INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH RICHARD M. HELMS AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B02992A000100020006-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 23, 2006
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: July 31, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

uni
to be the li
people. -
opposed by the p
States.
In order that the
Nation may have the
dicated article, I- quote
remarks:
117801 Approved For Release -ki T1~72St5U`Z~9Z,'0020006-9 , July 2'9 1975
over the Zone will be proved
st friends of the Panamanian
fists in the Congress and
not been authorized
it is overwhelmingly
(By Charles W. W Whale,\Jr;)
It is ironic that as it approac,ies the two
hundredth anniversary of its independence,
the United States is one of the World's re-
country continues to cling to a 553-s uare
mile enclave in the heart of Panama in a
headed by a presidentially-appointed govern-
nor. Ordinances prescribing the- conduct of
cuted by a United States District Attoj/ney
and adjudicated by a Federal District qourt.
Virtually all commercial enterprise and
deep-water port facilities within thy' terri-
tory are operated by Americans. For the use
of its land we pay the government o Panama
a miniscule $2.3 million annual! . Perhaps
the most imperious manifestation. of our
presence is the election every 4ur years of
delegates to one of our countr_ 'e major po-
The future of the Pananr Canal may be
one of the most explosive 1,, ues to confront
the Western Hemisphere /during this cen-
tury. Panamanians are de 'ty concerned that
an alien power operate? do facto colony
cutting a 10-mile swath through the cen-
ter of their nation. Cpnsiderable friction in
United States-Panama relations already has
resulted from the continuation of policies
based upon the /1903 Hay-Bunau-Variila
Treaty. The 1964 ",flag incident," for instance,
caused 24 death( During the 1973 meeting
of the United rations Security Council in
Panama the United States cast the third
veto in its lsfstory to defeat a resolution
supporting tlfe?Canal posture of the Torrijos
government,
Recognizing the volatility of the situation,
the Nixorsadrninistration in 1973 committed
itself to..'ienegotiate the 1903 document. On
February 7, 1974, Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger and Panamanian Foreign Minister
Juan/A. Tack signed an agreement embrac-
ing the principles upon which future treaty
discussions would be predicated. 'T'hese in-
cltide: (1) a fixed termination date for the
new treaty;, (2) a return to Panama of full
jurisdiction. over the territory in which the
Canal is located in exchange for assurances
that the United States would retain the
rights, facilities, and land necessary for its
rived from the Canal..
Conclusion of a new treaty is ex
snarp congressional attack. In the
notion that the Hay-Bunau-Varll
posal exceeds by thr a the 34 votes neces-
sary to block treaty tification. A companion
measure (H.R. 23) initiated by Representa-
tive Daniel J. Flo d (D-Pa.), has 126 House
cosponsors. On rune 26,prethe House, by a
246-164 vote, a opted Representative Gene
Snyder's (R-K .) amendment to the State
Department Appropriations Bi11' which denies
funds "to negotiate surrender or relinquish-
ment of any s. rights in the Panama Canal
If the nate refuses to consent to a new
treaty' w h Panama, what might occur?
Latin American states (and, indeed, the en-
tireiird World) will be severely strained.
rul (a mood we- failed to detect in Indo-
c a), we could become involved in a pro-
+ cted --
citizens, residing in Panama, could be need-
lessly endangered. A distinguished American
orr iJos.
"\Vhat would you do with your National
Guard," he asked the head of state, "if 5,000
Par rnanians stormed the Canal Zone?" Gen-
eral Torrljos smiled and responded: "I would
have 'a difficult decision, wouldn't I? I would
have by choose between shooting Americans
or my dtvn countrymen."
Fourt the Canal Zone could be rendered
inoperab e. It is vulnerable to sabotage. Fur-
ther, ship pwners may be reluctant to route
their vessel through- the Canal where they
would be "s tting ducks" for terrorist activ-
ities_
The forthco ng treaty debate, therefore,
presents the Congress (the House may have
to take certain{mplementing actions) with
two important- challenges.
