BAY OF PIGS RESOLUTION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 19, 2014
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: January 23, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
(AZ.,
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
a recipient's social security payments
must be reduced, or stopped completely,
if he earns a certain amount of money
during a year.
A retirement test of one form or an-
other has been written into the Social
Security Act since it was first enacted in
1935. In its present terms the law states
that any recipient who earns more than
$1,200 a year will lose $1 of benefits for
every $2 of earnings in excess of $1,200
up to $1,700 and $1 of benefits for every
$1 of earnings over $1,700 a year. Two
major exceptions to this requirement
are that it does not apply to individuals
age 72 or over and that no reduction in
benefits will be made for any month in
which the recipient earns less than $100
in wages or fails to render substantial
services in connection with self-employ-
ment activities.
In my opinion, the enactment of the
retirement test was one of the most un-
fortunate and regrettable actions taken
by Congress in connection with the social
security program. I am mire that there
are multitudes among the millions of
individuals receiving social security
benefits, and a good many among those
charged with administering the law, who
share my view.
The retired worker views the retire-
ment test as an incomprehensible tech-
nicality that interferes with his desire
to work, and his efforts to be as inde-
pendent as possible. Untold numbers
on the social security rolls are prevented
from accepting employment because of
the retirement test and many more are
forced to curtail their employment ac-.
tivities to keep their earnings within the
$1,200 limit.
The retired worker becomes more irri-
tated and confused when he is told-that
the retirement test applies only to
earned income, not to investment in-
come. He asks himself, "Why penalize
me because I need to work to maintain
my home, while my more fortunate
neighbor is allowed to receive a tidy in-
come from his stock holdings without
losing any of his social security bene-
fits?"
This is a hard question to answer, and
it is only one of the difficult questions
the people in the social security district
office must answer when they try to ex-
plain the retirement test to someone who
feels that he has been treated unfairly
because of it.
Several years ago the House Ways and
Means Committee asked the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
study the retirement test. In response
to this request the Department submitted
a report to the committee in 1960. In
this report the Department made the
following candid statement which re-
flects the inexorable conflict of desires
inherent in the retirement test:
The fact must be faced that the retirement
test is the center of an insoluble dilemma.
There is, on the one hand, the need to con-
serve the funds of the program by not pay-
ing benefits to people who have substantial
work income, and on the other hand, the
need to avoid interfering with incentives to
work. Both of these objectives cannot be
fully accomplished. The best that can be
done is to accommodate the two, so that
No. 10-2
while the funds of the system are in a large
part directed to the most socially useful pur-
poses, at the same time interference with
incentives to work is kept at a reasonably
low level.
Mr. President, I do not believe that
the present law maintains a proper ac-
commodation between the needs stated
in the Department's report. I think that
it does interfere unreasonably and un-
wisely with an individual's inclination
and incentive to work. What is more, I
think that the present retirement test
hits hardest upon those individuals who
have the greatest desire and the greatest
need to work in order to supplement
their retirement income.
Under the Social Security Act, the
maximum benefit a retired worker can
receive is $127 a month. This adds up
to $2,974 a year. Even this maximum
amount is hardly enough to sustain an
individdal for a year. Very few indi-
viduals, hoWever, are drawing this maxi-
mum amount. The average old-age ben-
efit now being paid to the retired worker
under social security is little over $76? a
month. In July of 1962 it was $76.09.
This average payment, which totals to
only $917.08 a year, is most certainly not
enough for a retired worker to live on.
If the retired worker has a wife who
qualifies for a wife's benefit, she receives
one-half the amount that the retired
worker is entitled to.
It is evident from these figures that
most people retired on social security
must have supplementary income in
order to maintain themselves at decent
living standards. If they do not? have
substantial annuity income of one sort
or another or if they were not able to
build up sizable amounts in savings or in-
vestments, they must seek out employ-
ment?or 'ask for public assistance?to
pay their bills.
