of the attack made on it by the gentle-
man from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS]. Also I
want to make reference to the floor
speech I made upon which the article is
based. It appears in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD for August 15, 1963, beginning
at page 14263. I urge Members to read
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
ARENDS] began by attacking the remarks
I. made on the floor and in this article
with respect to the level of supervision
provided by four subcommittees of the
Congress in respect to the CIA. In addi-
tion to that he protects or defends the
present jurisdictional setup and says:
I do not believe that the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, the Armed Services Com-
mittee, or the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy would he likely to relinquish their
responsibilities for legislative oversight of
the components of those departments which
are presently under their jurisdiction.
Referring to the intelligence arms of
various departments in the Government.
I am surprised to find the gentleman
defending the status quo on such narrow
grounds. Are we so pettythat we have
to hold onto these little empires of juris-
diction, or are we willing to take a look
from time to time at where we stand?
The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
KELLY] is a ranking member of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee. The
gentleman from Florida, the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI] is ;a
member, and so is the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. MORSEL. And yet
they want this new proposal. If they
were jurisdictionally jealous they might,
quite appropriately, argue that the For-
eign Affairs Committee or at least one
of its subcommittees should be named.
This problem has more to do with foreign
policy than with the armed services.
The distinguished gentleman from Illi-
nois seems to take personal offense at
my a l i g g e s t f o f i t Y t t e e v e or watch-
dog supervision is too low. Really, now,
it should be obvious that this is not to
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
1 M6 4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -.HOUSE
the point. Our point is that this subject
requires a nearer full-time attention,
high status and coordination. The Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy does a good
job. It watches matters of great sensi-
tivity. But I doubt if the job would be
done properly if it were divided up rather
haphazardly among four subcommittees
of other committees.
I want to stress again that what is
chiefly needed is a high level committee
that will examine the relationship be-
tween the CIA and other departments
and agencies of Government, intelligence
gathering and special operations, person-
nel, intelligence evaluation and rela-
tionships between departments and
agencies abroad. We are not talking
about details of operations overseas al-
though from time to time that may be
included. The CIA has always insisted,
and the gentleman from Illinois insists
that nothing is withheld from the au-
thorized subcommittees. I am sure that
is so. But, as I pointed out in the article,
apparently the notion exists that if the
whole matter is kept on the lowest possi-
ble level of congressional concern, secrecy
will receive a higher degree of respect.
There is no logic in the notion. I should
think just the opposite would be true.
The other day the press reported that
in the Committee on Rules a member of
the Rules Committee asked one of the
most high-ranking and distinguished
members of the Committee on Armed
Services, who is also on the CIA Sub-
committee, the question, "Do you know
how many employees the CIA has here
in Washington?" The member an-
swered that he did not. That he had
never had occasion to ask. I should
have thought he would be interested in
knowing. If he did, his answer of course
would have been "Yes I do." Period.
He would not.have been expected to an-
swer further, nor would he have in
a public session, or even in a private ses-
sion with members only present. I would
like to recall to you, also, that several
other high-ranking Members of the Con-
gress have referred to the little time that
is spent on this subject. The gentleman
from Florida mentioned the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr..SALTONSTALL].
When I made my speech on the floor in
August 1963 the second ranking mem-
ber on the minority side of the Commit-
tee on Armed Services said as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself
with the gentleman's remarks. I think we
should have had a joint committee to moni-
tor the CIA when It was first established.
I have had a little experience in the matter
as a member of the Committee on Armed
Services. ?s you may know, we have a sub-
committee on the CIA. I was a member of
that committee for either 2 or 4 years. We
met annually-one time a year, for a period
of 2 hours in which we accomplished vir-
tually nothing. I think a proposal such as
you have made is the answer to it because
a part-time subcommittee of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee, as I say, which meets for
just 2 hours, 1 day a year, accomplishes
nothing whatsoever. I want to compliment
the gentleman on his proposal.
