(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 20, 2000
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: July 18, 1968
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
The 93rd meeting of the CIA RETIREMENT BOARD
convened at 1:35 p.m. on Thursday, 18 July 1968, with the following present:
25X1A9a
25X1A9a Shall we look at the Minutes of the 92nd
Meeting?
25X1A9a Paragraph 10, page 3 of the Minutes. I
didn't get the idea that we were actually going to ask to 25X1A9a
25X1AAoame here. And actually what I'm doing is getting a statement from Jim
describing in greater detail some of their
activities -- which I think will answer the purpose here. But I don't
remember this as the way we had left it--
25X1A9a We all heard it differently, including the
25X1A9a
Recording Secretary. I understood you to say you were going to talk to
and get a statement from him -- I don't think it was defined
25X1A9a
In any event, I don't think this is what was
contemplated. And I have such a statement in preparation now but it's not
ready for today's meeting, so we will have to scratch the
from the agenda for today.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
case 25X1A9a
Are there any reasons why it would be
desirable for John to come before the Board?
We could ask him questions.
I think, though, you would want to first see
the statement and see if that doesn't provide the necessary information.
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 U 178-03092A0
Exclude; (rc aata!~ailc
08b ',` b0i-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a Although we never quite got to it, I'm not
sure that wouldn't qualify even under (11)(c) by the nature of his
duties. I would guess the statement would probably be adequate.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a Okay. If there are no changes or additions
to the Minutes, we will accept them as presented and go on to the first agenda
item, which is the case of Mr
criteria for designation and has completed more than 15 years of Agency
service.
I move we offer him an election.
25X1A9a Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
The case of , who will
shortly - within six months - complete 15 years of Agency service,
which entitles him to a vesting--
25X1A9a
15 years have been completed.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Item C is who is applying
for voluntary retirement. He is 53, and he has performed more than 60
months of qualifying service, more than 20 years of Federal service, and
more than 15 years of Agency service.
25X1A9a One thought on this which I might mention to
the Board to refresh your memory. I was checking the contract employment,
and if I understand correctly, you said 16 years -- which I guess comes out
right -- but he will not be covered for six months of that contract employment.
In other words, for that period from January 1, 1955, on, he is not covered,
but he is covered for the two and a half years before that.
2
Approved For Release 2001/03 UJ-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
Id'CRET
25X1A9a Yes.
25X1A9a It's contract employment where he is covered
under Social Security . Prior to January 1, 1955 is covered -- any subsequent
contract employment prior to entry on, is not covered. So you have
excluded that six months?
25X1A9a Yes.
Other than that, I would certainly recommend
that he be allowed to voluntarily retire.
25X1A9a
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
going to skip the
meeting.
25X1A9a
Now we go on to some unusual cases. We're
case today. We will table that until the next
We come to This individual is age
59, has 16 years of Agency service, 26 years of Federal service, and 53
months and nine days of qualifying service -- is deficient by some six months
and 21 days.
25X1A9a If I can help -- I'm very familiar with this case.
I'm a little bit puzzled at the remark under
paragraph 8 on the check list. It says: Subject has vested right to elect to
remain in the System.
25X1A9a
He was in the System, and on the basis
that he had more than 15 years of Agency service--
25X1A9a Once in the System, he would acquire a vested
right.
25X1A9a was in the System. We
brought him in after some deliberation because he had a year and a half to go,
and he only needed six months -- so he could have gotten it -- and therefore we
brought him in. When the 15 years rolled around he had not had the additional
3
Approved For Release 2001/03/ iCf E4RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
service, so we put him out of the System. He therefore was entitled to
opt now for age 62 retirement. And what he is saying here is: I'll get out
at 59 and a half if you can see at least six months of my service as being
qualifying, really, under (11)(c). As explained in the memo here, George
has been in charge of a COMINT effort and has been heavily involved in
cryptanalysis and traffic analysis, and truly the type of effort that seems to
me falls very well within this idea that he definitely can't talk about it and
there is certainly no comparable activity on the outside.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Yes. Also significant, I believe, is
M statement that he would welcome the retirement of Mr. = 25X1A9a
to unblock this key GS-15 position, to which he would like to move some younger,
high potential officer.
Also, Emmett, I made a little note here for myself that
when we previously considered this case you had written him a letter -- I
refer to paragraph 3 of your letter of 6 October 1966:
25X1A9a
"3. If it is the Board's recommendation that Mr.