The first is a test of congressional willing-
ness to embark upop its own "new dialogue"
with Latin Americ N. Panama is an ideal
country with which e could invoke a hemi-
spheric policy :based, \+4}n the words of Chief
Treaty Negotiator Ellsv orth Bunker, on "new
ideas, rather than old mories." Redefining
our relationship with P nama will demon-
strate United States' supp rt of the principle
of self-determination. it a o will signal our
intention to deal with our her Latin Amer-
icon neighbors on a truly eq al basis.
signal competence and respon 4bility in the
foreign policy-making process. Will Congress'
reaction to the new treaty be pchial, in-
sensitive, and uninformed? Or wi the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives crept the
opportunity to avert a crisis before?it occurs
by enabling an ally of long-standing to
achieve a just and reasonable goal?\ -
In Panama, the issues are well defined and
the consequences of our failure to adapt a
new treaty are pditbl If C
recae.ongress' \\re-
jects the treaty, the only question will \be
egoti-
under
istaken
Treaty
ative critics
represents a
Approved For Release 2006106/23: CIA-R?P78BO2992AO00100020006-9
TO IMPEACH RICHAI%D M. HELMS--
AS U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAN
The SPEAKER pro tedipore. Under a
previous order of the House, the
and M Helins,,,as Ambassador to Iran. Ml?.
Helms was the Director of t'' he CIA dur-
ing the years 1966 to 1973. During these
years a long series of apparent violations
of the charter of the CIA occurred under
his direction.
the only rPrt~hn remedy a.vallabl to th
Contend t6 thy, gorain,~,rv to find~n tl?j<
Lilt a1I___ Q1 the, abuses of the CIA and
-toxemave 1mm-p1Wlrr9ffi eat least o`ne
The weapon of impeachment may well
be the only instrument available since
the CIA made an agreement with the
Department of Justice in 1954 that offi-
cials of the CIA would not report illegal
conduct on the part of CIA employees if
the prosecution of such conduct would
inevitably involve the revelation of secret
testimony. Although this pact has now
been declared a nullity, it might well be
claimed by Mr. Helms and others as a
protection for them since they relied
upon it.
Richard McGarragh Helms, born in
1913, .graduated from Williams College
in 1935. He was in the OSS and the U.S.
Navy in the years 1942 to 1946. He be-
came associated with the CIA in 1947
and remained with this unit continu-
ously until he became Deputy Director in
1965-66. Mr. Helms- was the Chief Ex-
ecutive Officer of the CIA from 1966 to
the time of his confirmation as Ambas
sador to Iran in February 1973. Mr.
Helms has testified himself in his con-
firmation hearings that he. spent more
time in the CIA than any present em-
ployee. It is, therefore, not realistic to
assume that there were activities of the
agency unknown to this individual who
gave the CIA almost 20 years of service
before he became its Director.
Before I come to the offenses poten-
tially chargeable to Mr. Helms, it seems
important to clarify two points: First,-
the effect arid impact of the agreement
between the Department of Justice and
the CIA not to prosecute crimes by CIA
employees, and second, precedents in the
law of impeachment for removing an
individual from a position for impeach-
able offenses- committed by the individ-
ual in a previous position.
THE qrA-JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NON-PROSEC.U-
TION ACREEMSNT
In early 1954 the CIA recognized that
legislation would soon be enacted by the
Congress which would require all Gov-
erninent officers and employees to report
expeditiously to the Attorney General
any violation of Federal law by govern-
mental employees. In order to secure an
exemption from. the forthcoming law,
which became section 515 of t.itla 9Q of
fend the status quo. "` ~uuowaa, uarc
~. j General Counsel of the CIA obtained an
M0Rl/CDF1
 Jury 29, 1975 C RES H 7803
Approved For Re easeIQ[7 ANC - &R 92A0001000200fl6-9
agreement from ,the then Deputy agreement by claiming that the statute W AMBASSADOR HELMS SUBJECT TO IMPEACH-
ney General, Mr.. William P. Rogers, rer allows the Attorney General to dele- MENT FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING IIL'S
Secretary of State, that would permit the gate the prosecution of wrongdoing if TENURE AT THE CIA? .