It may be, I am sure, that more time
is in fact spent; and it may be that there
has been some jacking up. But the fact
'Alsp rei uW4W ktYra,t CIA has become a very
Important aspect of our governmental
establishment and it can, and sometimes
has, played an important role in the ex-
ecution of foreign policy. I claim that it
has at times shaped it. The great im-
portance of the CIA in the governmental
establishment is symbolized by the very
large, very expensive, white building
erected on the banks of the Potomac. It
symbolizes the degree to which this
agency of Government has been brought
to the surface and elevated in the gov-
ernmental establishment. Isn't it about
time that we elevated our practices a
little bit too?
I was surprised to hear the gentleman
from Illinois IMr. AIENDS], defending
the governmental mishmash surround-
ing the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He says that
the policy lines were clear. Even the
people chiefly responsible will admit that
this is not true. The gentleman might
try asking the Secretary of State. He
supports his argument by recalling that
the President later took full responsi-
bility for the errors of the Bay of Pigs.
Of course, he did.
The President is responsible for every-
thing that happens in Government, or
does not. But why did the President
find it necessary immediately to appoint
the Attorney General of the United
States, Mr. Robert Kennedy, and Gen.
Maxwell Taylor to find out what went
wrong and why he was so badly served
by agencies of Government? Their first
stop was the CIA. And, remember the
little tale never denied by the President,
about the battle between the hawks and
the doves? Meanwhile the Pentagon
was waiting for someone to tell it to fly
or not to fly. If there was clear policy
here, I would hate to think what kind of
shape we would be in if policy became
really confused.
I made very clear in the speech that
I made and in the article that I wrote,
that the foreign policymaking organs of
Government, just by an absence of clear
policy, or by not asserting it when it does
exist, can cause other agencies of Gov-
ernment to occupy the field. Operations
abroad may snowball themselves. The
CIA, or the Pentagon for that matter,
may be bootstrapped. even unwillingly
from a headquarters point of view, into
the position of making policy as they go
along. The failure of ,the State Depart-
ment to give clear direction and to dom-
inate can cause this.
The CIA is not a policymaking organ
and should not be. nor does it want to
be. This much is agreed by all. But
from time to time t.Im fact of the matter
is that there has been no clear policy
from Washington. The result has been
in at least one instance that operations
have snowballed themselves into policy.
The gentleman from Illinois defends
the mishmash of Vietnam. I think even
the rhost careful of the public commen-
tators and foreign policy experts, in
during the Diem regime have recognized
during the Diem regime have reorganized
that separate agencies of the U.S. Gov-
ernment were at times pulling in
separate directions: and, in fact, as you
will recall, the President found it neces-
sary in the middle of all of this, to reas-
sert the supremacy o rhe foreign policy
organs of Government over other agen-
ales of Government which are no busi-
ness making foreign policy.
Unless there is clear d -ection from
Washington, this kind of 1co is going
to happen. And unle .s Co -ess is will-
ing to take the respunsibi Ly for being
the double check on 'iuest, o of policy,
including the question of a tic ' is making
policy, the press attention. - ten to the
problem is going to get we >-. I do not
think it is a healthy thin, t ) have the
press of this country inert s.ngly being
the only institution that is e ~ watchdog
over the difficult problem hit we have
'of trying to separate int 1 gence and
intelligence gatherin air operations
from the making and shop , i= of foreign
policy.
Mr. Speaker, I sub lit ti it is time
we pulled ourselves togeth Jo the Con-
gress and'reorganizeci our: 1 es as nec-
essary in order to be t--ue rc e esentatives
of the people, and re ;pons lal) ones.
Mr. Speaker, I do nest this Lie present
machinery is performing say -.s actorily. I
don't think it can, bccauE t is struc-
turally unsound. Thi has c thing to do
with the caliber of the g _n _iemen in-
volved, which is of the hit is st. It has
everything to do with he st, -n'+ture of the
institution. We are char 't with the
responsibility in seeing to ,t that that
structure is correct aid pr 'par.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Spe .:( r, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDSAY. I ari deli a {'d to yield
to the gentlewoman from h ,v= York.
