CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000100750002-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 20, 1999
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: February 20, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

FOIAb3b
='Y
'e.
i.d
m
Februar ti~19PY Appro CUNFG9~E,55q 1~f P H 1539
optimistic" that the United States would
obtain guarantees that its agricultural
products would gain entry into the Com-
mon Market countries.
Concessions on agricultural products
are, of course, the key to any industrial
agreement. Previously, U.S. "tradesters"
have said that unless the Europeans
make some type of "significant" offers
which would allow U.S. agricultural entry
into the Common Market, no industrial
tariff concessions would be granted to
their countries.
When our subcommittee held hearings
In August of 1966, we were informed
that the United States felt agricultural
offers from the European Economic Com-
munity were totally unacceptable. Now,
suddenly, we are told that the lack of
any agricultural concessions should not
hold up an industrial tariff deal. Quite
obviously, American agriculture is being
sold out on the sacrificial altar of free
trade once again.
Mr. Speaker, as the subcommittee
delves deeper into the real status of our
trade negotiations in Geneva, I hope that
every Member will take the time to ex-
amine the committee hearings and find-
ings and see exactly what is being done
with U.S. agricultural and industrial
markets. If agriculture has already been
sold out, it may not be too long until
our negotiators, hungry for some shred
of concession victory, will give away all
I THE CIA?
(Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute, to revise and extend his
remarks, and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker,
the current furor over the real and al-
leged activities of the Central Intelli-
gence Agency is a matter of reasonable
concern to many Americans. What is
not so reasonable is the hysteria with
which these revelations have been
greeted in some quarters. In the present
sensationalist atmosphere it is easy to
lose sight of the legitimate role that such
an agency must play to safeguard and
promote the best interests of the free
society in response to a totalitarian ad-
versary that will employ any and all
means to gain its ends. .
Because of its very nature, an agency
such as the CIA cannot undertake to
defend itself publicly. Since an objec-
tive appraisal of the Agency's activities
cannot be made in the press, or on limited
and superficial information, taken out of
context, it remains for those with the
appropriate authority in the Congress
and in the Executive to pass Judgment.
To date there appears to be no expres-
sions of hysteria on their part.
I was impressed with the editorial ap-
pearing in the Washington Sunday Star,
on February 19, 1967, entitled, "What Are
We Trying To Do to the CIA?" It en-
deavors to put the situation in proper
perspective and its timely question is one
that all Americans should ponder. I in-
clude the editorial at this point in the
WHAT ARE WE TRYING To DO TO. THE CIA?
It is just possible, if we all manage to
work ourselves into a wild enough lather,
that the current flap over the CIA can be
escalated to the point where it will destroy
the nation's intelligence organization. It
almost seems that this is what som6 of the
breast-beaters would like to do.
One clay we have a disclosure that a stu-
dent organization has been receiving covert
funds so that young Americans can com-
pete with young Communists at world stu-
dent meetings. Then, suddenly, nothing will
do but that every traceable operation of the
CIA must be laid bare to public view, com-
mented upon in tones of pious horror, in-
vestigated, sermonized, deplored and pun-
ished, until the terrible guilt of it all has
been established for all time, for all the world
to see.
And what, precisely, are we guilty of?
Why, of using our wits and available means
to compete in a battle just as real, dirty and
deadly serious as any shooting war in which
we could engage.
Confronted by adversaries who threw the
full power and wealth of the state Into the
effort to mold and control. world opinion,
we did not abandon the field to them. In-
stead, we devoted some public funds to see-
ing to it that Americans coupd confront the
totalitarians in the intellectual lists abroad,
speaking their minds in representing the
views of a relatively free society.
It worked, incidentally. A wide variety
,of Americans, most' of whom never knew
the source of the funds backing them, proved
more than able over the years to hold their
own in confrontation with disciplined, pro-
fessional Communist agents. They prevented
the takeover of numerous international or-
ganizations and established others which
have contributed substantially to the global
cause of freedom.