The people who are most adversely af-
fected by the retirement test are those
who are entitled to lower social security
benefits. Not only are they, as a general
rule, most in need of added income, but
they see their earnings eating into and
eliminating their social security benefits
sooner. Those who receive lower bene-
fits cannot earn as much as those receiv-
ing higher benefits before their benefits
are cut off completely. A few examples
will illustrate this point. Everyone
whose earnings are subject to the test
loses $1 in benefits for every $2 of earn-
ings between $1,200 and $1,700 and $1
in benefits for every dollar of earnings
over $1,700. The more he earns, the
less he receives in benefits until his bene-
fits are wiped out completely. The point
at which his earnings wipe out his bene-
fits is called the overall earnings limit,
and it varies with the amount of the
benefit. The overall earnings limit for
a person receiving the minimum bene-
fit for $40 a month is $1,930 a year. If a
person receiving a minimum benefit
? earns this much a year he receives no
social security payment. The overall
earnings limit for a retired worker re-
ceiving close to the average benefit?say
it is $76 a month?is $2,360. A person
receiving the maximum primary benefit
of $127, however may earn $2,974 a year
761
before he reaches his overall earnings
limit and a retired worker whose family
is receiving the maximum family benefit'
of $254 a month does not reach his over-
all earnings limit until he earns $4,498.
The bill I am introducing is designed
to bring about a more balanced accom-
modation between the conflicting needs
of the retirement test. It would simply
raise the basic exempt amount from
$1,200 to $2,400 a year and provide for
dollar-for-dollar reduction in benefits
for earnings over $2,400. The amount of
$1,200 has remained unchanged in the
law since it was put in in 1954. Living
costs and wage rates have increased so
much since that time that $1,200 is no
longer an adequate or realistic figure. I
feel that it must be raised in order to
lessen the discriminatory effect of the
retirement test on those who are ready,
willing and able?and in many cases
forced?to work.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be received and appropriately referred.
The bill (S. 466) to amend title II of
the Social Security Act to increase to
$2,400 the annual amount individuals are
permitted to earn without suffering de-
ductions from the insurance benefits
payable to them under such title, intro-
duced by Mr. Moss, was received, read
twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on Finance.
BAY OF PIGS RESOLUTION
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
submit a resolution, ask that it be re-
ferred to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices, and ask unanimous consent that it
may be printed in the body of the REC-
ORD.
I also ask unanimous consent that two
newspaper articles pertinent thereto
may be printed in the RECORD.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolu-
tion will be received and appropriately
referred; and, without objection, the
resolution and articles will be printed in
the RECORD.
The resolution (S. Res. 54) was re-
ferred to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices, as follows:
Whereas the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba
in April of 1961 failed for the lack of
adequate American assistance, including an
air cover for the landing forces; and
Whereas the American public was led to
understand for twenty-one months that an
air cover had definitely been promised to the
invading force and withheld at the last min-
ute on orders from the President of the
United States; and
Whereas the Attorney General of the
United States has now stated that no such
air support was ever contemplated in the
invasion plan; and
Whereas the Attorney General of the
United States has' further, stated that the
invasion plan had the approval of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Central Intelligence
Agency; and
Whereas an invasion plan which did not
unclucie air cover was e oome a riTe
h e ertsan ;
and
Whereas the Attorney General's state-
Meals have conseuuefftly caried-fino qUes-
tion the wisdom and efficiency_of the nint
Chiefs of Staff and the Central'Intelligence
lk.g2Licy; and
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
1.
Declassifiedand Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/19 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
Whereas the Attorney General's account
of what happened at the Bay of Pigs has
left the American public in a state of con-
fusion as to the true facts; and
Whereas the continued presence of Com-
munist military forces and equipment in
Cuba makes that island a persistent threat
to the United States and the Western Hemi-
sphere; and
Whereas a full disclocure of the invasion
plans for the Bay of Pigs can no longer be
considered a breach of military security:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved. That the Committee on .Armed
Services or any duly auth9rized subcommit-
tee thereof is authorized under sections 134
(a) and 136 of the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1946, as amended, and in accord-
ance with its jurisdiction under rule XXV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate to con-
duct a full and complete study to de =fie
the true PacW'fftntzsundffrg trIT rsny fff-Pigs
reirfriTTera---6-1--en- e o trie
'k .d o er can as,- s ance pronnserto?the
r.--S?E127-THE committee shall report its find-
ings upon the 'study and investigation au-
thorized by this resolution to the Senate
at the earliest practicable date, but no later
than March 31, 1963.