Mrs. KELLY. I want -j thank the
gentleman from New Yor1-. f)r yielding
tome at this point. I want : a loin him in
the thoughts which he has j expressed,
Would the gentleman as ? a with me
that with the speed i,f col o unications
that we have today there great need
for us to have this evalual i ahead of
time, if possible, in of der f ~ nsure that
our President receives the c oordinated
intelligence from all source i nom which
to formulate policy? I do ct want the
CIA to carry out policy. A ve want in
this joint committee is to 'c sure that
the proper department of G ?v'rnment in
the executive branch ecei: s for evalu-
ation and determinati in th. intelligence
in order to make a policy de s-on with as
much speed as possille, a A for us as
Members of Congress to ho e an agency
on which to depend, to ilnsu: is that we
can legislate on that pi'licy s its to be sure
that we can carry it cut.
Mr. Speaker, I have mr examples
that I could cite on this poi; However,
I do not want to take the ( cious time
of the gentleman front Ne York [Mr.
LINDSAY] who has been so i.id to yield
to me at this point. V
Mr. Speaker, I think on if the big
items of concern today is 1'a fact that
our policy in Vietnam-al -1 as it did
without any question, and it ht at this
point, at this moment, as w ceess the re-
marks of the Secretary of itfense yes-
terday before the Con mitt( o on Foreign
Affairs in challenging Con; _?ess for not
giving the proper amount c C luthoriza-
tion and appropriations tc defend our
national security-is someh -ig which I
find wanting.
Mr. LINDSAY. I t'_rank t,, ie gentle-
woman for her constructiy -?omments.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 76
Mr. Speaker, I only have a few min- Mr. Speaker, as I come to the conclu-
utes left and I want to make it once again sion of these remarks r would like to
clear that what many of us suggest to read to the Members of the House the
the Members of Congress is that a joint last two paragraphs of the article that
on foreign intelligence and informa-
tion. It should have status, staff and co-
ordination. It should look into some of
the very important questions, including :
First. The relationship between the
CIA and the State Department, espe-
cially overseas.
Second. The relationship between in-
telligence gathering on the one hand and
special operations on the other hand.
Third. The selection and training of
intelligence personnel.
Fourth. The whole question of intelli-
gence evaluation.
We should not forget that contrary to
the Pentagon, where there are levels of
political appointees responsible to the
President, in the CIA there is only the
Director who is a political appointee,
appointed by the President and con-
firmed by the Senate. Right here you
have lost your double check. There is
the possibility of massive bureaucracy,
unchecked. The most important aspect
of our Military Establishment is its po-
litical control by civilians-by the Presi-
dent through his civilian appointees, and
by the Congress.
Unless the Congress is willing to assert
its own jurisdiction in the vast area of
intelligence work, which includes many
things in the operational-sense, then we
are abrogating our responsibility.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman is
making a very important and significant
statement, and I should like to congratu-
late him on it. I am particularly im-
pressed with his concern over the fact
that this agency is. making policy. I
would be much more impressed if we in
this Congress recognized that this is a
joint tendency. All of our executive
agencies are setting down policies that
the Congress never intended. You will
find that in every agency we have in
the Government today. They take the
laws that we pass here and stretch them
to mean what they want these laws to
say, and very frequently in the determi-
nation of policy set down by the agencies
they are, in fact, contrary to the very
intent and spirit of the laws passed by
the Congress.
So it would seem to me that the Con-
gress when it reconvenes next year
should give serious thought to giving the
committee a greater appropriation so
that it can develop topnotch staffs of its
own in order that the Congress may run
its own legislation instead of going to
the agencies every time a bill comes up.
The gentleman knows very well that a
lot of legislation is written by some
bureaucrat who does not have to stand
up against the voters. We have been
1assing legislation, yet they do what
they want with it.
I congratulate the gentleman par-
ticularly on that aspect of his statement.
Mr. LINDSAY. I thank the gentle-
Finally, I would observe that such a joint
congressional committee would perform a
useful, perhaps an indispensable, service for
the Intelligence community itself. There
has been a tendency to assign the burden
of blame to the CIA when some foreign un-
dertakings have gone bad or failed alto-
gether. Whether the blame has been Jus-
tifled-as in some cases it may have been-
or whether unjustified, the liability to blame
is apparent, and the CIA, unlike other less-
inhibited agencies, can do little to defend
itself. A joint committee could do much
to maintain the record fairly.
