PROPOSED JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000600130008-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 6, 2006
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: April 10, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

7416
A 'ov,ed For Release 2006/07/06: CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130008-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 10
from page 667 of the budget under the
table entitled "Analysis of 1965 financ-
ing." I might also point out that the
figure includes what is known as se-
lected resources which have increased
from less than $4 million in 1963 to over
$40 million for 1965. Even these figures
vary widely from year to year and for
the same year depending upon which
budget year is under consideration, as
shown in the following table, which I
include at this point in the RECORD:
Analysis of selected resources
[In millions of dollars]
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
In 1963budget ....
4,041
13,230
-6,414
In 1964 budget-___
______
9.076
-4,276
11,727
In1965budget ----
______
_______
3.475
6,910
40,004
The committee feels that the recom-
mended $80 million for fiscal year 1965
which is $29 million above the 1964 ap-
propriation will be sufficient to procure
all the items which require authorization
in the President's budget, and is in con-
sonance with the President's public an-
nouncement of his desire that the pro-
gram be held within the budget. It is
most desirable and advantageous to pro-
vide for a level and consistent program of
modernization and replacement rather
than substantial increases and decreases
from year to year with resulting dis-
placement of personnel and other pro-
gram modifications.
As I pointed out on the floor of the
House, the committee is fully in sym-
pathy with the program to provide for
a modern and effective Coast Guard and
has insisted that formal plans for that
purpose be developed and presented to
the committee. Those plans have all
been provided now and are approved,
and the committee intends to see that
they are accomplished.
87th Congress. At that time there
was a great hue and cry for an
investigation of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. The disastrous Bay of
Pigs invasion had just taken place, and
there was general agreement that the
CIA did not function properly. The
furor over the Bay of Pigs has subsided,
and so has criticism of the CIA. But we
cannot forget that the Bay of Pigs was
the result of permitting a secret Govern-
ment organization, which is not even
subject to the usual congressional bud-
getary scrutiny, to conduct its own for-
eign policy. There is a saying that
those who do not learn from history are
doomed to repeat it.
We did repeat it. In South Vietnam
the role of the CIA once again indicated
the need for a Joint Congressional Com-
mittee on Foreign Information and In-
telligence. Under the Diem regime the
Government of South Vietnam con-
ducted a ruthless campaign of religious
persecution. The special forces of Col.
Le Quang Tung were used by the Gov-
ernment not to fight the Vietcong but to
suppress the people of South Vietnam. I
am sure that we all remember the series
of bloody raids on Buddhist pagodas
which took place last summer. These
raids were led by Colonel Tung's special
forces. On September 10, 1963, the
New York Times reported that the CIA
paid as "direct under-the-table aid" $3
million a year for the salaries and main-
tenance of these special forces. And
these special forces were the very forces
which were undermining U.S. policy in
this critical area.
Diem is now gone, and we have a new
regime in South Vietnam. There is no
doubt that the CIA is still active in that
area. What it is doing is a total mys-
tery to almost every Member of Con-
gress. How much money it is spending
in this and other areas is also a mystery.
I use Vietnam and Cuba merely as
f
h
examples o
t
e dual role of intelligence
PROPOSED JOINT COMMITTEE ON 1 gathering and actual foreign policy
FOREIGN INFORMATION AND IN- formulation which has characterized the
TELLIGENCE
(Mr. RYAN of New York asked
was given permission to address
House for 1 minute and to revise
extend his remarks.)
and
the
and
Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I testified before the Commit-
tee on Rules in support of my bill (H.J.
Res. 145) to establish a Joint Committee
on Foreign Information and Intelligence.
I commend the committee for holding
hearings and hope that a rule will be
granted.
House Joint Resolution 145 is identical
to a bill which I introduced in May of
1961-House Joint Resolution 418 of the
CIA from its very beginning. I do not
deny the need for the Central Intelli-
gence Agency. In the world in which
we live we must have an agency of Gov-
ernment which gathers as much Intelli-
gence concerning other countries as can
possibly be acquired. But that agency
cannot and should not formulate and
execute foreign policy decisions-the
province under our democratic system of
the elected officials of the United States.
My bill, House Joint Resolution 145,
would establish a joint congressional
committee to be known as the Joint
Committee on Foreign Information and
Intelligence. The committee would be
composed of seven Members of the Sen-
ate and seven Men- a +s of the House to
be appointed respe? r vely by the Presi-
dent of the S?mnate :i:id the Speaker of
the House. The jc _i.: committee would
make continuing sT-uciies of:
First. The ?ctivit a + of each informa-
tion and iniellige ice agency of the
United States;
Second. Ths' pro` ems relating to the
foreign information i id intelligence pro-
grams; and
Third. The problems relating to the
gathering of info. ;nation and intelli-
gence affecting the aaional security, and
its coordinati.)n as ,l utilization by the
various depai tmen 4. agencies, and in-
strumentalities of he United States.