SEC. 3. Expenses of the committee under
this resolution, which will not exceed $100,-
000, shall be paid from the contingent fund
of the Senate upon vouchers approved by
the chairman of the committee. -
The articles presented by Mr. Gap-
WATER are as follows:
THE MISSING AIR COVER
For some time, Kennedy administration
spokesmen have been denying privately that
the President called off planned U.S. air
cover for the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. At-
torney General Kennedy, in two interviews,
now has put this denial on the record.
The Attorney General gave his version of
the affair in separate interviews to 'U.S. News
& World Report and to the Knight news-
papers. The interviews do not jibe in every
detail, but they are in substantial agree-
ment. .
It is an incredible story. According to
Mr. Kennedy, there was never anything in
the invasion plan which called for U.S. air
cover of the landing area. This was never
suggested by the military and, in fact, was
never even considered. Yet, he says, the
wholly inadequate plan was approved by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also by the CIA,
which had primary planning responsibility.
And, of course, it received final approval
from the President.
On the Saturday before the invasion a
flight of obsolete B-26 bombers, World War
II vintage, took off from a Latin American
base and made a strike against Castro's land-
ing fields and planes. Another strike was
supposed to have been made early the fol-
lowing Monday, limed to coincide with the
landing of the refugee troops. But the first
strike had caused a flurry at the United Na-
tions; the President decided the second
should be postponed unless those who had
responsibility for the plan had strong ob-
jections, and the second strike did not come
until later in the day.
At that time, according to the Attorney
General, it did not accomplish much.
This is hardly surprising, For Castro's
planes, their pilots alerted by the landing,
were in the air, and three or four T-33 jets,
inherited from the Batista regime and
armed with rockets, were blasting the land-
ing beach, sinking supply ships, and chasing
the propeller-driven 3-26's out of the sky.
It was on this wretched basis, according
to the Attorney General, that the invasion
effort foundered and failed, and Castro be-
came an enduring menace in the Western
Hemisphere. Still, things might have been
? -
worse. What if such botched planning had
formed the basis for a major U.S. military
operation? We would be lucky if anyone had
gotten out alive.
U.S. AND THE BAY OF PIGS FIASCO?QUESTION
OF MILITARY COMPETENCE OR CIVILIAN IN-
TERFERENCE IS RAISED
? (By David Lawrence)
The American people are entitled to know
whether the chiefs of their armed services are
incompetent or whether, in strictly military
operations, they are being interfered with
by civilians in the Government.
A congressional investigation of just what
happened before the Bay of Pigs invasion of
Cuba took place in April 1961, is more than
ever necessary now, because of what is being
disclosed as the true story of the fiasco. For
unless the responsibility, of the U.S. Chiefs
of Staff during military operations is clearly
fixed, the capacity of the United States to
prevent or resist armed attacks in this hemi-
sphere may be open to question.
More than 3,00,000 men of our -armed serv-
ices were mobilized last October inside the
United States for a possible invasion of Cuba
in order to get rid of the Soviet missile bases
there. But there is no way to judge whether
the military chiefs even then had the full
authority to act and just what restrictions
were placed upon them which could have
affected the success of that expedition.
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy,
who?because he is a brother of the Presi-
dent?is regarded as the administration's
authoritative spokesman in many matters
outside-his own department, has just given
two interviews on the Cuban fiasco?one to
the Knight newspapers and the other to
U.S. News & World Report.
The two interviews dovetail, though they
do not cover all of the same points. The
Attorney General told David Kraslow, Wash-
ington correspondent of the Knight news--
papers, that there had been no invasion plan
completed during Mr. Eisenhower's term.
He said: "There was just a general concept.
The logistics and the details were worked
out after the President [Kennedy] took
office."