CIA to withhold information about it belongs to a "specified class of in- The essential thrust of impeachment
-known crimes of its employees if the formation, allegation or complaint." is not punishment, but removal from
prosecution of such crimes would involve The awful fact is that present and public office. Impeachment also brings
the revelation of information which past officials of the CIA. have deliber- under the -Constitution the "disqualifi-
would be embarrassing to the CIA. Iri a ately confused the law and misstated cation to hold and enjoy any office un
memo of February 23, 1954, Mr. Houston the facts seeking to pretend that they der the United States."
reports on his two conversations with Mr. will be law abiding while simultane- - Neither the Constitution-itself nor the
Rogers and records the generally uni--- ously claiming that they have an ex
lateral assertion of the CIA that it would, emption from existing law.
continue its practice of not reporting for . The General Counsel of the CIA on
prosecution crimes by its own employees. July 21, 1975 wrote to the Deputy As-
In August, 1954 the following language, sistant Attorney General, Mr. Kevin
now in 28 U.S. Code 535, became the law: Maroney, Esq., that the files of the CIA
received in a department or agency of the
Executive Branch of the government relating
to violations of Title 18 involving government
officers and employees shall be expeditiously
reported to the Attorney General by the head
of the department or agency,. unless, as to
any department or agency of the government,
the Attorney General directs otherwise with
respect to a specified class of information,
allegation or complaint.
It is not known whether the CIA or any
other agency prompted the inclusion of
the language in this statute following the
word "unless." It is, however, astonish-
ing that on July 23, 1975, John S. War-
ner, General Counsel of the CIA, testify-
ing before a House subcommittee, could
claim that he considered the CIA-Justice
Department agreement of 1954 "consist-
ent" with the exemption that follows the
word "unless" in the statute noted above.
Mr. Warner makes this startling claim,
even though he himself is the author of
a memo on January 31, 1975 revealing
that on January 30 the Acting Attorney
General-Mr. Lawrence Silberman---
ruled that the CIA should comply with
the law and not rely upon the 1954 non-,
prosecution agreement. Mr. Warner re-
vealed in the same memo, however, that
Associate Deputy Attorney General
James A. Wilderotter ruled that there-
port that could be given by the CIA con-
cerning a crime could be "a summary of
the' situation and not an investigatory
report." The CIA summary should also
-clearly state the security problems likely
to arise in a prosecution and thus, in Mr.
Warner's words, "certifying" that there
could be no prosecution.
Mr. Richard Helms undoubtedly knew
of this 20-year-old pact with the Jus-
tice Department and undoubtedly felt
that he could rely upon its provisions.
The fact is that the incredible arrange-
ment between two Federal agencies to
cover up the crimes of CIA employees
in the name of national security has
not really been repealed despite the pro-
testations of Mr. William Colby, the
present CIA Director, that the 1954
agreement has been rescinded. On Jan-
uary 31; 1975 the General Counsel of
the CIA set forth in a "memorandum
for the record" the deceptive way by
which CIA officials can evade the law
binding on all other Federal officials
a
e
and make certain that they cover up nor even criminal in nature. It should
crimes by CIA employees by elaborating be remembered
for example
that Jud
e
,
,
g
on the "security. problems likely to arise Archbald was removed from office for
in a. prosecution." This nullification of conduct which, in at least the view of
the law is so erroneous- and appalling some legal commentators, would have
on its face that Mr. Warner on July 23, been harmless if done by a private
1975 felt constrained to justify the 1954 citizen.
have revealed some 20 cases during the
years 1954 to 1974 in which violations
of criminal statutes were reported to
the Department of Justice. These cases
involved instances of CIA employees
embezzling several thousand dollars of
Government funds or pocketing $15,000
more than a_ person was entitled to
for alleged medical expenses. Mr. War-
,ner pretends that the 1954 agreement
was solely to relieve the CIA of its ob-
ligation under the law. to report the
personal crimes of its employees. The
fact is, of course, that the 1954 agree-
ment was negotiated in order to con-
tinue the immunity which the CIA had
always' claimed up to that time of not
reporting any crimes associated ' with'
the covert `activities of. the CIA.