As the Central Government grows in size
and power, and as the Congress, like parlia-
ments everywhere, tends to diminish in im-
portance, the need for countervailing checks
and balances becomes all the more im-
portant. The shaping and implementation
by secret processes of some part of foreign
policy is an extremely serious matter in a
free society. It cannot be shrugged off or
stamped as an inescapable necessity because
of the dangers of the time and the threat
from present enemies of democracy. To do
so is to deny our history and to gamble
dangerously with our future. There are
internal as well as external dangers. Free
political systems and individual liberties can
be swiftly undermined. Confidence in the
systems and liberties can be lost even more
swiftly. And when that happens to a free
society, no foreign policy, however well con-
ceived, will protect its highest interest, the
continuation of the free system of govern-
ment and the society on which it rests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of Con-
gress and those who read the RECORD
at a later time to refer to the remarks
that many of us have made on this sub-
ject from time to time. I was shocked
and disturbed to discover that some of
the people who took issue with me for
writing an article on this subject had
not even taken the trouble to read the
article before taking issue.
I must say that when the day comes
when we cannot debate these things in-
telligently and have an exchange of views
and ideas about matters of importance,
such as this, then we really are in trou-
ble. If this happens in the Congress,
then perhaps everything that is being
said about the Congress-its procedures,
its part-time Members, its failure to
move, its failure to organize itself proper-
ly-is the truth. We Members of Con-
gress have an obligation and a responsi-
bility to take note of the existing facts.
The speech I just heard made by the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
ARENDS], on this important and compli-
cated subject pretends that nothing has
happened; that all is well; that nothing
is wrong; that the governmental ma-
chinery is the same as it was 20 years
ago.
(Mr. LINDSAY asked end was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks and include the full text of an
article he wrote which appeared in the
March issue of Esquire magazine, en-
titled "An Inquiry Into the Darkness of
the Cloak and the Sharpness of the Dag-
ger.")
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, I -ask
unanimous consent that all Members de-
siring to do so may insert their remarks
at this point in the RECORD, following
the remarks I have just made on this
subject.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
PRICE). Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
There was no objection.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I join
my colleagues in support of a Joint Con-
gressional Committee on Central Intel-
ligence.
For the past 10 years I have introduced
into the Congress resolutions calling for
the creation of such a committee. Only
yesterday I onceagain wrote the distin-
guished chairman of the House Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. SMITH], asking that hearings be
scheduled as soon as possible on my bill,
House Congressional Resolution 2, which
would. create a "watchdog" committee on
intelligence matters.
It is my hope that some action may be
initiated on this measure during the
current session of Congress.
There is, in my opinion, a pressing
need for the establishment of this com-
mittee. There are several reasons which
have prompted me to propose the crea-
tion of this committee.
The foremost reason lies in the tremen-
dous inmportance of intelligence activi-
ties conducted by the executive branch
of our Government. Since the end of
World War II and the advent of the
nuclear age, our need for adequate and
timely intelligence has intensified great-
ly. Such intelligence is necessary if we
are to survive as a free nation and the
leader of the free world.
Are we getting the high quality intel-
ligence we need in these time of peril?
Are our present intelligence operations
efficient and effective?
There is ample- reason .for doubt. For
example, the Hoover Commission, in
1955, reported that there were at least 12
major departments and agencies engaged
in intelligence of one form or another.
These included the National Security
Council, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the National Security Agency, the De-
partment of State, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and five agencies within
the Defense Department.
Since 1955 there have been some orga-
nizational changes within the Depart-
ment of Defense toward consolidating
the intelligence operations of the sepa-
rate services within the Defense Intelli-
Mr. Speaker, unless we Members of gence Agency. At the same time, how-
Congress are willing to assert ourselves ever, intelligence activities seem to be
with respect to difficult subjects, unless proliferating as the cold war grows older
we are willing to do the check and bal- and more complex. For example, it
ance job we are supposed to do under recently has come to my attention that
the separation of powers doctrine, then the Air Force Systems Command is oper-
we will be justly criticized, and other ating a semiautonomous intelligence-
institutions of our society, like the press, gathering agency and wishes to expand
will step into the vacuum dhd do it for us. its i,perat1fl" .
