Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 13, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
August 15, 1972
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5.pdf3.75 MB
NEW YORK TIMES Approved Fpr Release 2dC01/01)3901F?CIA-RDP80-01601R00 STATI NTL Ian 2r6; Row cannounces 4,1 Lrt er. A HARPER & Row is publishing this week 'brilliant and controversial study of the international narcoticS traffic and the role played in it by agencies of the U.S. 66vernnient, including the CIA: The boa is THE POLITICS OF HEROIN IN SOUTHEAST ASIA. The principal author ? 'is Alfred W. McCoy,* a twenty-seven year old graduate student in history at Yale University, ? ? ? In early June 1972 Mr. McCoy. .testifted on the general subject, matter of his book be- _Tore the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of /the Senate Appropriations Committee (better . known as the Proxmire Committee). Shortly ? thereafter, the CIA asked Harper & Row for .an oppOrtunity to read Mr. McCoy's manu- ? script prior to publication. The CIA stated , *with Cathleen B. Read and Leonard P. Adonis H MAP "In the light of the Pernicious nature of the drug traffic, alienations concerning involvement of the U.S. Government therein or the participation of American citizens should be made only if based on hard evidence. It is our belief that no reputable publishing house would wish ?to publish such allegations without being assured that the supporting evi- cience vies vAlid.***We believe we could demonstrate to you that a considerable number of Mr. McCoy's claims about this Agency's alleged involvement are totally false and without foundation, a number are distorted beyond recognition, and none Is based on convincing evidence." continued Approved Fol- Release 2001/03/04 : CIA-RDP80-01601R001460220001-5 "" cop 2 frA rOvi,e9:ZR STATI NTL 00 3404:SI1- I 11.7:3 1 STATINTL OF[112,r,i1 E11112,SE Fg the creation, control and acceptance of defense policy by the t- r' \ ;gm ? - 1.1 Lzre ? Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 - Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601 MEMPHIS, TENN. WORTUNJ... jq 0 1972 WEEKLY 1 8,000 INSIGHT The illegal release of the Penta- gon Papers and the more recent use secrk 'diVeaments by columnist ack'A,_nderson hs re-opened the problem of; %dial should and should not be\lasAfied:--i During a conversation a few_ years ago with the late .Senator Richard Russell 1 asked why, the vCIA,..uorts on Lee Harv'ey?OsWald's FA(, SUIT travels in Mexico had to remain classified as secret and they had to stay secret for many years to come. why The senator was at that time, and had been for more than. a deeade, chairman of a special appropriations sub- committee which controlled all CIA funds. There wasn't anyone who was "in a better position to answer the question than Russell. lie gave me a plausible reason for the secrecy. The senator noted, and it's true, that we have people in every country in the world who are friend! \ ? to the U.S. and though not citizens of this country they often supply our. intelligence people with information. Some are business- men, some fishermen, artists, students and so forth. They are basically loyal to their own country, but still willing to help us. The CIA report mi Oswald's travels in Mexico contains not only the facts about his mol. ements in that country but the. names of :Inc individuals who pros ided those facts. If the report was made public. at this time some of the contai,ts would end up facing a firing squad and if they weren't shot or imprisoned they would no longer be. of any value as contacts. Their future services would be nil. Since they are still needed it makes goodi sense to keep their identi'o? urknown. But what about (flirt\ 'eat-s from now? This is ?the ? , time frame being recommended by the National Security Council as a reasonable time to keep papers secret yet there are opponents around who want the lid to stay on far. beyond threedeeades. . ? STATI NTL ? ? . That's pretty- hard to-buy even- from the individuals who claim diplomatic or military secret codes can be endangered by releasing thirty year old data. It seems illogical to assume that codes aren't -changed in more than thirty years and even more illogical to believe any nation can keep a code unbroken for thirty years. If this is happening it is a. first for all time. A recent rash of non-fiction books have pretty well dispelled the idea that unbreakable codes exist.. It a man or woman can conceive them sooner or later another man or woman- will be able to unravel them. Anyone .Who reads My columns very long knows I am pro-military, but I've .long been aware of the military's inclination, to mark anything and everything secret and keep that tag on forever. In some cases this practice can be defended, but not for 50 or 100 years. While true military secrets should be carefully guarded military blunders should not. Time doesn't erase stupidity, but it hides it and that's wrong. During World War II many a bulletin board was so plastered with memos that it was a standard joke that if one dug deep enough he'd find a KP order from Valley Forge still tacked up. If one could actually dig deep enough in Pentagon records there's a chance that some of Georgti Washington' S actual orders are still stamped secret. In a' free society that's no joke. Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 Los ,ELi`; 5:111],??_ Approved For Release 200110M4Y: Ei-RDP8644,6M2100 .-The 'White House Classifies., and ConoTess Ossifies BY TRH WASIIINGTON?Secrecy.leads to self-deception. If yen want proof of that _overlooked political.axiom,-loOk - at the WaY we have gotten irrvolved ? witha.secret Mercenary army in Lao's': ? ? ? It all tarte(.1- not so innocOntly decade ago,when.the. Central Intel- ligence Agency recruited, directed and suppOt?ted an army of Meo iribes-men to'keep Laos from going Communist It was like having a 'Gurkha army of .oin? 