The duplicity and the deception man-
ifest in the memos and statements of
the present General Counsel of the
logic of impeachment requires that the
demonstration of unfitness occur during
tenure in the same office from which
removal is sought. In the case of the im-
peachment in 1912 .of Judge Robert W.
Archbald, the U.S. House of. Represent-
atives adopted 13 articles of impeach-
ment, 6. of which referred to abuses
committed by Archbald in a prior judi-
cial position on a?lower court. The Sen-
ate voted to convict Archbald, sustaining
,at least one of the charges dealing in
part with offenses in his prior office. It
may be, as will be noted later, that in
addition to offenses committed by Mr.
Helms while serving as Director of the
CIA, he may also have committed an
offense of an impeachable character in
possible perjury during the hearings on
his confirmation as Ambassador to Iran.
Although there is no direct precedent
for the impeachment of an ambassador,
Mr. Helms is clearly subject to impeach
menu, as a civil officer within the mean-
ing of the Constitution. I have received
a written confirmation of that interpre-
tation from the American Law Division
of the Library of Congress. .
that no present or former official of the
CIA is likely to prosecute Mr. Richard
Helms or. any other present or former
employee of the CIA. The CIA can
claim, without being required to prove,
that such prosecution would require
the revelation of facts affecting the na-
tional security, all of which in most
cases are merely facts which would
be embarrassing to the CIA.
If, therefore, it is virtually impossible
for Mr. Richard Helms or any other
former. official of the CIA to be prose-
cuted by the Department of Justice, is
there any way by which the Congress
and the country can insist ,that justice
be done?
The one instrumentality available in
such circumstances is the sword of im-
peachment. The framers of the Constitu-
tion did not intend that the American
people would be required to allow public
officials to continue in office so long as
they did not violate the criminal law.
The weapon of impeachment allows the
Congress and the country to protect the
public from conduct by high officials that
undermines public confidence. It is a
tool which enables the people to remove
from public office individuals who are
undeserving of high public trust. It is
overwhelmingly clear from all of the
precedents of 200 years that impeach-
ment will lie for conduct not indict
bl
PEACHABLE - ' - - -
In the following material I do not in
any way state or imply that Mr. Richard
Helms is guilty of any of the offenses
suggested. It is contended merely that
Mr. Helms has the duty of explaining his
conduct and his statements and that, in
the absence of any believable- explana-
tion, the House of Representatives has
the right and duty to investigate the con-
duct of Mr. Helms during the years when
he was the director of the CIA to deter-
mine whether impeachable offenses have
been committed,
I will set forth very briefly some of
the salient facts about first, operation
CHAOS, second, Mr. Helms' involvement
in the politics of Chile, and third, Mr.
Helms' conduct -in -response to White
House Watergate -requests..
1. OPERATION CHAOS
The Rockefeller Commission Report on
CIA activities within the United States
makes clear the horrifying details of ari
operation initiated by Mr. Helms in
August 1967 designed to collect informa-
tion on foreign contacts with American
dissidents. This is an operation which
in some 5 years collected documents
which include the names of more than
300,000 persons and organizations.
This unit,. entitled "Operation
CHAOS," prepared 3,000 memorandums
for dissemination to the FBI, did exten-
sive surveillance on the peace move-
ments and furnished 26 reports to the
Kerner Commission, some - of which
related almost exclusively to domestic
dissident activities,
From even the 20 pages on Operation
CHAOS in the Rockefeller Report on the
Approved For Release 2006/06/23: CIA-R DP78B02992A000100020006-9
 H 7804.
Approved For Releafe'Qk -I '29 00020006-9 July 29, 1975
CIA It seems clear that Richard HelIW perjury In testimony before a Senate lose of the CIA for the objectives
was Induced. Into this activity' by Presi- Committee. In-the testimony at issue Mr. sought by personnel of the White house.
dential pressure. On November 15, 1967,? Helms told the Senate Committee that OTHER POTENTIAL, OFFENSES
for example Helms delivered personally the CIA had played a limited role in un-
to President Johnson the CIA study on derrnining the Allende government in
the U.S. peace movement requested by Chile.
the President. Although the studies of the A conversation occurred during the
CIA showed that there was virtually no confirmation proceedings of Mr. Helms
evidence of foreign involvement and no in the U.S. Senate on February 7, 1973.
evidence of any foreign financial support The dialog was as follows:
for the peace activities within the United Senator SYMINGTON. Did you try in the
States, Mr. Helms continued fo do sur- Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the
veillance on those who protested the war. government of Chile?