Added interest has developed now in this
whole subject, because many of the Cuban
officers of the invasion force, who were re-
cently ransomed have been telling Americans
that the United States had assured them of
air cover. Attorney General Kennedy makes
quite a point of the fact that no U.S. air
cover was ever promised. Technically, this
is correct. But the United States was fully
cognizant of the air support the Cubans
were supposed to have. Yet this was inade-
quate. Attorney General Kennedy said in
his interview in U.S. News & World Report:
"The first point is that there was not
U.S. air cover and none was withdrawn. In
fact, the President didn't withdraw any air
cover for the landing forces?United States
or otherwise.
"What happened was this: One air at-
tack had been made on Saturday on Cuban
airports. There was a flurry at the United
Nations and elsewhere and, as a result, U.S.
participation in the matter was coming to
the surface. This surfacing was contrary to
the preinvasion plan. There was supposed
to be another attack on the airports on
Monday morning.
"The President was called about whether
another attack which had been planned
should take place. As there was this stir
about the matter, he gave instructions that
it should not take place at that time unless
those having the responsibility felt that it
was So important it had to take place, in
which case they should call him and dis-
cuss it further. And that's what was post-
poned. It wasn't air cover of the beaches
or landings. And, in fact, the attack on the
airports took place later that day."
January 23
The air cover provided was from a base in
Central America. What part the U.S. Gov-
ernment played in organizing it is not dis-
closed. In the middle of a military opera-
tion, however, you can't Make a long-dis-
tance call to the White House and discuss
the next move. The anti-Castro forces were
sure air cover was coming from somewhere.
The Attorney General was asked who did
the planning. He declared that the plan
that finally went into effect was approved by
our military?the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, as well as the Central Intelligence
Agency. He added that, while the Joint
Chiefs approved the plan, the responsibility
for the planning lay primarily with the CIA,
and that, since the President had to give
final approval to the plan, he had accepted
the blame.
In both interviews the Attorney General
said that U.S. airpower was to have been used
only if the ships transporting the Cuban in-
vasion force had been detected by Castro be-
fore they reached the target area and were
attacked on the high seas on their way back
to Central America. This is the explanation
given for the presence of U.S. warships, in-
cluding an aircraft carrier, in the vicinity of
the Bay of Pigs on the day of the invasion.
Yet it is asserted that before the invasion the
President had made it clear that U.S. Armed
Forces, including airpower, would not be
used.
In the interview in the Knight newspapers,
the Attorney General said, "The plan that
was used was fully cleared by the CIA and
the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
But what does "cleared" mean? Do the
Joint Chiefs take responsibility for any such
plan as was employed?
Listing the major mistakes, Mr. Kennedy
added: "There was not sufficient air cover at
the beach. That was a mistake. There were
not enough men and equipment. That was
a mistake. Underestimating the T-33's
(Castro's airplanes)?that was a serious mis-
take. The planning was inadequate, just
inadequate."
But who did all this planning, and why
wasn't someone in the U.S. Air Force able to
say in advance whether the T-33's had the
capacity to carry rockets? These were the
U.S. planes originally given to the Batista
regime in Cuba.
'
The important details have never been di-
vulged, as there has been a constant cover-
up. But if Congress now, fails to make a
searching inquiry, with testimony available
to the public, another military fiasco could
occur, especially if the same military, plan-
ners are still in command at the Pentagon
or elsewhere.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
\ have today submitted a resolution calling
for a full and impartial investigation by
the Senate Armed Services Committee
into the circumstances surrounding the
so-called Bay of Pigs attempt to invade
Cuba in April of 1961. It is my firm
conviction that only through such an
inquiry can the American people be fully
informed about the events attendant to
one of the most inglorious adventures in
which this Nation ever has become in-
volved. It is my belief that such an
airing of facts attendant to the Bay of
Pigs invasion attempt has been made
mandatory by recent statements by the
Attorney General of the United States
purporting to tell what was promised to
the invading force by the U.S. Govern-
ment and what happened when the inva-
sion failed.
Because the fate of Cuba is a matter
of extreme importance to the American
people and because the full story of the
Bay of Pigs fiasco has never been told,
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
Declassified and Approved For Release ? 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD =SENATE
the time is long past for an adequate,
uncolored accounting of this disgraceful
chapter in the history of the Kennedy
administration.