'own; only no One knew we had-it,..and thus nobody cared that we were getting ever more involved in a war in Laos. It was all going splendidly until the CIA sent Gen. :Va,hg. Pao .and his army on an ill-fated ..offensive. last spring. The Moo. "irregulars" got (hewed up.they had about 10 en- snail ea- . sualties. Thai, might not have been Ion. had except .there were no more Ariliesmett to recruit in Laos. to the ('IA started recruiting mercenaries in Thailaml, only it called them "volunteers.". :N)w the Senate Foreign Relations ? Committee has' discovered that we have a?s100 miilion annual commit- ment. to finance an. army of 10,000 .Thai !1.voluntpers" fighting in Laos. The 'Thais like it because they. are getting ? good pay as well as extra military asststance from the United States. ?Presumably. the Laotians like it because the Meo and Thai can do the fighting. But what about Con; gress .and the. poor :American -tax- payer who never 1);Ilew they were running up a $100 million annual. bill in Laos? And . what about the present moral character of a nation that .200 years ago ?VOu. its indepen- dence fighting, Hessian mercena- ries? ? - ? .? Put aside all the moral, geopoliti- cal and financial considerations. h's? also a disturbing case of the evils of gecrecy in our government and Con- gress. Secrecy pro-vides a way to subvert the constitutional checks and?balances on the war powers. Oh sure, the ? CIA informed a few. 1 members of the Appropriations ? C?ommittee. But then it intimidated - them by explaining it was so hush- hush they couldn't talk about. it to the rest of Congress. After that the privileged few didn't even bother to L./ partment and CIA. won't 'fess up to lug into two days of secret sessions, what they are doing with the Thai The hasic objection was that Gravel mercenaries. The reason is that Con-: would be violating the law by mak- gress last year passed a law prohib- in public a document classified se- lling - the . use of defense funds to. cret. Then to the amazement of the help third-country forces fight in senators, it turned out that there support of the Laotian or Cambodi- was no lar specifically authorizing an governments. If all the facts were , the executive branch to classify in- made public, it would . be evident formation. The whole secrecy sys- that the executive.branch was vio- tem, it turns out, 'just rests on im- lating the law. ? ' plied powers assumed by the execu- It's easy enough to blame the ex- 'tive branch. ecutive branch for its secrecy. .Ev-- The whole security System ob- . erybody knows including Pres- viouslv .is not, going to come tom- Went :NiXon, who Issued a new Ocec- Ming down. Nor should it. But once , utive order on classification recently_ Congress starts questioning it, ?that the government busirress is maybe it will bpgin to realize that weighted down w it h excess) ye se- Gravel has a point when he argues crec?y.- ? . ? ? ?-?? that Congress also can determine , For all its criticism of the execu- what information should be made live-branch, Congress really likes se- public. Right now it's reached the. crecy. At least those in power do be- point Of absurdity; the Senate sends cause secrecy means power. "If you its debates in secret session down to only knew what' I knee. makes a.. the executive branch to be declassi- senator very important in ,his own fied. ? ? eyes and in the eyes of his col- Congress- ought to understand that leagues. ? it heed not. be such' a viiling, ae-; If you want a bewildering exam- quiescent partner in a- secrecy -sys- ? pie, take the case of Symington. One . tern that leads not only to deception day he is deploring the executive but to the impotence- of Congress.: branch's secrecy on the Thai merce- naries. The next. day he is on the Senate floor questioning whether Se- crets should he given to members?of Congress except those on the Armed Services, Foreign . Relations, and Atomic Energy committees. Sy- mington,. it should he pointed out, is the only. member of all three coin- ;?mittees. Or take the case of Rep. Bella Ab- rug, who had the temerity to intro- duce a resolution demanding infor- mation on how many bombs we are dropping in Indochina. -From the horrified look on the face of Rep. V% Edward Hebert. the chairman of the House Armed Services -Committee, you would have thought Ms. Abzug wanted to reveal the secrets of the 'A-bomb. But really his consterna- tion was over the fact that she was challenging the power of the Armed Services Committee, which wants to keep such information locked up in Its own safes. ? Maybe Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alas- ka). with his maverick ways, is fi- nally- forcing Congress to face up to the problem. He tried the other day to place in the Congressional -Record a copy of a still secret national se- raise questions?that was until Sen. (linty memorandum that Henry .Stuart Symington ID-N10.1 and his Kissinger had prepared back in 190 foreign r e 1 a t i 0 n s subcommittee on the Vietnam options open to the sctarted 1PRIi11.11N1,lietil i11411loWfkgre. nNitti a.iim3/4(liviln. L'ieltici war In ,MPKYrYRMvitrtt?:-Ifl'ffi'Rte.' tin'. 'Pi "A 117 tiltr'5Mi STAT. INTL peip 16o1 R001400220001-5 ? BALTIMORE 51.1I1 TIMSTATINTL ' Approved For Release 20011013hPYCW-RDP80-01601R001 ?- ,Way it has tolerated 'secrecy' even within its own ranks. ereenary use in Laos For all its criticism of the executive branch, Congress shows evils of secrecy those in power do because really likes secrecy. At least secrecy means power, "If you , . Washington. years ago won its independ- only knew what I know" Secrecy leads to self-decep- ence fighting Hessian merce- makes a senator very impor- (ion. If you want proof of that naries? tant in his own eyes and in, overlooked political axiom, Put aside all the moral, the eyes of his colleagues. It :then look at the way we have ? geopolitical and financial con- also is a very good argument ? to silence any upstart who siderations. It's also a dis- gotten involved with a secret d turbing case of the evils of mercenary army in Laos. ares question the wisdom of secrecy in our government the Appropriations Committee .