The bill spccificr i ? excludes the FBI
from the scope of t;e joint committee.
Mr. Speaker., it is inconsistent with the
basic concepts of . r-r democratic gov-
ernment to allow s large and extremely
important agency o avoid the scrutiny
of the people'; reps - s:entatives by hiding
behind the cloak o' aecrecy. The Con-
gress and the ,ieopl? have a right to know
and a right to reg :l:i.te the intelligence
services of this Na:_ion.
I hope that all (embers of Congress
who are concernec 1-.bout the activities
of the CIA will jc? i n me in urging the
Committee oul Ru -_:. to grant a rule.
The establishment :;f a Joint Committee
on Foreign Irform.icon and Intelligence
l is long overdue.
INADEQUACIE 3 OF NEW TAX
WITHHOLI glXG TABLES
(Mr. MICI-[EL ;)_--ed and was given
permission to rev;: tr and extend his re-
marks and to include certain tables.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, enact-
ment of the tax lkiil has caused a new
series of tax withh ltiing tables to be put
into effect and I rse today to point out
to my good fliende Particularly those in
the lower income b ?a :kets that the with-
holding of taxes : inadequate for this
taxable year 1964 While normally a
workingman woui expect to have a
sufficient amount withheld to pay his
entire tax at the er-d- of the year and
possibly qualify him for a refund, in
more cases than i -it we will find at the
end of the taxable ;ear 1964 many, many
of our people haling to come up with
additional sums tc~ a,ake up for the bal-
ance of their tax f< a she year 1964. This
was brought to my attention by my very
good friend, Geor a E. Morgan, a certi-
fled public accov tint with the firm
Morgan, Ellis; & Cn. in Peoria, Ill. The
table which he ha urepared points this
out very clesrly s n-i under unanimous
consent, Mr. '$peal: der, I include the tables
at this point in the RECORD:
Approved For Release 2006/07/06: CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130008-0
 Approved For Release 2006/07/06: CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130 8-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
their information. This is about roads
going from Alaska through Canada and
the United States and going down to
South America. This is an important
thing for us to do and I think we ought
to do it. I see no objection to the resolu-
tion.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mn Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend the remarks that I made in the
Committee of the Whole, and I also ask
that all Members who desire to do so
may extend their remarks at that point
in the RECORD extending congratulations
to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
CANNON] on his birthday tomorrow.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
THE WHEAT-COTTON BILL
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to extend his re-
marks at this point in the RECORD and
include extraneous matter.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Speaker,
on the day we considered and passed the
wheat-cotton bill, I received the follow-
ing telegram :
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
Hon. ARNOLD OLSEN, April 7,1964.
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
You will soon vote on H.R. 6196, the wheat-
cotton bill. This bill is bad for farmers, con-
sumers, and taxpayers and we urge you to
vote no.
Farm Bureau has over 1,628,000 member
farm and ranch families in 2,700 counties.
I know I speak for our entire membership
when I deplore efforts to make the wheat-
cotton bill a partisan issue.
The wheat section is almost identical to
the multiple price bread tax plan voted
down overwhelmingly by wheat farmers last
May.
The cotton section involves two additional
subsidies, including one to the mills and
the other in form of compensatory (Brannan
type) payments to producers. It will cost
taxpayers at least another $300 million
annually.
Most farmers have already completed plans
for 1964 plantings of both wheat and cotton
and passage of this legislation will have only
a disruptive effect.
We earnestly urge you to vote against
this bill not only for the good of farmers,
consumers and taxpayers, but to help pre-
serve our efficient private enterprise system.
CHARLES B. SHUMAN,
President, American Farm Bureau Fed-
eration.
I think Mr. Shuman is in error. Fail-
ure to pass the wheat-cotton bill would
have resulted in drastically depressing
prices to the farmer and reducing farm-
er purchasing power by many hundreds
of millions. The whole economy would
have been seriously impaired.
This bill was the best we could do
especially inasmuch as the Senate could
not reconsider its action before planting
time would belong past.
What is more, the consumers would
have realized no saving. For instance,
a drop in wheat prices by 70 cents per
bushel would not bring a decrease In
bread prices. According to baking com-
panies, at $2 to $2.25 per bushel wheat,
a 25-cent loaf of bread contains only
approximately 2?~ cents worth of wheat.
Thus without the bill the wheat farm-
er would lose at least 70 cents per bush-
el, the miller and baker would get the
windfall, and the consumer would still
pay the same price for bread.