- be removed from the System, such action could
adversely affect his entitlements under the System and
would therefore require that Mr. - be notified,
through the Head of his Career Service, of the Board's
tentative conclusion and of his right to submit any pertinent
information to the Board in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph c. (3) of
25X1A9a
25X1A
Again, this was when we were all feeling our way here,
and my thought was that today we would probably urge immediate consideration
of possible domestic qualifying service before we put him out anct then, kind
of foolishly, later on bring him back in on the basis of something he already
had. It would seem to me that now when we're ready to put somebody out
because he's shy five or six months, now we would say - "Well, let's take a
look at his domestic service" - and probably save a couple of exercises.
25X1A9a
I feel this fellow is qualified and I would like
Approved For Release 2001/03/0&EQJIEkDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
GS-15 for a good many years.
Paul? On the (11)(c) premise or on the premise that he has, in fact, or
is performing domestic qualifying duty?
25X1A9a Well, looking at his record as a whole, that
it just makes good sense -- and taking into account, also, management's
objectives in this case for taking steps to renew the service.
25X1A9a
Second.
May I discourse? On what premise,
We discuss around the table - is it (11)(c),
is it qualifying, and so on -- but when we finally go to press on it, we usually
say - taking the thing as a whole. The record will show what we considered.
But we have sort of stayed away from citing anything specific.
25X1A9a The point I was trying to make is that if
Paul was saying, in effect, that performance of his COMINT duties constitutes
domestic qualifying service, then we might have a whole bunch of people--
25X1A9a I say that is one thing we have to toss in the
balance. To me, to feel some of these things -- sometimes I feel good about
a case, sometimes I feel bad--
25X1A9a
Just again for the record here, my thought
here is it is more clearly (11)(c) -- at the time of retirement, looking at it
retrospectively - yes, this man would be disadvantaged to the extent of this
work. But yes, you need all the rest of it. And six months is not very
much- -
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
That was the basis for my seconding the
Emmett, is there an error here? I notice
your memo of October, 1966, refers tom as a GS-12.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Yes, that was a mistake. He has been a
There is no question but what he will retire?
He will retire -- and two and a half years
5
Approved For Release 2001/03/OSE DP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
earlier than he might otherwise.
25X1A9a
SECRET
I'd like to say that in submitting this upward
for approval I would like to state that this recommendation of the Board is
based in part upon his stated intention to retire at age 59 and a half in
December of 1968.
25X1A9a
(No response.)
Instead of at age 62.
To facilitate a retirement sought by management.
Okay. Any further discussion on the motion?
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
The next case is that of
who has 45 months and one day of qualifying service.
25X1A9a
I have kind of a complicated question -- and
Murray was out of the office, so I couldn't 40 straighten it out with him.
would like to just clarify the timing.
This man claims in his write-up that
leads to the six years, 28 months in EUR - overseas, but you (indicating
25X1A9a
say 25 months, 13 days.
Much more significantly, he claims
12 and a half months in the period '60 through '61 there -- and you say two
months and 18 days. There is a big discrepancy here.
then he truly is about home on this thing.
And if he was right,
You say from December 1960
to February 23, 1961, two months and 18 days -- and he says 12 and a half
25X1A9a
It's on page 5 of Attachment A -- April
1960 to June 1961 -- he was assigned to a location outside the continental limits
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
That location EL: Yes,
- Okay. I just wondered.
25X1A6a
25X1A6a
25X1A6a
6
Approved For Release 2001/03/OSE1 DP78-03092A000500130002-8
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
;SECRET
still came through pretty clearly to me.
25X1A9a
Is he merely seeking a vested interest this
time, or is he seeking to retire--
25X1A9a
That doesn't come through clearly. It just
says he wants in the System -- and this may be do or die for him. He isn't
committing himself to actually retiring.
25X1A9a
Why shouldn't we check on that aspect? We
haven't gone very far in admitting domestic service except in a case where a
man was on the point of retiring. And this would be a new departure.
25X1A9a It would be -- but we're coming closer here
to hazardous duty--
25X1A9a case, he didn't
retire, did he?
25X1A9a He elected not to come into the System.
But in that case we were seeking for
domestic duty as equating foreign duty, without reference to a pending
immediate retirement.
25X1A9a Was that that fellow out in some- 25X1A6a
place?
He was a security man who was put up
by the Office of Security as exemplifying a certain group of individuals in the
entire Security structure whom the Office of Security felt could be granted
qualifying duty. And we went over those cases very carefully and concluded
that certain types of actions and certain types of activities on the part of these
people within this special group, we would give them qualifying duty for -- but
not all of it - for instance, the escorting of defectors--
25X1A9a
25X1A9a used - - our
That was the experience I
experience with the _ case.