` It.. all started off not so and Congress. Secrecy pro- or the Armed Services Corn- innocently a decade ago when vides a way to subvert the mittee? the Central Intelligence Agen- constitutional checks and bal- If you want a bewildering cy recruited, directed and ances of the war powers, example, take the case of supported an army of Men Oh sure, the CIA informed Senator Symington. One day tribesmen to keep Laos from a few members of the Appro- /he is issuing a statement de- going Communist. It was like priations Committee. But then' ploring the executive branch's having a Gurkha army of our it intimidated them by ex_ secrecy on the Thai merce- naries. The next day he is on the Senate floor questioning whether secrets should be given to members of Con- gress except, those on the' Armed Services, Foreign Re- lations, and Atomic Energy committees. Senator Syming- ton, it should be pointed' out, is the only member of all three committees. Secrecy is also a convenient way for Congress to avoid responsibility it really doesn't like. "Only the President has access to all the secret infor- mation and he must know. what is right." That's a cord; mon refrain around Capitol Hill these days when the President is getting us deeper into the Vietnam war. It's also ' an easy way to hide behind the President and duck responsibility. The whole security system obviously is not going to come tumbling down. Nor should it. But once Congress starts questioning it, maybe it will begin to realize that Sen- ator Mike Gravel has a point when he argues that Congress also can determine what in- formation should be made public. Right now it's reached the point of absurdity; the Senate sends its debates in. secret session down to the executive branch to be de- classified. Congress ought, to under- stand that it need not be such a willing, acquiescent partner in a secrecy system that' leads not only to deception Approved For Release 2001/0304th: tlAnAtYP8IMP1'601R001400220001-5 e s . own,- only no one knew we plaining it was so hush-hush had it and thus nobody cared they couldn't talk about it to that we were , getting. ever the rest of COngress. After more involved in a war in That the privileged few didn't Laos. . , . . even bother to raise questions ' It. was all going along ?that was until Senator :splendidly: until the CIA sent Stuart Symington and his General Vang, Pao and. his Foreign Relations subcom- army off :on art ill-fated offen- mittee came along and start- Sive last spring. The Meo ed poking around in the sec- , "irregulars" got chewed up; ret war in Laos. Even now they' had about 10 per cent the State Department and casualties. That might not CIA won't 'fess up to what bave, been too bad except they are doing with the Thai (here were no more :tribes-: mercenaries. The reason is Men to recruit in Laos. So the that Congress last year CIA started recruiting merce- passed a law prohibiting the naries in Thailand, only it use of defense funds to help called them "volunteers." third-country forces fight in , Now the Senate Foreign Rela- support of the Laotian or tions Committee has discov- Cambodian governments. If ered that we have a $100 all the facts were made pub- million annual commitment to lie, it would be -evident that finance an army of 10,000 the executive branch was vie- Thai "volunteers" fighting in lating the law. Laos. It's easy enough to blame . The Thai like it because the executive branch for its they are getting good pay as secrecy. Everybody knows? well as extra military assist- including President Nixon, ance from, the United States, who issued a new executive Presumably the Lao like it order on classification recent- because the Men and Thai ly?that the government busi- tan do the fighting. But what ness is weighted down with about the Congress and the excessive secrecy. There's :Poor American taxpayer who probably no cure unless bu- never . knew they were run- reaucrats are punished for rung up a $100 million annual ovef-classification, and no- bill' in Laos? And what does it body is about to do that. 'But . say about the present moral much of the blame must be lellaracter of a nation that 200 placed on Congress for the ... . ?ZW, X011: Approved For Release 200WR:14971A-RDP80-01601 - Congress and C.I.A. ? ? The. Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted . hearings last week on a bill requiring the Central Intelli- gence Agency to provide the appropriate Congressional committees with the same intelligence analyses it regu, larly furnishes the White House. This legislation, intro- . (Weed last year by Senator Cooper, ought to be expedited in the interests of strengthening the machinery of foreign :As Congress reasserts its rightful role in the foreign ? policy process, it is essential that its members be as fully informed as possible. The respective Congressional committees are entitled to share the fruits of intelligence- - gathering operations for which the American taxpayer Is billed up to $6 billion annually. These fruits include assessments which sometimes sharply challenge Execu- tive policies, as the Pentagon Papers revealed. ? .There is ample precedent for Senator Cooper's pro- . posal. A former C.I.A. official testified last week that the agency has been furnishing highly classified intelli- gence on world atomic developments to the Joint Atomic Energy Committee for fifteen years, with no security breaches. Even now, senior agency officials provide oral briefings to other committees on request but only with White House approval. Congress could better discharge its own constitutional responsibilities in the foreign policy field if it had full and direct acceis to this. information. Beyond the Cooper bill, it is high time Congress' revived its languishing effort to establish closer scrutiny of intelligence operations. In a move designed to side- track legislation with this aim, the Foreign Relations Committee in 1967 was invited to send three members to, the C.I.A. joint briefings held by the Armed Services . and Appropriations Committees, which are ,currently responsible for overseeing intelligence activities. But no; meetings of this group were called during all of last year?an "oversight" of frightening dimensions. ? .It is not enough for Congress to know what the C.I.A.. - is saying. Itis also essential that at least key members of - the legislative branch, which provides the funds for worldwide intelligence-gathering and other undercover operations, keep informed about what, in general, this secret arm of the United States Government is doing.. STATI NTL Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 Approved For Release 2001/ yeViHr !gx v?to ? Ll'eiv.1?1 "rd STATINTL . By Thomas B. Ross ports to the Foreign Relations Sun-Tirnes Bureau Committee, the Senate Armed . , WASHINGTON ? John A. Services Committee, the House j McCone, a former Central In- F o r e i g n Affairs Committee ? telligence Agency director, has and the House Armed Services endorsed a bill that would re- Committee. It also would re- quire the CIA to turn over its quire the CIA to provide spe- secret intelligence reports to cial information on request. Congress. Tuesday's witnesses will be / Chester Cooper, former in- 1/ His endorsement indicates telligence analyst for the CIA i that the CIA has abandoned its and the White House, and Her- long-standing opposition to the bert Scoville, former head of circulation of its secrets out- the CIA's research division. side the executive branch. Sec. of State William P. Rog- j Aide g to the Senate Foreign ers, who has asserted the ' Relations. Committee reported right to testify for the CIA, has ' - Monday that McCone had corn- been asked to appear after the nutted himself to testifying in Easter recess to present the favor of the bill during hear- administration's position. He ings starting Tuesday. The may send a subordinate but aides said the Nixon adminis- presumably not Ray Cline, j tration had r e g i s t e r e d its head of the department's bu- opposition to the bill, thereby .reau of intelligence and re- preventing the current CIA seatch. director, Richard M. Helms, a . An ITT director' presidential appointee, from Cline, a former deputy CIA ? 