I think we should have had a larger
subsidy per bushel for the farmer, but
this bill is the best compromise we could
get the Congress to pass. So I voted for
the bill and thus did the best available
for all concerned.
COAST GUARD
(Mr. BONNER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his re-
marks, and include certain tables.)
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, on March
24, during the debate on the Coast Guard
section of the Treasury, Post Office, and
executive office appropriation bill, 1965
(H.R. 10532), my good friend, the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations' Subcommittee on Treas-
ury, Post Office, and Executive Office,
Mr. VAUGHAN GARY, stated that at the
end of the present fiscal year the Coast
Guard would have unobligated $43,942,-
000 of the amount appropriated last year.
I found the statement very ' disturbing
because our study of the Coast Guard's
needs during hearings on the authoriza-
tion bill did not reveal such a prospect.
Since completion of the action of the
House on the appropriation bill I have
inquired into the situation and find that
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GARY]
had bee misinformed as to the facts.
At the end of March there remained
slightly over $16 million of fiscal 1964
funds unobligated, which during the bal-
ance of the fiscal year will be reduced
by approximately another $10 million,
leaving a balance of funds to be carried
over, but planned for obligation in fis-
cal year 1965, estimated at $6,402,754.
The sum which will be unobligated at
the end of the current fiscal year repre-
sents funds required for acquisition, con-
struction, and improvement items pres-
ently in process but not scheduled for
completion until next year, or even later.
In the normal course of doing business
the obligation of these funds will be
made during future stages in the prog-
ress of projects now underway. For ex-
ample, obligations were incurred during
the month of January 1964 for the con-
struction of the hull and machinery of
a high endurance cutter. The construc-
tion of a major vessel can take as much
as 2 years or more to complete, and there
are many items of outfit and equipment
that are, under good practice, not pro-
cured until the major construction work
is well advanced. Therefore, some of
the funds appropriated for the construc-
tion and equipping of such a vessel must
await obligation until 1965.
There is set forth below the correct
figures reflecting the actual unobligat-
7415
ed balances at the end of December 1963
and at the ends of January, February,
and March 1964, plus a projection of the
unobligated balances remaining at the
ends of April, May, and June 1964, based
upon firmly planned obligations during
the fourth quarter.
I include in the RECORD the following
table which will reflect these facts:
Appropriation: Acquisition, construction,
and improvements, Coast Guard
Funds available for obligation:
Unobligated funds, June 30,
1963------------------------ $9,222,525
Appropriation, fiscal year 1964- 51, 000, 000
Total funds available for
obligation in 1964------ 60, 222, 525
Unobligated balances through
3rd quarter, fiscal 1964:
On Dec. 31, 1963------------- 36, 712, 236
On Jan. 31, 1964------------- 25, 403, 174
On Feb. 29, 1964------------- 24, 572, 372
On Mar. 24,- 1964------------- 22, 657, 245
On Mar. 31, 1964------------ 16, 214, 040
Unobligated balances after
planned obligations during
4th quarter, fiscal 1964:
On Apr. 30, 1964------------ 13, 989, 566
On May 31, 1964-------------- 9,223,114
On June 30, 1964------------- 16,402,754
'This balance is planned for obligation
in fiscal 1965.
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. GARY] who is chairman of
the subcommittee- handling this particu-
lar appropriation be permitted to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. GARY. Mr. Speaker, the appro-
priation for "Acquisition, construction,
and improvements" for the U.S. Coast
Guard provides funds for the major cap-
ital expenditures of the Coast Guard in
connection with modernization and re-
placement of vessels, aircraft, and shore
installations. This appropriation is
known as a "no year" appropriation-
meaning that the funds may be carried
over from year to year until expended,
and do not revert to the Treasury at the
end of each fiscal year as do normal ap-
propriations. In addition, any amounts
that are deobligated pursuant to changes
in the program as well as amounts be-
low estimates remain in the account to
be used for other projects as required.
The committee realizes that capital
expenditures under these programs must
of necessity fluctuate from time to time
and that accurate and positive forecasts
of costs and balances cannot be made
due to the long leadtime necessary for
procurement of such major items as
cutters and other large vessels and air-
craft. Consequently, the committee has
never considered it proper to base its ap-
propriation recommendations on esti-
mates of unobligated balances, and the
committee did not do so in its recom-
mendation for fiscal year 1965. The
committee has never seen fit to reduce
or rescind the unobligated balances in
this appropriation, because such bal-
ances provide a necessary and desirable
margin for the proper operation of the
program.
The figure of $43,942,000 which I men-
tioned during the debate on the bill came
Approved For Release 2006/07/06: CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130008-0
 Approved For Release 2006/07/06: CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130008-0
Approved For Release 2006/07/06: CIA-RDP71 B00364R000600130008-0