25X1A9a I don't think of this as (11)(c).
8
Approved For Release 2001/03/0SE&-1f1-iDP78-03092A000500130002-8
But this man has quite a bit--
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
Let's say you went to the man and he said:
No, I don't plan to retire, but this may well be my last tour and therefore
it's pretty critical that I have a decision from you whether I need these two
more months or not. I think there is sufficient justification here to make a
ruling on his service.
25X1A9a Going through the same process as Mike
described, I made the judgment that he did indeed have the necessary qualifying
time based on similarity to past cases with some of this activity we thought
was qualifying.
I don't even think there is a great difference
between our judgment here not many weeks ago of being sufficiently
difficult and hazardous, -- even if it's
not outside the continental limits -- it's really unusual type of duty.
25X1A9a
Oh very definitely. I certainly would be
willing to make a recommendation that we find 13 months-- It's almost
15 months, isn't it? Oh no -- he will do two more months after the 45
before his tour is over. So it's 47 months -- therefore we need only 13
months out of all his service--
25X1A9a 13 months and 12 days, I found.
Anyway, the motion would be that we do find
the necessary 13 months, based on his entire record of hazardous duty. His
tour is not over until September -- so he will get that in.
25X1A9a
This is a very important decision to him
and we can't afford to make any mistakes.
25X1A9a
we found only 11 months.
25X1A9a
He is apparently willing to accept it if
I wonder if we couldn't avoid pinning it down
9
Approved For Release 2001/03&iC 4.RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
25X1A6a
25X1A6a
25X1A
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
to the months and days, just in case there is an error here or he comes back
two months sooner than he thinks he will.
25X1A9a
I guess we have two questions -- one, what he
is advised, and the other one is what the Board says about his qualifying service.
25X1A9a
Is it conceivable we could say : The Board
has reviewed his past service, including his present tour, and unanimously
agrees that upon completion of his tour he meets the requirement of 60 months
of qualifying service. That begs the question. It doesn't add up the figures,
but leaves it loose.
25X1A9a I'm afraid we could sit here all day and quibble
about each 13 and 14 day period. But we all did our homework - - and Mike
and I came up with 13 months - -
25X1A9a
Well, I think that would be a little dangerous,
Mr. Chairman, because if something happened to him tomorrow somebody
might say - "Well, he was to stay on until September, at which time the
Board found he would have completed it. " I think we ought to pass on it
right now.
25X1A9a Right.
Otherwise it might create some problems.
Either find him qualified or not qualified, and on his entire record.
25X1A9a
September.
25X1A9a
You don't want to say - based on completion
Yes, we know he is going to stay on until
Now it's pushing a little bit. I'd like to
say "upon completion of his tour" and not pin it down.
25X1A9a
Except, suppose he got run over tomorrow --
he would not be in the System. Now maybe that is the completion of his tour,
if he dies. But that could raise some question in the minds of some people.
I think we ought to find for, or find "no", right now.
Approved For Release 2001/03/A2-U8&IRDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
When is he due back?
25X1A9a
His 18 months will be up in August but
he says he's not going to be back until September.
25X1A9a
of it, that is added on to his tour.
25X1A9a
I guess what we are saying, we have already
given him credit for 47 months -- if we take off the 10 months from this
12 and a half months, we are saying of the 23 other months he has outlined
here, we are going to give him 13 to 15 months -- that is about what it amounts
18 February -- 18 months.
to.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A
I think we have to find anywhere from 13
to 15 months -- because I take it that has already found 45 months
and one day
25X1A9a
hat is right.
So we kno
25X1A9a
But if you strike the 10 months difference of
opinion between his 12 and a half months and the two months and 18 days
that they gave, then he is down to about 23 other months of service which he
is putting up as qualifying, and out of that we have to find 13 to 15 months as
qualifying service -- 13 months if he. stays on until September, which he says
he will - - and that I found very easy to do.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
I went back and reviewed the Mase
and the comments we made on that case, and I used that as guidance for this
case. And I took each one of the paragraphs that he has outlined here, and
I must have found 15 or 20 that I didn't allow for -- well, I didn't "not allow"
for them, except to say I needed more information here. But the ones that
25X1A9a I felt fell within the - case, I found a little over 13 months. So if you add
that to the 45 you would get 58 months and some days -- and I felt that
11
Approved For Release 2001/03/
fMEIRDP78-03092A000500130002-8
Muir
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
certainly on one of the 15 or 18 that I refused to accept without additional
information, I daresay he could come in here and explain a little further and
we would have found the additional month and a half.