On February 18, 1969, Mr. Helms con- Mr. HELMS. No, Sir.
fessed in a note to-Henry-Kissinger, then Senator SYMINGTON. Did you have any
assistant to President Nixon, the illegali- money passed to the opponents of Allende?
Mr. HELMS. No, Sir.
ties of the CIA of which he was the di- Senator SYMINGTON. So the stories you
rector. His memo to Dr. Kissinger noted were involved in that war are wrong?
that the CIA-prepared document "Rest- Mr. HELMS. Yes, Sir. I said to Senator Ful-
less Youth" included a section of Ameri- bright many months ago that if the agency
can students. Mr. Helms said bluntly: had really gotten in behind the other can-
This is an area not within the charter of didates and spent a .lot. of- money and so
this agency, so I need not emphasize how forth the election might have. come out
extremely sensitive this makes the paper. differently.
(Emphasis supplied) Mr. Helms undoubtedly knew about
The excessive secrecy surrounding
Operation CHAOS and its isolation with-
in the CIA demonstrate once again that
Director Helms knew that it was Im-
proper and beyond the scope of the au-
thorized powers of the- CIP.A.
The Rockefeller Report notes the grow-.
ing opposition of CIA employees and of-
ficials toward. Operation CHAOS. Al-
though the Rockefeller Report soft-
pedals the internal dissension over Oper-
ation CHAOS, it quotes an internal memo
of Director Helms on December 5, 1972
in which he insisted that Operation
CHAOS "cannot be stopped simply be-
cause some members of the! organization
do not like this activity."
Operation CHAOS, which ultimately
had a staff of 52, was directly under the
supervision. of Mr.. Helms. There is no
way in which.he?can claim-that his sub-
ordinates operated this unit without his
knowledge and-consent.. . The. abuses of
power and the countless violations of the
privacy of American citizens might well
be impeachable offenses imputable to Mr.
Richard Helms. An impeachment inquiry
Is the only available- method by which
the covert $8 million campaign con-
ducted by the CIA to bring about Dr.
Allende's downfall.- . -
.The foregoing conversation might or
might not be perjury. Reading the entire
transcript of. the 3 days of hearings on
the ambassadorship of Mr. Helms, it is
difficult,. however, to conclude that one
is reading "the whole truth- and nothing
but the truth." - "
A report in the New ' York Times of
July 27, 1965, claims that Richard. Helms,
while Director of the CIA, prepared a.
memorandum in the fall of 1970 inform-
ing Henery Kissinger and Attorney Gen-
eral John- Mitchell that the agency had
supplied machineguns and tear gas gre-
nades to men plotting to overthrow the
Chilean Government.. ;.
If the Department of Justice ever did
In fact bring perjury or other proceed-
ings against Richard Helms, the officials
of-the CIA would undoubtedly claim that
reasons of national security preclude
their-giving to the Government for its
prosecution or to Mr. Helms for his de
fense a good deal of evidence which
would be indispensable for a -trial. That
Mn Helms can be made accountable for a - particular excuse is not. likely to .have
long series of Intrusions into the lives of much effect or force in an impeachment
American citizens.- inquiry,. as a unanimous U.S. Supreme
Equally damaging to the- privacy of Court decision made clear in a case in-
American citizens was the CIA program. volving Richard Nixon.