Mr. President, I suggest that it is an
insult to the intelligence of every con-
cerned American for the Attorney Gen-
eral of the United States?the Presi-
dent's brother?to give an informal, dis-
jointed account of this important matter
in a couple of exclusiVe interviews which
did not even cover the entire American
press. And I suggest the form that these
revelations took?in carefully arranged
interviews?indicates that they were
mapped with only one object in mind:
to whitewash the Kennedy administra-
tion. Consider, Mr. President, that for
21 months the people of the United
States have been led to believe that the
United States had promised the Cuban
invading force air cover and naval sup-
port.
And there was no denial from the
White House, nor from the Attorney
General, when stories Were printed
throughout the American dress that the
air cover was withheld on orders of the
President. It is true, President Ken-
nedy manfully accepted all the blame
for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But it is
also true that he never gave the Ameri-
can people a true account of what had
been planned and what actually oc-
curred. Now, after all this time, we get
from the Attorney General an account,
which defies belief and runs counter to
everything the American people had
been led to believe and contradicts the
understanding of almost every man en-
gaged in the abortive invasion attempt.
-The Attorney General tells us that the
Invasion Plan?without provision for an
air cover?had the approval of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Central Intelli-
gency Agency as well as ItiWtre
President.
Does he ask us to believe that sea-
soned military men?such as the mem-
bers of the Joint Chiefs?ever seriously
considered that an-invasion force of 1,500
men could succeed in establishing a
beachhead in Cuba and moving on to
join with guerrilla forces to liberate the
island from the grip of a fully armed
Communist dictator? I suggest that
this assumption defies belief. Any mil-
itary man with 10 minutes of experience
knows that not only -an air cover but also
naval support is not only advisable but
also absolutely essential to any kind of
a landing operation on an island as small
as Cuba. .
In effect, what the Attorney General
has done in his interesting and highly
questionable account' of the Bay of Pigs
is cast grave doubts on the ability of
the American military establishments.
If we take as fact his statement that no
air cover was planned and then add to
that the number of mistakes he listed
as reasons for the invasion's failure, then
we must assume that the military men
who approved the plans were entirely
lacking in experience as well as judg-
ment.
1 The Attorney General says it was a
mistake to invade with only 1,500 men.
This fact should have been apparent
before the invasion began. No military
commander I have ever met Would ever
think of launching an invasion against
an _entrenched Communist regime with
only 1,500 men?no matter how . well
armed -and supported they were.
And this brings me to one of the most
important reasons why I believe -a
thoroughgoing investigation is needed
right away. That reason is that the
Congress of the United States and =
-American people must rind out once and
Sc'ence inexperi-
-enceciviaxewiemg'm
thilitagy vvhicliaue-ocit_m heTse:
c u 1-.A3 of the 1 a
caffieedm e world.
I say very frankly that .the plan fort&
-invaslorisCFNETTrtlias e
ATEMTer, -6717=5M7r1-1?Tkcc uswe y
Wm=c717frrEffrilinnIfftegists W116
ce _up o e-rea 1 les o
rigid military situation. It certainly
looks like the last type of a military
operation that ever would gain the ap-
proval of 'men who 'drew .their experi-
ence froth. World War II or the Korean
war.
In -other words, Mr. President, if we
accept the Attorney General's account,,
we must _decide that the American end
of the Bay of Pigs invasion was in the
hands of the rankest kind of military
amateurs. And I do not have to remind
Senators that in these days of cold war
crisis we cannot afford to have military
amateurs making our plans.