25X1A9a
Again, Mike, the 17 months is from February
1967 to 18 July -- and he is going to stay until September -- so you've got
25X1A9a So that even strengthens the case.
When these people in Vietnam come
back -- they come back twice in the course of a tour for a month's leave --
does that count toward their overseas--
25X1A9a
e don't give them the travel time - - and
that is one of his problems here. I notice there is even a two months difference
on his tour in Europe -- he said he was there 28 months, and you (indicating
25X1A9a
say 25 months and 13 days -- was it departure to arrival in
25X1A9a
I think based upon the entire record I
could find this man's duty to be qualifying.
25X1A9a That, to me, is the safest thing to do, without
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
getting down to the days, weeks, and months. We have lots of evidence here
that he was an eager beaver in volunteering for overseas assignments, has
in fact gone overseas, and is now overseas.
Say: as of this date we find sufficient
qualifying service to allow him to be a participant.
And at the same time, without exposing
ourselves to opening up a precedent for the other security cases.
Well, I think we will probably be getting them,
25X1A9a
Well, are we ready for a vote? or a resolution?
Approved For Release 2001/03/0SE tDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
Mike, I think you actually made one.
I'll make that in the form of a r-f
25X1A9a
-- of the individual's career, we find him
to have performed 60 or more months of qualifying service.
25X1A9a
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
get this far in my homework. I got up to this case.
Approved For Release 2001 /03/OSEO E DP78-03092A000500130002-8
25X1A9a
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
which he never, evidently, was able to extricate himself. And it was as a
result of that initial going in the hole that his wife got part-time work as
a teacher. She may be teaching now -- I don't know.
25X1A9a
Mike, if I may correct the record, part
of the claim was the loss of his wife's salary -- she had resigned because she
was getting ready to go -- and her salary for a period was part of his claim.
25X1A9a
Yes, you're right. Now it comes back to
me. But she did have to go back to teaching, and when she went back it was
on a part-time basis. Now whether she is working full-time or part-time today,
25X1A9a
I don't know.
Approved For Release 2001/03/028EP78-03092A000500130002-8
 25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
insurance, I would imagine.
Well, I'm willing to make the mofion that we recommend
to the Director of Personnel that this man be extended for one year.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
with appropriate caveats, that the Board feels that this should not be a
continuing thing. I mean, suppose he says - "Well, look, I was unable to
make it in a year -- I need another year"?
25X1A9a
Well, I realize the Director keeps doing this.
We are not saying we will or we won't, but there is certainly nothing to indicate
that we would do it again. Are you saying we should write into it: "No
further extension will be considered" ? We have done that.
25X1A9a It doesn't seem to matter -- they're
coming back that way anyhow.
25X1A9a Yes. All we would be doing is beating the
Director to it by putting it in our recommendation. And even that wouldn't
really inhibit us, if we thought we had a good case, from saying - "Despite
that fact you said that, we still recommend- Well, Joe will get the
word, whether he gets it via the D/Pers-- When the Director sends it back
that is what it will say. But I think there were one or two that he didn't
put it on, and I don't know whether it was just an omission on his part, or he
meant it- -
25X1A9a
He didn't put it on
25X1A9a
first place?
25X1A9a
How did he get to stay on to age 62 in the
He was one who received word in 1964
when the policy was age 62, that he would have to retire in 1969 -- and there
was no change in his retirement date even though the policy changed to 60.
17
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
I suppose in general we would mention the
fact that by and large it is a compassionate case, obviously.
25X1A9a Alan, did you finish your comment about the
25X1A9a I'll withdraw it.
It has been moved and seconded we endorse
25X1A9a
the extension of for one year.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
Next case, Harry Lee.
I move we extend for one year.
Second.
. . . This motion was then passed . . .
That motion is based on hardship? Because
you know, it's specifically stated in the Director's policy statement that these
people were not supposed to receive special consideration by reason of the
nature of their employment.
25X1A9a
The policy does not spell out any special
consideration for this type of --
25X1A9a In fact it does the contrary -- it rejects
special consideration for just this type, as I read it. The question came up
and it was turned down cold.
25X1A9a He is not being considered for extension
because reliable chauffeurs are hard to find, and that sort of thing. That was
ruled out, as I recall.
25X1A9a But don't you think that, in context, there was
consideration given to - "Let's automatically sort of exclude the GS-7's or
below" -- and that was ruled out. But on a case-by-case basis, I think the
Board has leeway - of saying yea or nay.
SECREl
Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : IA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
25X1A9a In other words, this one (case of
is hardship, and that is the only criterion.