to open first class mail. Mr. Helms might ~ a. MR. HELMS AND THE=POST-WATERGATE
well have known from the very beginning WHITE HOUSE - "
about these programs which ran from. On February 1, 1975, the hearings on
1953 to 1973. They were possibly the. the alleged involvement of the Central
largest and the most clearly illegal pro- Intelligence Agency in the Watergate
grams conducted by the CIA. Certainly- and' Ellsberg matters were declassified
this mail-tampering operation was un- and .published. These hearings conducted
der the direct control and supervision of before the Special Subcommittee on in-
Mr. Helms during the 7 years he served telligence of the House Committee on
as Director of the agency. In. addition, it Armed Services demonstrate that Rich-
appears that Richard Helms deliberately - and Helms in the first 6 weeks after the
deceived postal authorities into thinking Watergate break-in on June 17, 1972,
that the operation was limited to the apparently ordered a high official of the
copying of information off envelopes. Agency to withhold Watergate Informa-
2. MR. HELMS' INVOLVEMENT IN CHILE tion and to deny the Justice Department
During the years in which Mr. Helms
was the Chief Executive Officer of the
CIA, that agency has been accussed of
conducting break-ins and wiretaps in
the United States without a warrant,
using local - police credentials to gather
information on anti-war groups, supply-
ing surveillance to local police, using
local police to conduct a break-in, con-
tributing $38,635.58 to the White house
In 1970 to defray the, cost of replying
to people who wrote to President Nixon
following" the Cambodian invasion, and
administering powerful drugs to unsus-
pecting individuals. I make no conclu-
sion here as to the truth of these accusa,
tions or the extent to which Mr. Helms
should be held accountable for these ac-
tivities, but clearly Mr. Helms should be
given the opportunity to vindicate him-
self if that is possible. It seems more and
more clear to me that an impeachment
inquiry is the only way that the Ameri-
can people can obtain the full truth and
judge whether Richard ? Helms is fit to
serve in a position of high public trust.
The American people have a_ right to
know about those deeds of Mn Helms in
the years 1966 to 1973 which may have
violated the fundamental principles by
which Americans live together as a peo-
ple. Mr. Helms also has the right to a
forum where he can vindicate himself
against all of the accusations which day
after day continue to increase and multi-
ply. An impeachment inquiry is the, only
instrumentality which the American
Government has to bring out the truth
of this dark era In American history.
The American peonle have a right to
know whether Richard Helms is a worthy
representative of the people of this coun-
try in Iran. The American peonle have
the right to know whether the CIA,
under'his direction, engaged In a pattern
of deception, law-breaking, and abuse of
power. Because neither the CIA nor the.
Justice Department has done anything
to vindicate the rights of the American
people in this respect, the Coneress, with
regret and reluctance, must initiate im-
peachment proceedings against Richard-
M. Helms.
ON CORRUPTION IN OUR SOCIETY
The SPEAKER. pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from New ?York (Mr. Kocu) is rec-
ognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, we live in a
country that has no peer in terms of
political freedom and the ability of its
citizens to develop their individual ca-
pabilities. Yet there is one. aspect of
contemporary American. culture that
deeply troubles me, which I fear may be
our. Achilles heel, and that, relates to
corruption.
About the only evidence that has access to a key witness. I am not stating Corruption appears to be pervasive in
emerged in the recent past indicating categorically that the 1,131 pages of our society. I am thinking not simply
that the CIA might make its employees those hearings demonstrate that Mr. of the public officeholder who betrays
accountable to the law was the revelation Helms committed impeachable offenses, his trust-a corrupt former President,
in July 1975 that the CIA last year in- But the evidence that is available here a convicted Attorney General, police of-
formed the Justice Department that and elsewhere clearly suggests.that Mr. ficers who extort bribes, building inspec-
Richard Helms might have committed Helms was all too ready to. subvert the tors who exact illegal commissions.
Approved For Release 2006/06/23: CIA-R DP78B02992A00'0100020006-9
 ^ CONFl, _, TIAL
UNCLASSIFIED E-1 U 'NLY L
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
Legislative Counsel
.7D 49
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
George Carver
D/DCI/NIO
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
STAT
1
FORM USE PREVIOUS INTERNAL
3_62 610 1 EApp"rov o ' Jse 20W06 F',F- d i8B 92 a9~Yb~bo200 UNCLASSIFIED
Representative Drinan on
introducing H. Res. 647, the
resolution to impeach Richard
Helms as Ambassador to Iran.