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 19164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
heate Other agencies in this field are the U.S. INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEMS: Panama is in the midst c cana did at d
Intelligence Board, the President's For- ADEQUATE STUDY REQUIRES TIME presidential campaign, with es
eign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the (Mr. FLOOD (at the request of Mr. vying with one another in isresenting
Atomic Energy Commission. LIBONATI) was given permission to ex- programs to the electorate i r driving
The multiplicity of agencies operating the United States off the ist rius or, at
tend his remarks at this point in the for wringing absolute unjustifi-
in the area of intelligence gives rise to RECORD and include extraneous matter.) least, cone s:ions and
many questions about the efficiency of Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, as the re- able , benefits and from the destructive d Std ,r5.
our activities. sult of two statements on Panama- Until our Government, by y 'ans of an
What is, for example, the relationship United States relations by President adequately constituted and i=tependent
between the CIA and the DIA? Are they Johnson, March 16 and 21, 1964, the adequately
Interoceanic Canals Coral it Leon, de-
working toward a unified end, cooperat- crisis over the Panama Canal has re- velops what our future r:uial policy
ing together? Or do their efforts over- ceived increased world attention. there can btu no) is for lili-
lap and conflict? In the first, made under dramatic should t be, negotiations with i country,
The latter seem to have been true in circumstances before a meeting of the leportan ast of all with Panama wl ,;re we have
Vietnam last year where it was reported Organization of American States, the a workable treaty which v Mild permit
that the CIA personnel in the country president refused to agree to commit his the modernization and grease of
were supporting and assisting the Diem administration in advance to renegotiate capacity of the existing Pan' r!a Canal to
regime, while the DIA personnel were the basic 1903 Panama Canal Treaty meet future needs without i new treaty.
known to be seeking the overthrow of as a prerequisite for Panama's resume- Mr. Speaker, in view of 71te present
President Diem and his family. tion of normal diplomatic relations with deplorable situation on t e isthmus,
After examining similar instances of the United States, which President much of which was caused by our own
our intelligence-gathering agencies Chiari of Panama severed on January pusillanimous conduct of p+ zlth of either
and activities of our intelligence-gather- must be considered in its formulation. nsize or ation.
ing agencies by Congress. Such policy, Mr. Speaker, must be deter- We do not ask Panama ? make any pre-
The remedy is a Joint Congressional mined before there can be intelligent commitments before we met uid we intend
Committee on Central Intelligence. It discussions of diplomatic questions with to make none. of cc:urse, a cannot begin
is my earnest hope that the House Rules any country, especially Panama, where, on this work until diploma: 1( relations are
Committee will soon report this measure according to an editorial in the March 11 resumed, but the United ? Sates is ready
favorably to the floor of the House, so Estrella de Panama, the garbage collet- today, if Panama is ready. P.s of this mo-
that the Members of this body may work tion situation, if not soon solved, will ment, I do not believe tha t'h ere has been
their will. become a national calamity. Moreover, a genuine meeting of the a inds between
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
6174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -'HOUSE March zv
the two Presidents of the two countries in- Panama) shares this hope. For, despite to-
volved. day's disagreements, the common values and
Press reports indicate that the Government interests which unite us are far stronger and
of Panama feels that the language which more enduring than the differences which
has been under consideration for many days now divide us,
commits the United States to a rewriting
and to a revision of the 1903 treaty. We
have made no such commitment and we
would not think of doing so before diplo-
matic relations are resumed and unless a
fair and satisfactory adjustment is agreed
upon.
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 22, 19641
L.B.J. STATEMENT ABOUT PANAMA
(Following is the statement by President
Johnson, which he read personally to news-
men yesterday on the dispute with Panama:)
The present inability to resolve our differ-
ences with Panama is a source of deep regret.
Our two countries are not linked by only
a single agreement or a single interest. We
are bound together in an inter-American
system whose objective Is, in the words of
the charter, "through mutual understanding
and respect by the sovereignty of each, to
provide for the betterment of all."
ALLIED IN STRUGGLE
Under the many treaties and declarations
which form the fabric of that system, we
have long been allies In the struggle to
strengthen democracy and enhance the wel-
fare of our people. Our history is witness to
this essential unity of Interest and belief.