1 taking a position on it. d i r e c to r for intelligence, Indirect support recently told the committee . But McCone's testimony is that he favored the distribu- sure to be interpreted as in- tion of CIA reports to Congress, direct CIA support of the bill, provided the "sources and Former directors of the agen- methods of intelligence gather- cy, a loyal and tightly knit ing" were not jeopardized. group, rarely, if ever, take a Cooper insists that his bill pro- public position that the in- vides adequate protection. cumbent director opposes. McCone is scheduled to testi- The bill was introduced by fy next month. It may be the i'Sen. John Sherman Cooper (R- first in a series of appearances Ky.) last July, shortly after before the committee. As a (li- the- New York Times, the rector of the International Washington Post, the Sun- Telephone & Telegraph Corp., Times and other newspapers he is a potential witness in the published the Pentagon pa- committee's planned invest'- pers. The papers revealed that gation of the involvement of the CIA: consistently expressed major corporations in U.S'e a skeptical view of Vietnam foreign policy. from the Truman to the Nixon According to memos re- administrations. Cooper and leased by columnist Jack An- other senators argued that derson, McCone was given re- Congress might have blocked ports on ITT negotiations with the deep U.S. Involvement if it the CIA to devise a plan for had received the intelligence blocking the installation of Sal- J estimates. vador Allende, a Marxist, as - Regular reports President of Chile in 1970. Cooper's bill would require the CIA to make regular re- Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 Approved For Release 20619011PEIA-RDP80-01601R00 iscord Surrounds Roles I Hill Vials On, Defense ?? By Jack McWethy Conaresslonal Quarter)", Advocates of Pentagon pol- icy or overseers of the mili- tary? There is sharp disagree- ment over which role the House and Senate Armed Services committees play. the $21.3 -billion weapons au- thorization bill and only two were accepted by the House. Hebert offered one of the adopted amendments and sup- ported the other' "That's right," smiles He- bert. "The power is awesome." In the Senate, John C. Sten- These. facts emerge from a -: kJ., nis (D-Miss.) and his predeces- Congressional Q u a r t e r 1 yN sors as committee chairman study: - . once enjoyed the same kind of ? On both committees, unwavering majority support. about two-thirds of the MCM- But the scene has changed in hers come from states or dis- the last four years. ,. tricts whose No. 1 source of Former Air Fm re ;!'ecretary federal money is the Penta- Stuart Symington, next to gon. ? Stennis the ranking Democrat ? In the 11 years that the i, the Senato committee, committees have been author- says: "More than ever before hing money for weapons, 65 in the years that I've been per cent of the big money bills around here, people -- liberals were passed on the floor with- REP. F. EDWARD HEBERT and conservatives?are appre- . out amendment to the dollar ... money's no object hensive about the future via- total. bility of the economy and the ' ? Not once in the same 11 Pentagon," ? says Rep. Otis G. soundness of the currency." years was an amendment to Pike (D-N.Y.), one of the dis. This kind of apprehension, the alter dollar totals of House senting five. "The Pentagon Missourian says, is having a committee bills adopted over controls the House Armed direct effect on the way. the chairman. It's happened only atthteheSed" objections by the committee Services Committee." committee anddefense enisne Rep. Les 1 spin - .is. , a \ ? ? (D W' ) general three times in the Senate. committee member who was budget' ? ? Both committees consist- an economic adviser to former ently cut the Pentagon's Defense Secretary Robert S. budget request, but one mem - McNamara, says: "We used to ber of Congress who used to , think of the House Armed be a budget planner in the Services Committee as the one Pentagon said the requests are we could count on to carry routinely padded in ant icipa- water or ..tion of the cuts. Making America's defenses Hebert dismisses these 'di ul u strong against the Soviet charges as r 1 c ci. s? "Yes, threat is like a horse race to F. I'm a friend of the military, he Edward Hebert, the crusty says, but I'll take them to the Louisiana Democrat who woodshed and spank them any heads the House Armed Serv- time." ices Committee. Though the dissidents give . "In war they don't pay off Hebert high marks for fair- for second pace. There's one ness, his power is an irritant bet and you've got to. have the to those who feel the commit- winner," Hebert says.' tee is not tough enough on the .'; "I intend to build the Pentagon's budget request. ;strongest military we can get," "If the Armed Services he adds. "Money's no ques- Committee isn't looking out Lion." for the taxpayer, then who the ' Hebert's attitude exasper- hell is?" Aspin asks. "Nobody ales a five-man minority on on the floor of the House is the 39-member committee, but going to he able to push they are helpless against the through an amendment to an chairman's overwhelming sup- Armed Services Committee port in committee and on the bill, and God knows, we've floor, . tried." 