25X1A9a
25X1A9a
And a hard to recruit category.
Well, are we through with the cases?
Yes.
I have two little pieces of information I
would like to pass on to the Board. Maybe you all know this -- but active
duty tours for training outside of the Agency -- in other words, not while
you're-working for the Government -- count toward your annuity. In other
words, if a fellow has done six 2-week active duty training tours as a
Reservist before he came into the Government, that is 12 more weeks--
25X1A9a
They take out for Social Security there, you
know. That is under Social Security.
By law, reservist time--
25X1A9a
Prior to the time ... (inaudible) ...
Prior to 1957,
I have some statistics here which we had to get up for
another reason, and there are 544 people who will be - by 1 January 1969 -
qualified for retirement under the CIA System. Of these, 360 are in the
Clandestine Services, 147 Support, 26 Intelligence, 8 in Research, and 3 in
the Office of the Director. The more interesting thing, I believe, is that
of the 360 in the Clandestine Services 234 are Grades 13, 14, and 15. This
sort of confirms the high concentration of this age group at the 13, 14 and 15
level.
25X1A9a
By when?
By this next
factors, I think, is the effort being made to open it up, and this is the group,
generally, that you are sort of shooting for.
I thought that might be interesting to the Board.
25X1A9a Can anyone say anything about the visit
Approved For Release 2001/03/
January. One of the significant
afft--PDP78-03092AO00500130002-8
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
to the Hill yesterday by Colonel White and the Admiral?
25X1A9a
of a first-hand report. It was the full Committee, with L. Mendell Rivers
Yes. Bob Wattles went along, so I got sort
very much in charge, and most of the key members there - Bates, Porter
Hardy- - And Admiral Taylor did the talking. He apparently got into
a little bit of trouble, or was heading toward trouble, but he quickly recognized
it and turned it over to Col. White. And there were some questions --
mostly friendly. One in particular, of course, was: Is there a provision
for the salaries to go downward if the cost of living goes downward? And
we had to admit - no, that it was a one-way street -- but in today's climate
that is like providing for a reversal in the law of gravity, or something. But
it was brought up. There was a statement of - "I can't believe that you
could get 12. 2% behind" -- so we're being asked to give them the arithmetic.
In other words, he didn't think there was that much difference between the
annual base and the 3-month base of the two systems to get that much behind.
At the appropriate time Mendell Rivers said, "If there is no further discussion,
are there any objections?" And within 10 seconds after he said that, "So
ordered" -- which, translated, means it's reported out to the floor. So
it's out of the full Committee in the House.
25X1A9a
joined the meeting at
25X1A9a -
before Mendell Rivers.
25X1A9a
why I'm late - - because I was working on some examples.
25X1A9a
difference?
What is the explanation for the 12. 2%
Mechanical application of the formulas in
the law.
20
Approved For Release 2001/03/025. DP78-03092A000500130002-8
this point . . .
John, I was just telling what happened
^ The Committee has approved it. That is
 Approved For Release 2001/03/02 : CIA-RDP78-03092A000500130002-8
SECRET
25X1A9a
And is it retroactive?
Yes indeed! For example, one of the
examples we had worked up - - which, again, I hadn't fully focussed on - - but
let's take two assumed retirements with an annuity of $6, 000 on 1 July 1965 --
the Civil Service man's annuity today is $7, 009. 00, the CIA Retirement
annuity is $6, 276. 00, as of today. This is what really bothers
25X1A M and other people, the figures work out to that much of an
increase -- which is really 16. 8%, in effect, in a three year period.
25X1A9a
16. 8% - that is the total increase the Civil
Service has had, but ours does drop it--
25X1A9a 12.4.
Any status report on plans to reorganize
I haven't heard anything. I can't give you
John, I was about to venture, without really
knowing -- just based on what Bob Wattles said -- that the thought was that
they would not put it back into Committee in the Senate but take it right out to
the floor.
25X1A9a They will probably not hold Committee
hearings in the sense they had the one yesterday, but will simply report it out.
ou think it will pass?
25X1A9a I'm very much encouraged -- very much
encouraged.
By when, John?
This year.
Very good!
Any other New Business? (No response.)
. . . . The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p. m. . . . .
25X1A
Approved For Release 2001/03/QSEefr-IDP78-03092A000500130002-8
 I T T 0
UNCLASSIFIED FYD IA
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INI
3
R3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE
REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
a
O - e
W W-- RM N
22 July
FORM NO. 237 Use previous editions
2-61 L I
(40)
N.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1961 0-587282