Panama has unhesitatingly come to our side,
twice in this century, when we were threat-
ened by aggression. On December 7, 1941,
Panama declared war on our attackers even
before our own Congress had time to act.
Since that war, Panama has wholeheartedly
joined with us, and our sister Republics, in
shaping the agreements and goals of this
continent. We have also had a special rela-
tionship with Panama, for they have shared
with us the benefits, the burdens, and trust
of maintaining the Panama Canal as a life-
line of defense and a keystone of hemi-
spheric prosperity. All free nations are
grateful for the effort they have given to this
task. As circumstances change, as history
shapes new attitudes and expectations, we
have reviewed periodically this special rela-
tionship.
We are well aware that the claims of the
Government of Panama, and of the majority
of the Panamanian people, do not spring
from malice or hatred of America. They are
based on a deeply felt sense of the honest
and fair needs of Panama. It is, therefore,
our obligation as allies and partners to re-
view these claims and to meet them, when
meeting them is both just and possible.
READY TO REVIEW ISSUES
We are ready to do this.
We are prepared to review every issue
which now divides us, and every problem
which the Panama Government wishes to
raise.
We are prepared to do this at any time
and any place.
As soon as he is Invited by the Govern-
ment of Panama, our Ambassador will be on
his way. We shall also designate a special
representative. He will arrive with full au-
thority to discuss every difficulty. He will
be charged with the responsibility of seeking
a solution which recognizes the fair claims
of Panama and protects the interests of all
the American nations in the canal. We can-
not determine, even before our meeting, what
form that solution might best take. But his
instructions will not prohibit any solution
which is fair, and subject to the appropriate
constitutional processes of both our Govern-
ments. -
I hope that on this basis we can begin to
resolve our problems and move ahead to con-
front the real enemies of this hemisphere-
the enemies of hunger and ignorance, disease
and injustice. I know President Chiarl (of
[From the Washington Evening Star,
Mar. 23, 1964]
BID TO PANAMA
President Johnson's latest comment on the
Panama issue is an energetic attempt to
break the logjam which has been blocking
settlement of the canal dispute.
Mr. Johnson made his move in an "im-
promptu" appearance at a conference held
late Saturday by George Reedy, who has
replaced Pierre Salinger as White House press
secretary. The President proclaimed his
readiness to name a special representative
to seek a solution of the Panama Canal differ-
ences-a solution which "recognizes the fair
claims of Panama and protects the interests
of all the American nations in the canal."
He also said, "We are well aware that the
claims of the Government of Panama, and of
the majority of the Panamanian people, do
not spring from malice or hatred of America."
The first is a reasonable statement of what
has always been the position of the United
States, as we understand it. The second,
while obviously intended to be conciliatory,
ignores certain facts which are clearly spelled
out in the record. One of these is that it was
the President of Panama who broke off dip-
lomatic relations with the United States.
A second is that it was Panama's Ambassador
to the United Nations who falsely accused
our forces In the Canal Zone of "bloody ag-
gression" against the people of Panama.
The President, however, may be justified
at this stage in glossing over the difficulties.
He is trying to repair the damage resulting
from last week's misunderstanding with the
OAS committee and to clear the way for a
settlement with Panama. In striving to at-
tain such objectives, little harm can result
from generous statements-provided always
that the essential interests of the United
States are not neglected. We do not think
that Mr. Johnson means to neglect them.
[From the Washington Evening Star,
Mar. 23, 1964]
THE PASSING SCENE: UNITED STATES STIFFENS
ON LATIN AMERICA
(By William S. White)
The Johnson administration Is moving on
every front toward a more realistic approach
to Latin America-an approach in which the
legitimate interests of the United States will
be the final test of every policy.
There is not the slightest intention to be
tough or arrogant with the Latins. There
is not the smallest purpose to be ungener-
ous with American aid or unsympathetic to
the poverty and the fierce national and cul-
tural pride which make the Latins perhaps
the world's most sensitive people.
There is, however, the firmest of determi-
nation here to end a long era of well-inten-
tioned but undue submissiveness In Wash-
ington to every wind of disapproval of us,
however unjustified, which may blow up
from south of the border.