Why is it, for example, that in 1961
the administration thought we could
invade Cuba with 1,500 men without air
cover or naval support, but in 1962, When
it was thought we might have to invade
Cuba to remove Russian missiles, a force
of more than -300,000 men and every,
kind of air support possible was
mustered_ along our southern coast? It
is true that in the interim Castro had
obtained heavy .supplies and Manpower
from- the Soviet bloc. But he 'did not
receive enough to make this kind of a
difference on our plans for invasion. -
Mr. President, there are more reasons
why an investigation of the Bay of Pigs
invasion is needed than I can possibly get
into here today. But I believe it is -suf-
ficient to say that the American people
are -entitled to the fullest disclosure of
the facts that it is possible for this Con-
gress to give -them. I am convinced that
the -people are not going 'to be satisfied
with piecemeal and informal accounts
given by members of -the administration-
to favored correspondents or -selected
publications. I believe that the Com-
mittee -on Armed Services should be au-
thorized to immediately begin work ? on
such an investigation.' I would suggest
that tgyLLA,.. mmtzer,
who was chairmans
or stair at the time or the invasion . and
Allen Dulles, former head of the C'eiTti754
Ifitelligence Agency well rarer?yone
in the .Pen ..on or the CIA or trz-v-ate-
ticiatmen. er. ovemnent
department who had anything o with
apping an -carrying ou o e .Bag
,Of Pigs plans. -
Mr. IVIORSE. Mr. President, as chair-
man -of the Subcommittee on American
Republic Affairs of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, I should like to make a
763
recommendation to my colleagues in the
Senate before more partisan speeches ate
made involving the foreign policy inter-
-ests of this Republic.
If Members of the Senate will go to
the Foreign Relations Committee room
and ask for the privilege, it will be
granted to them to read the secret trans-
script of the record taken in executive
session of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee investigation of the ill-fated Bay
of Pigs expedition. That inquiry ran-
from April 28, 1961, to June 27, 1961.
Senators may read the testimony of the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Lemnitzer. They may read the
testimony of Allen Dulles and Richard
Bissell of the CIA. They may read the
testimony of the Secretary of State and
of other top-officials who had the respon-
sibility at the time for American foreign
policy in respect to that ill-fated opera-
tion.
I ask unanimous consent that the full
list of hearings and witnesses be printed
at this point.
There being no objection, the list was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
-Subcommittee on American Republic Af-
fairs, April 28, 1961?Senators present:
Morse, Sparkman, Church, Hickenlooper,
Aiken, Fulbright, Mansfield, Lausche, Wiley,
and Carlson.
Subcommittee on American Republic Af-
rf airs, May 1, 1961, Dean Rusk?Senators pres-
ent: Morse, Sparkman, Church, Hicken-
t looper, Aiken, Fulbright, Humphrey, Mans-
field, -Gore, Lausche, Symington, Wiley, Carl-
son, and Williams.
Full committee, May 2, 1961, Allen W.
Dulles. Director. accoirg-W Brach.=
ard M. Bissell, Jr.?Senators presentrFE-
ril'irt7gFai?kman, Mansfield, Morse, Long,
Gore, Church, Symington, Hickenlooper,
Aiken, Capehart, Carlson, and Williams.
Subcommittee on American Republic Af-
fairs, May 15, 1961, Adolph A. Berle, consult-
-ant to the Secretary of State, accompanied
by Robert Sayre, staff assistant, and Warren
Cikins, office of congressional relations--
Senators present: Morse, Sparkman, Mans-
field,- Hickenlooper, Aiken, Capehart, and
Carlson.
Full committee, May 17, 1961, Chester
Bowles?Senators present: Fulbright, Gore,
Symington, Dodd, Wiley, Aiken, and Wil-
liams.
Subcommittee on American Republic Af-
fairs, May 19, 1961, Gen. Lyman Letnnitzer,
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of-Staff, accompanied
by Maj. Gen. David Gray?Senators present:
Morse, Sparkman, Long, Church, Hicken-
looper, Capehart, Fulbright, Gore, Lausche,
Symington, Wiley, and Williams.
Subcommittee on American Republic Af-
fairs, June 7, 1961, Henri Raymont,, diploma-
tic correspondent for Latin' America, UPI?
Senators present: Gore, Lausche, Symington,
Clark, and Moss.
Subcommittee on American Republic Af-
fairs, June 8, 1961, Paul H. Nitze, Assistant
Secretary of State accompanied by Brig. Gen.