Consider for example, the experience of
Gloria Steinem, as interestingly reported in
yesterday's Washington Post. A New York
writer, Miss Steinem was director of some-
thing called "The Independent Research
Service," which took CIA money to send
several hundred young Americans to World
Youth festivals in Vienna and Helsinki in
1959 and 1962.
Miss Steinem said she worked closely with
CIA agents on the program, but that few
of the students who took those trips knew
that the CIA was picking up the tab.
"I never felt I was being dictated to at
farsighted and open to an exchange of ideas.
They wanted to do what we wanted
to do-present a healthy, diverse view of
the United States."
She was backed up by Dennis Shaul, an-
other spokesman for the organization, who
said: "We had Minnesota schoolteachers
who were further right than Bill Buckley as
well as members of Students for a Demo-
cratic Society. Nobody told them what to
do."
Bear in mind, except for such American.
participation financed by CIA funds, these
festivals were completely dominated by Com-
munists, all financed and controlled by their
governments. Yet, says Shaul, "The Hel-
sinki festival was a disaster from their point
of view, and I think we can take a good deal
of credit for that."
Well now, why not? Is this really some-
thing that has to be apologized for? Who
is corrupted by such an operation? Who
would have paid the Americans' expenses
If the CIA hadn't?
"The CIA," says Miss Steinem, "was the
only (organization) with enough guts and
foresight to see that youth and student
affairs were important." And here, the lady
puts her finger on an Important point.
Of course, it would have been better if
this sort of thing could have been done with-
out subterfuge. It is too bail that private
funds were not available for these purposes.
It would have been healthier, lacking such
private sources, for our government to have
appropriated openly the necessary monies,
through the State Department, U.S. Infor-
mation Agency or some other "respectable"
organization. Even though no such alterna-
tive may have been available when these
programs were initiated in the early 1950s,
it would have been advisable to switch them
away from CIA support as soon as that
became possible.
No one, moreover, can possibly defend all
the details of any one of these operations.
No doubt there have been messy procedures
which, when exposed, prove embarrassing.
There is, one inevitably recalls, a saying
about making omelettes and breaking eggs.
What Is beyond comprehension in all this,
however, is the monumental naivete in-
volved in the apparent shock reaction to
these disclosures on the part of otherwise
knowledgeable people. After all, what have
the outraged gentlemen supposed was going
on all this time on the sprawling acres out
at Langley? Of all the endeavors of the
CIA, the effort to create outlets abroad for
the expression of American opinion must
surely rank as one of the milder. This is
not, be it noted, a tea party that we have
been engaged in. This is a viciously con-
tested undercover war against shrewd, ded-
icated enemies who happen to be quite un-
hampered by nice-Nellie scruples. The need
to press this fight has all along been recog-
nized by the top leadership of the country.
The procedures that suddenly evoke such
outraged reactions were not dreamed up pri-
vately by the CIA. They were directed from
the top, and properly so.
The idea that an organization like the
CIA can conduct its operations while re-
strained by a sort of daisy-chain of clergy-
men, den mothers and liberal politicians-
such a notion is simply absurd. For our
part, we hope that the present hysteria will
be calmed with a rational inquiry conducted
by responsible and realistic men who have
some knowledge of the very serious probe
lame involved. We are inclined to suspect
that they, and the public, will end up con-
cluding that the world has not, after all,
ended-and that, in doing a job which had
to be done, our intelligence organization has
not 'done too badly.
ARE AND PENSION PLAN PRO-
TECTION ACT OF 1967
(Mr. PERKINS asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include an
analysis.)
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, we are,
as the President has said, beginning to
recognize "the right to a meaningful re-
tirement" and "the right to an adequate
income." The private pension. and wel-
fare funds are vital factors in achieving
these rights.
Private welfare and pension plans
grow bigger and more numerous every
year. Already some $3 billion is paid out
annually to beneficiaries and over $90
billion has been accumulated. The eco-
nomic security of millions of American
workers and their families is dependent
upon the plans ultimately providing ben-
efits for them-benefits which the work-
ers have earned and included in their
planning.
The law' does not adequately or uni-
formly protect the funds or their bene-
ficiaries frorh the risk of financial mis-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP75-OO1.49RG001 00750002-0