In a word, the U.S. Government is casting
off the moldy hair shirt which for decades
It has worn. It is saying goodby to an ab-
surdly extreme sense of American guilt. For
these same decades this guilt feeling has
assumed that the United States is auto-
matically and inevitably to blame f
or
good neighbors forever, saying we are wrong
when we are right, and forever remorseful
because some President Coolidge of the dim
past sent the marines to Nicaragua.
All thisis one columnist's interpretation
of the direction in which the U.S. Govern-
ment is turning under two men whose hu-
man connections with and personal under-
standing of-the Latins are facts of lifelong
experience-President Johnson and Assist-
ant Secretary of State Thomas Mann.
They know the Latin mind. Mr. Johnson
knows it because of 30 years of mutually
cordial political association with the Mexi-
can-Americans of Texas. Mr. Mann knows it
through much service as perhaps the most
skilled diplomat of his generation in Latin
American affairs.
Each man's awareness is intimate and fac-
tual; not bookish and theoretical. Each
man truly likes the Latins; but neither man
is filled with purely academic assumptions
that are foreign to human reality.
They know, for illustration, that while the
Latins naturally like a United States which
bows to every demand, the Latins at botton
respect only those officials who are "muy
hombre" (very manly) and frankly prepared
to uphold their own rights. This must be
done with grace and good humor; but also
with dignity and resolution.
COMMUNIST CUBA
Thus, this country now sees honest Amer-
ican efforts to settle difficulties like that in
the Panama Canal Zone with full respect for
the right and feelings of the Panamanians-
but also with full insistence on the right and
feelings of the United States of America.
Thus, this country will later see powerful
and tireless Washington efforts to do more
than talk about the menace posed by Castro
Cuba. This Government will expect its Latin
friends to realize that we are attempting to
excise the cancer of communism in Cuba not
so much for our own sake as for theirs. And
this Government will expect the true co-
operation of those it is trying so hard to save.
The round sum of the developing policy
of the United States toward Latin America
might be thus expressed: Mr. Johnson did
not come to the Presidency to preside over
liquidation of free governments in this
hemisphere to suit the world's Fidel Castros,
nor to waive every American interest in the
doctrinaire notion that the United States is
always wrong.
Mr. Mann did not undertake perhaps the
toughest job in American diplomacy simply
to solicit hurrahs from those who still think
that every criticism of the United States-
and every thrust at American business
abroad-must be met with instant American
OUTSTANDING FEDERAL ADMINIS-
TRATOR FOR 1963
(Mr. RYAN of Michigan (at the re-
quest of Mr. LIBONAII) was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and include extrane-
ous matter.)
Mr. RYAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to announce to this
honorable body that one of my constitu-
ents, Dr. O. C. Williams, was named
"Outstanding Federal Administrator for
1963."
every Presentation of the plaque and cer-
difficulty in the Western Hemisphere simply tificate, which is awarded by the Fed-
because half a lifetime ago this country
sometimes practiced "gunboat diplomacy" in eral Business Association of Detroit, will
Latin America. be made on April 2.
GOOD NEIGHBORS Dr. Williams is the medical officer in
We intend to be good neighbors in the true charge at the U.S. Public Health Service
and adult
d
lf
an
se
-respecting sense. ,_'eYp,doQS>lj,
not Intend, however, to be simply Uncle Sap of the University o Kansas Medical
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130019-8
 . V Approved For CONGRESSIONAL 29 CIA-R P7HOUSE4R000600130019-8 6199
i9
to expansion of antimissile defense. the direct result of a new professional ARENDS], my friend, delivi ed his re-
But civil defense is valuable and neces- competence in the management and marks in defense of CIA 1 listened
sary in its own right. Civil defense is a leadership of civil defense. This change with great interest to Ili"s arvsis of the
far more economical lifesaving measure has been brought about by Secretary Michal Goleniewski cr+se, h charge of
than equivalent dollar additions to Pittman and the able staff which he has irresponsible journalism. pi- ' d against
strategic retaliatory or active defense assembled. the New York Journal Amf i?-an for its
systems. Civil defense, that much I want to say a word about Steuart series of articles on this c iso, and his
scorned and derided activity, is a good Pittman, whom I have come to know well statement that the CIA sub,