1- "The House Armed Services Last year, for example, 21 Committee doesn't control the amendments were offered to STATINTL Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 zo.giqusTIAMS Approved For Release 200120133MR: t1A-RDP80-01601R00.1 Congress Cuts Secret Panel Meetings.by 5% 1971 Record Shows 36% of Sessions Are. Closed-Door in Year Reform Act Is Passed Exclusive to The Times from the Conoressional ousrutiv ? WASHINGTON ? Con- gressional committees met in secret slightly over one- third of the time last year. Congressional Quarter- ly's annual tabulation -of committee sessions showe,s, 36% were held be- hind closed doors in 1971, the year a new law? aimed at opening meet- ings to the public?went Into effect. This marked a decrease from the 41% closed com- mittee sessions recorded In 1970, but matched the secrecy. score for 1969. - " Since 1953, when Con- gressional Quarterly s be- gan its annual tally of open ? and closed commit- tee meetings, 23,720?or 7,%?of the 64,231 meet- ings reported have been held in executive (closed) session. The highest secrecy ..score was 43% in 1968. The record low was 30% In 1939. The House, as usual, topped the Senate in the number ? of executive ses- sion s. The public w as barred from 41%-1,131 of 2,785?of it s committee sessions. This was a de- crease from the 48% of 1970 but comparable to ftlid 42% recorded in 1969. sus- Senate at 30% Senate committees had a secrecy score of 30%? down from the 33% of , 1970 but up from the 28% In 1969. It closed 580 of 1,905 meetings. , ? Few executive sessions were held by joint con- gressional committees. Of 1126 joint committee meet- ihgs reported, only 20, or 16%, were closed. I 'Most noteworthy in 1971 wIts .the opening of select- ed House Appropriations Committee hearings. Although only 8% of its ApipnevaloFtooRtlea were open, this ? was in contrast to the 0% record- ed in thp root_ ? The 1970 reform act sti- pulated that House Appro- priations budget hearings are to be held in open ses- sion, except when testimo- ny may affect national se- curity. Ways and Means was the open up committee STATI NTL naerce, 21%; Appropria- tions, 30%. . . The Legislative Reorga- nization Act of 1970?the 'first reform act in 24 years. ?was designed, in part, to. only other House commit- proceedings to public tee to meet more than 100 scrutiny. times and close its doors It included provisions more often than not. It for the public announce- closed 69 of 111 sessions for a secrecy score of 62%. ment of committee roll On the Senate side, only call votes and coverage. of one committee which met hearings by . radio and More than 100 times held television. the majority of meetings The act stipulated that in executive session. The Armed Services Commit- Senate committee busi- tee closed 118 of 150 meet- ings. 50% Record _ ness meetings are, to be open, except for markup (when a committee revises The Senate Public and dscides on the final Works Committee barred. language of a bill) and vet-. outsiders from 50% of its ing sessions or when the sessions.77_ committee closes them by The House- EdUCation majority vote. and- Labor Committee re- Of those Senate comtnit- mained at the top of the tee meetings specifically. list of committees which designated in the Congres- met more than 100 times. sional Record as business' and mainly in open ses- sessions ? organizing, sion. The committee marking-up, voting, brief- closed -- only six of 109 ing sessions-975o were meetings for a secrecy closed to. the public in score of 3%. - ? . ? Other House committees According to the reorga- which met more than 100 nization act, House corn- times with comparatively mittee business meetings few closed sessions-were . are to be open, except Interior and Insular: Af- when the committee closes fairs, 20% closed sessions; them by majority vote. Government Operations; Excluding the House Ap- 22%; Inters tate and pr opriations Committee, Foreign Commerce, 24%; 79% of the. sessions listed Foreign Affairs, 28%; as business were held be- Public Works and Mer- hind closed doors. (House chant Marine and Fishe- A p propriations subcom- ries, both with 31%. mittee mark-up sessions Judiciary was the leader, are not reported to the among Senate committees Record.) which met more than 100 Public mark-up sessions times and had a low per, are rare. Most committees centage of executive ses- prefer. to write legislation sions. It closed only '15% in private for a variety of of 167 meetings. Both the reasons. Sonic members Interior and Insular At- believe that open meetings fairs Committee and the tend to encourage greater sa20011(12404 wOlike R INS01-01rEcO iR0 GUM 0 220 0 0 1 Committee closed 20% of speeches for public con- their meeting Corn- . _ sumption. Others t ii i n k committee. action is hin- dered by the necessity of observing formal proce- dures. Inhibition Charged Another objection is that open 'meetings inhibit the free exchange of ideas: One committee, which has held open' .mark-up ses- sions in the past, found that such meetings usual- ly attracted more lobbyists than public. The House Education and Labor Committee led in open business meetings. It closed its doors only six times out of CO. Congressional Quarter- ly's statistics on open and closed committee meet- ings are derived from the daily digest section of the Congressional Record. Al- though required by. the 190 Legislative Reorgani- zation Act, not all commit- tee meetings are actually listed in the Record.- Committees . use differ- . ent criteria for defining a meeting. Some do not re- port their meetings regu- larly to the Record. yu.suiNGT 01i POST Approved For Release 2001/03/04: glAiRDP80-016(001-5 20 FEB 114. STATINTL Hifi Committees Met Secretly One-Third' 2 Congressional Quarterly Congressional -committee l of Time in 1971' met in secret one-third of the time last year. Congressional Quarterly's annual tabulation of commit- tee sessions showed 36 per cent were held behind closed doors in 1971, the year a new law?aimed at opening meet- ings to the public?went into effect. This marked a decrease from the 41 per cent closed I committee sessions recorded ih committee proceedings to pub- he scrutiny It s'.:nulated that Senate committee business meetings are to be open, except for markup (when a committee re cent of its sessions-36 out of a total of 455?were open, this was in contrast to the zero per i cent recorded in the past.. The Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act of 1970?the first re- form act in 24 years?was de- signed, in part, to open up 1970, but matched the 36 per cent secrecy score for 1969. Since 1953, when Congres- sional Quarterly began its an- nual tally, the highest secrecy score was 43 per cent in 1968. The record low was 30 per ' cent closed sessions in 1959. The House, as usual, topped the Senate in