W. A. Enemark, Department of Defense?
Senators present: Morse, Fulbright, Hicken-
looper, Aiken, Symington, Dodd, Smathers,
Proxmire, Smith of Massachusetts, Stennis,
and Morton. -
Subcommittee on American Republic .Af-
fairs, June 22, 1961, Tad Smile and Max
Frankel, correspondents of the New York
Times?Senators present: =, Morse, Hicken-
looper, Capehart, and Carlson.
Full committee, June 27; 1961, Adlai Ste-
venson, accompanied by Lincoln Gordon,
member of Task Force on Latin America, and
Declassified and Approved For Release ? 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8
764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE January 23
Wymberly deR. Coerr, Acting Assistant Sec-
retary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, after
they have read the testimony, they can
decide whether or not they want to make
some partisan speeches involving the se-
curity of this country regarding foreign
policy.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I have read the
testimony the Senator refers to. It is
the most inconclusive testimony I have
ever had the pleasure to read. The
question I raise here on the floor today
is not answered in that testimony. I do
not bring it up here in a partisan way; I
bring it up because the Attorney General
has injected this question into the minds
of the American people.
Mr. MORSE. I would like to" have the
jury of the Senate read the testimony
and decide whether or not the conclusion
of the Senator from Arizona is right
when he says he thinks it is inconclu-
sive testimony. In my judgment, it is
clear and unequivocal and answers the
problem the Senator from Arizona is
raising. We did feel that some unre-
solved questions -neecrea idnher moo-
r-MBE"ronr?T-Th-C=MM-ri. central eMleriVe
rieriF37777-7n7rer
.roEnGrat7"?tTie, ou nTing t=figt,
felt were still unclear, and asicuig
whether he wished to a' furtherfurther corn-
I Ito ? : IS IS
$ ? $
Mr. McCone declined to do so. I sup-
jxise is possible-trgrarrpiMibMarn
Mr McCone would be more responswe
to a Republican inquiry, but I surely
aoubt that such would be tne case.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF
BILLS
Under authority of the orders of the
Senate, as indicated below, the follow-
ing names have been added as additional
cosponsors for the following bills:
Authority of January 16, 1963:
S. 283. A bill to amend the Small Recla-
mation Projects Act of 1956: Mr. MORSE.
Authority of January 21, 1963:
S. 387. A bill to amend the Clayton Act
to prohibit restraints of trade carried into
effect through the use of unfair and decep-
tive methods of packaging or labeling cer-
tain consumer commodities distributed in
commerce, and for other purposes: Mr.
DOUGLAS.
ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE AP-
PENDIX
On request, and by unanimous con-
sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc.,
were ordered to be printed in the Ap-
pendix, as follows:
By Mr. MUNDT:
Editorial entitledWhy Not Reserve Tax
Program of President," published in the
Washington County (Pa.) Observer of Janu-
ary 18, 1963.
Founders' Day convocation address de-
livered by M. J. Rathbone, president of the
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey at Lafayette
College, Easton, Pa., last October.
By Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey:
Editorial-from Passaic (N.J.) Herald News
of January 12, 1963; and also an article en-
titled "The Book Closes," written by Edward
J. Mullen and published in the January 15,
1963, issue of the Trenton Herald News, be-
ing tributes to Dow Henry Drukker, late
publisher and chairman of the board of the
Passaic Herald News, who died in Lake Wales,
Fla., a few days before his 91st birthday. ,
By Mr. METCALF:
Article entitled "New United Mine Work-
ers President Reminiscent of Lewis," pub-
lished in the Washington Evening Star of
January 21, 1963, being a tribute to W. A.
Boyle, new president of the United Mine
Workers of America.
By Mr. TALMADGE:
Article entitled "John Duncan: Georgia's
Big Man in Agriculture," written by Mar-
garet Shannon and published in a recent is-
sue of the Progressive Farmer magazine.
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR IKEN
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
there is no Member of the Senate for
whom the Senate has more affection, re-
spect, and admiration than it has for the
distinguished senior Senator from Ver-
mont [Mr. AIKEN]. He is a good man;
he is an outstanding Senator; he is a
great American. He typifies Vermont
and New England at their best; and his
contributions to the welfare of his State,
his region, and our Nation will be monu-
ments to his patriotism and service for
generations to come. ?