the number of executive sessions. The public was barred from 41 per cent- 1,131 out of 27,858 of its com- mittee sessions. This was a de-, crease from the 48 per cent of 1970 but comparable to the 42 per cent recorded in 1969. Senate committees had a se- crecy score of 30 per cent? down from the 33 per cent of 1970 but up from the 28 per cent in 1969. it closed 580 of its 1,905 meetings. Most noteworthy' in 1971 was the opening of selected House Appropriations Com- mittee hearings. Although only eight per 'vises and decides on the final language of a bill) and voting sessions, or when the commit- tee closes them by majority vote. Ninety-seven per cent of those Senate committee meet- ings specifically designated in the Congressional Record as business sessions--organizing, markup, voting, briefing ses- sions?were closed to the pub- lic in 1971. According to the reorganza- tion act, House committee business meetings, are to be open, except when the com- mittee closes them by major- ity vote. Excluding the House Appro- priations Committee, 79 per cent of the sessions listed as business were held behind closed doors. (I-louse Appropri- ations subcommittee markup sessions are not reported to the Record.) Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 WASHING Tail I.:01;THLY Approved For Release 2001/9MptIA-RDP80-01601R00 STATINTL The in the Indhlte House Easement by Timothy H. Ingram .By cliche, the power of the purse is now widely referred to as Congress' only remaining lever for redressing the balance between itself and the presi- dency.. Increasingly, Congress is recog- nizing that its foreign affairs and treaty-making functions are mere ornaments, and that its traditional checks on the Executive are either unrealistic or meaningless. What is left is the appropriations power, and a handful of senators and representa- tives are invoking it in 'a muted but growing struggle to revive congres- sional strength. Few appreciate, however, the extent to which even the power of the purse, that bulwark of legislative authority, is already controlled by the presidency. As Congress attempts to tame the Executive by threatening to cut off funds for things like war, it finds that the Executive has already developed innumerable devices for Timothy Ingram, formerly with public tele- vision's "The Advocates," is a Washington writer. A look at several discretionary spending options will give some idea of the extent of the Executive's grasp of the purse strings?and some indica- tion of what Congress is left holding. For example, through secrecy, trans- fer powers, mislabelled military assis- tance, unauthorized commitments. and cloaked,grants of excess wat goods, the President and his national security managers are able to hire mercenaries, discourage .a rump insur- rection in Ceylon, pfomise South Korea $3.5 billion, and turn over an unknown amount of equipment, heli- copters, and bases to Vietnam. A simple budgetary procedure called reprogramming allows the Navy to quietly secure a behind-the-doors reversal of a congressional decision to defer production of the controversial F-14 fighter. And the pipeline, a huge reservoir of unexpended funds, per- mits the Pentagon to spend above the level of appropriations authorized by Congress. While lamenting the loss of its war powers, Congress consoles it- self with the thought that it still maintains control over domestic pri- getting the money, anyway. And tar orities by its annual allotment of from successfully denying the Presi funds. But through impoundment, the dent his money, Congress is even President refuses to spend some $12 having a hard time getting him to billion in appropriated monies, placing spend what is appropriated, a post mortem item veto on such The Constitution, of course, says programs as urban renewal, regional that the appropriations power is the medical clinics, food stamps, and farm exclusive prerogative of Congress. But loans. 1 in the vacuum created by Congression- The panoply of deceptive devices r al indifference to overseeing the available to the Executive's budgetary c bureaucracy's spending habits, and by Houdinis was graphically illustrated in the now empty ritual of blue-penciling a memo submitted by the Joint Chiefs s the President's annual budget, the of Staff to Secretary Laird on August P ?Executive has. 'amassed a mound of 30,1971. According to The New York T 'spending prerogatives of its own: Times, the Joint Chiefs offered several s transfer authorities, contingency ways of by-passing the limited rni4 more, to increase the strength of the Cambodian Army. The?first would be simply to trans- fer $52 million appropriated for economic aid to the military aid pro- gram. The second would be to use economic aid money to buy all "com- mon use" items such as trucks and jeeps, which have military as well as civilian value, thus freeing the other funds for strictly military uses. The third would be to increase procure- ment for the U. S. Army by $52 million and give the materiel to the Cambodians, for "repayment" later. The fourth would be to make some exceptions in Defense Department supply regulations, declaring equip- ment to be "excess" and delivering it to the Cambodians. In addition, the memo proposed, the Joint' Chiefs would clandestinely provide for .a mechanized brigade, an artillery brigade, and coastal patrol units, as well as ground troops and extensive logistic support. AID would help finance the paramilitary force of armed civilians, which the planners hoped would number 200,000 by mid-1973 and more than 500,000 in 1977. The CIA, with its secret budget, supposedly would help train and di- rect Cambodian military units, as it is now doing with Laotian and Thai v troops in Laos, and would provide airlift support with its subsidized air- / ine', Air America. The proposals I/ epresented a complete subversion of ongressional authority. But the real significance of the tory was not reported: how common- lace these methods .have become. he Executive devices are as wide- pread as they are ingenious. funds, lump-MilleaRriA:911/effatt?Y200MataiiategiA5ROIRMs0 0 programmingsYRMciat waiver auttion-generate an additional $52 million or ties, and covert financing. 1R001400220001-5 clonta02.2:5. ? Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601 HAMILTON, PA. STANDARD-SPEAKER D ,_ 22,706 DEc 4 13711 STATI NTL Nixon's Foreign Policy Triumph . The Senate is not lacking in would-be foreign policy makers. Led by Fulbright, 'Mansfield, Symington, Church and Cooper, they have been trying to change the Sen- ate's "advise and consent" prerogative to order the President to "yield and carry out" its policy. After a whole first session strug- gle in the current Congress when the effort collapsed. It signaled President Nixon's big- gest foreign policy triumph, one that may set the principle of the ascendancy of the Presidency in matters of foreign policy. The triumph was on three successive votes on the defense appropriation. By a .54 to 39 vote, the Senate deleted from the bill an amendment by Senator Mike Mans- field, the majority leader, that would have reduced the American forces in Western Europe to 250,000 men by June 15. The President's letter to John Stennis. chair- man of the Senate Armed Services Com- mittee, pointed out that a substantially uni- lateral reduction would be a mistake and added: "Passage of the proposed troop cut would, with one stroke, diminish Western military capability in Europe and signal to friend and adversary alike a disarray and weak- ness in the American government. It would undermine vitally important new initia- tives for peace in Moscow and Peking." The Amendment had been adopted by the Appropriation Committee by 15 to 14, but the letter tipped the balance against it on the floor, when its full import was realized. ? Just as significant was a decision by Senator John Sherman Cooper, Kentucky Republican not to co-sponsor with Senator Frank Church, Idaho Democrat, another hostile Amendment. It provided that funds could be used only to carry out the policy enunciated in an earlier Mansfield Amend- ment to withdraw all forces from Indo- china promptly by a certain date, and sub- ject only to the release of American prison- ers of war. Nixon had 'flatly refused to be bound by this Mansfield Amendment, and said that he would not change his policy of relating withdrawals to the level of enemy activity, the survival of the Thieu govern- ment and the progress in peace negotia- tions. Cooper's retreat left the President unchallenged in his withdrawal policy. Finally, Senator Stuart Symington's amendment to impose a $4 billion ceiling on spending by all intelligence agencies of the executive branch ? primarily the Central jx.telligence Agency ? produced the-Tint critical' CligargVnirin recent years of the secrecy surrounding appropriations for in- telligence purposes. The total figure was never mentioned, but is said to be $6 bil- lion. The Senate defeated this amendment 56 to 31. ? The triple confrontation with the Presi-, dent was over and the $70.8 billion defense appropriation bill was passed, 80 to 5, the last major appropriation measure of the session. The doves are now-licking their. wounds. Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 ? ST.LOU)pi/i9Ved For Releas POST-DISPATCH STATII.CITL E 3'4,376 S 541.T11368 1.1 fi.?n 2 6 lop ... ten,,r,f7_ ric? fill nia?nareh are ,By TAYLOR PE'NSONEAU A Staff Correspondent of the Peet-Disprali WASHINGTON, Nov. 26. .THE BELEAGUERED CONGRESSIONAL minority that ha ,,.?aLy kJ 1...r all N re U V, y :?:t aren't the rest of us to be. trusted, too?" ' "One of the things that wor- ries me most of all is that I do I not see any reason why we .! should pass appropriations for the CIA to organize an army. Ellender was not hushed in? m his iebuttal as he told the Sen- ate that "this method of appro- priating funds for these intelli- gence activities has been in effect for at least 20 years that I know of, since- I have been on the committee." Only a few persons consider these funding requests because Of the sensitivity of the subject, Ellender said. In addition, he expressed an opinion of many of Symington's opponents in say- ing that the intelligence field was too much of a hot p-ofafo to "dismiss in the open." :, pay the. troops *and conduct a :- fought to pry loose the Government's 'secret figures on intelligence full-scale war in I ' P 1 a expenditures mounted a challenge this week, that though unsUccessful, bright said. 1 ' i.may make the objective more attainable. Yet people of this country 1 tliink we have a democracy in f- ? ------- - - - - - --...___ . ?.' Although an attempt by Senator Stuart and undercover endeavors by the armed which a war, if one is to bp . - , ? , Syithington (Dem.), Missouri, to hmit in ? forces. fought has to be declared by teltigenee outlays was rebuffed by the Many observers regard :Syrnington's Cong.ress. Yet Congress did not ; Senate as expected, an increasing nom - move as the most deterrninecl attempt bet of mernhers,including some of Sy- yet to force Congress to account at least mington's opponents--predicted that the som-ewhat for the activities of these day would come when Congress was no agencies. longer in the dark on the, country's un- ? dercover activities. Although waste and duplication in many 'of the intelliLmnce operations were given Possibly most significant, the debate as the most o b v i o u s reasons for the en Symington's proposal brought out amendment, the greater intent was to that the seemingly broad war being or- I ;provide Congress, and the American pub- ganized and financed in Laos by the lic, with more insight into both the do- Central Intelligence Agency may finally -mestic and f o r e i g n activities of these persuade SoMmitisetnisesterhesitarit mem- agencies. bers of Congress to assert themselves More in this ticklish field.. USING 1111',ISELF. as an example, Sym- -- , i. ington contended that he had been unable , THE MOST SUCCINCT appraisal oit to determine the appropriations this year : Symington's effort came from one Or for intelligence, even though he is a mans- tire opponents, Senator Charles Mathias ber of the Foreign Relations Committee : Jr.' (Rep.), Maryland, who remarked and the Armed Services Committee as - moments before the vote that the Mis- sourian had focused "our attention on :well as an ex-ohmio member of '. water that is not only muddy, but ac- the Appropriations Committee. Wally Murky." ? Senator J. William Fulbright , (Dem.), Arkansas, asserted in 1 "Many members may be reluctant to , the debate Tuesday that the stir this water for fear of what they may find," Mathias said. "I think we : ;ilissourian should not feel in- multe'd because nol.ettd.iy? had dis- ; cannot delay much longer in turning our 1 attention in this direction for fear that covered where ine mtelagence t! funds were in the defense ap- t what is there may evade our examina- ';propriations measure. t -tion and ourconcerm'' . ? "When they read a line item ' This feeling may be -realized sooner and find that there is so much -than expected because a number of .for aircraft, or for a carrier,- Senators, in the wake of the Symington :those may or ma Y not be the , matter, said they would .push for an real amounts," Fulbright said. executive session by the Senate to con- . i older the intelligence question. It could ?? REPLYING Senator Allen J. mean- a major breakthrough for those ,Ellender (Dein.), Louisiana, of Symington's persuasion--especially if chairman of the Appropriations ; a censored transcript was made public 'Committee and a main opooneM ? ' later. . 