Vermont has every reason to be proud-
of its native son and senior Senator; and
we salute him for his granite character,
his understanding, his simplicity, and
his tolerance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that an editorial entitled "Tribute
to Aiken," published on January 15 in
the Rutland Daily Herald, of Rutland,
Vt., be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TRIBUTE TO AIKEN
When the U.S. Senate organized last week,
the spotlight was on Senator KENNEDY, of
Massachusetts, but a special degree of atten-
tion was paid to Vermont's Senator AIKEN,
dean of Republicans in the Senate, who was
nominated for President pro tempore by
Senator DIRICSEN.
It is customary in the Senate for the two
parties to nominate their senior members for
the position of President pro tempore, which
is largely an honorary position although it is
third in the line of succession to the Presi-
dency, of the United States after the position
of House Speaker. As a member of the mi-
nority, Senator Antmv could not, of course,
have been elected, but it provided the occa-
sion for Members of the Senate to demon-
strate the esteem and affection which they
have for Vermont's senior Senator.
Reports from Washington indicate that the
demonstration was something out of the
ordinary and considerably more than routine
evidence of senatorial courtesy toward a re-
spected Member. The majority leader, Sen-
ator MANSFIELD, expressed regret that he was
not in a position to vote for the Vermonter.
This was not the first time that Senator
AIKEN has been honored by the Senate. His
high standing has been recognized before.
It could also so be that Senators are well
aware of the respect with V;hich AIKEN 'Arm
treated in the last election campaign by
Vermont Democrats. And that they are
aware that a Democratic preelection poll
disclosed that he has a greater proportion of
support in Vermont than any other Senator
in his home State.
ACCEPTANCE BY NEW YORK AND
NEW ORLEANS STEAMSHIP ASSO-
CIATIONS OF STRIKE SETTLE-
MENT PROPOSED BY MEDIATION
BOARD
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I take
Pleasure in announcing to the Senate,
in behalf of the President's Special
Mediation Board which is handling the
dock strike along the east coast, in the
southern ports, and along the gulf, coast,
that the New Orleans Steamship Asso-
ciation has notified the Board that it has
voted to accept the proposal of the
Mediation -Board for settlement of the
strike.
Mr. President, I submit, for printing
in the REcOaa?and ask unanimous con-
sent for that purpose?a press release
issued by me, announcing this accept-
ance by the New Orleans Steamship As-
sociation of the strike settlement pro-
proposed by the Mediation Board. I
wish to congratulate the New Orleans
Steamship Association on placing the
national interest before any selfish
interest.
I also submit, and request that there
be printed in the RECORD, the full text
of the telegram from Mr. R. R. Bark-
erding, president of the New Orleans
Steamship Association, announcing its
acceptance of the settlement; and I also
submit for printing in the RECORD the
Board's reply to that telegram.
I also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a telegram I have
received from the New York Shipping
Association, announcing its acceptance,
and also the reply of the Mediation
Board.
There being no objection, the release
and. the telegrams were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF SENATOR
WAYNE MORSE, DEMOCRAT, OF OREGON
Senator WAYNE MORSE today issued the
following statement:
"I am pleased to announce, in behalf of
the President's Special Mediation Board han-
dling the dock strike along the east coast
and southern ports and gulf, that New Or-
leans Steamship Association has notified the
Board that it has voted to accept the pro-
posal of the/Mediation.Board for settlement
of the strike. A telegram from Mr. R. R.
Barkerding, president of the New Orleans
Steamship Association states: 'In principle
we accept the money package indicated in
the memorandum of settlement proposed
at Ne'w York by your Board on January 21,
1963. We also accept that the agreements
previously in effect at New Orleans and vihich
expired on September 30, 1962, shall be ex-
tended for a term of 2 years; namely, until
September 30, 1964. We additionally agree
to the proposed study by the Department of
Labor, of manpower utilization-job security
problems, as outlined, but separate and con-
current for port of New Orleans. We will
make the above an official offer, including
the extension of the conditions of the ex-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/02/19: CIA-RDP65B00383R000300080017-8