1 :of Symington's amendment later, . . , - - - 1 'that there was no specific at:- , opropriations for intelligemme ac- e partment of Defense appropriations bill tivities. "They are. funded :torn -'. for fiscal 1972 to place a 4-billion-dollar - ceiling on intelligence outlays. Most esti- mates put this yearly expenditure cur- r . '- rently at more , than 5 billion dollars. , 1 The proposed limit, which the Senate .I rejected Tuesday 50 to 31, would have ' , applied to the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency t.. .. .... .. .,. ... .. .. .. . . . .. ? SYMINGTON sought to amend the De- . many different appropriations included in the bill," he said. ? N'orth Deketa, and Margaret Chase Smith (Rep.), raine. Much of - the arg,urnero -week centered on the, otA, Symiington's mention of this which came under emigre s 1 , matter cc stunted an attack on scrutiny earlier this ye;-..? ? the syMem ant', thesefore, pos- clandesttne role in the ibly :his shs est ;ab of the tians of Rac;io Free Ensue ay. As the segennemt Radio Lilmrt,. In his ' ? One Of tau Sym- , bright. wes particularly esi,:ic.3.1 ? If in not rus t. of theiaCIA.. ow ...mut the war in Laos until it was well under way." ' When prodded by fellow Sen- ator.si Ellender conceded that he 'did not know in advance about CIA financing of any army in Laos.. He said t further that he had "rim er asked, to begin with, whether or not there were any funds to carry on the war in this sum the CIA has asked for.:' 'It never claviiied on me to ask about it," Ellernier said. "I did see it publicized in the newspapers some time ago." Fulbright and his allies point- ed to Ellender'e statement as a prime example of the necessity fon greater congressional aware- ness of undercover , activities. ? Ellender became a prime tar- get of the Symington side, be- cause of an , occurrence last week that the Missourian re- lated to the Senate Tuesday.I Symington, when asking staff members of the Appropriations Committee about _intelligence 'figures, was told that they neuld. 'discuss the matter only yin, Ellender and four other senior members of the panel. ? '9}D3 MEANS- that these bit,: lions of dollars of the taxpay- cis' money are being aothorized snd appropriated by the Senate wltit the knowledge and approv- t.! PC just five of its members," .tatettington contenrjed. The other totm ate Senators jelin L. Mc- -C:ellaad (Dent.), Arkansas; John C. Stennis (Dem.), Missis- sippi; Milton R. Young (Rep), THIS APPROACH was adopt- ed by Young alSo, who asserted that proper defense of the CIA in the debate would require docummtation of activities that could not b3 done. "Spying is a dirty business, ? but it is a business every nation in the world engages in," Young said. 'Russia does a bigger job of it than we do. You can not disclose secret information.", In an action earlier this yea" against the use of intelligence . funds, the Senate passed a bill that would provide $35,000,0N in fiscal 1972 for financing the operations of Radio Free Eu- rope and Radio Liberty through the Secretary of State. The measure, sponsored by Senator Clifford P. Case (Iltep..),a?.' New Jersey, is intended to di- vorce the CIA from the funding of the stations. Radio Free Eu- rope, beamed to eastern Eu- I rope, and Radio Libert y, beamed to the Soviet Union, - operate In West Germany, os- tensibly on private contribu- tions. However, Case said in Janu- ary that funds had been ex- pended from secret CIA budg- ets to pay almost totally for' the costs of the stations. The House has approved a bill providing for a commission to conduct a twe-year study of the stations. Continued funding of them would be channeled through the commission. A com- promise between the two bills will have to be worked out in a conference' between the' two ? . . Approved For Releaset10011/03104uLCIALRPRI104};MIRchgloo22000l5- - ? "You're to be trusted," Sym- l';!2.SHI.OTG.N POsT; Approved For Release 2001?043/b4V: 8r - ? - ?? . . ' ? - , _ elf-8)(11,0e 7,? 7/ ? e77 - (1-41't'I'2/ I 1/2' ei Li Li 11 Ike" i--;t-t-riea, ? . . e 110,1017Ti. ?., . . - .. By George C. 'Wilson was such he had just one meet- covert, intelligence operations: Washington Post Staff Writer jug, just one meeting." He said such lack of informa- 1 Senate li due an explanation" ions intelligence agencies of the nation's resources. ? ' The' Missourian said he did tion undercut his effort to vote ? After a sharp debate punc-' tuated by such shouts as "the not know how much the var- sensibly on the allocation of and "I can be trusted," the the government spent in any Several senators expressed Senate last night voted 56 to one year, adding that he under- uneasiness over the White 31 against an amendment to stood published estimates of House's recently announced re- put a ceiling on spending by $6 billion were too 'high. But organization . of intelligence .government intelligence agen- his amendment, in an atteMpt functions. "No doubt about it," cies. ? to force an accounting, would Symington said of the reorg,aii- .' Sen. Stuart Symington (D- have limited total spending by ization, "we're putting intel- ? Mo.), in offering the amend- all the various agencies to $4 ligence in the hands of the ment to the defense money billion in the fiscal year start- military." - .. bill, said his purpose was to mg next July 1. . Stennis, in declaring that ? let dongress in on what Amer- Chairman Allen J. Ellender Congress hilts own laws creat- lean intelligence operatives (1)-La.) of the Senate Appro- lag the agencies stressed the. are already doing and plan to priations Committee and its need for secrecy on intelli- 7do in this country and abroad. Intelligence Operations sub- gence operations, said to his. ' ; "The point," he told the 'son. committee said during the de: fellow senators: "You're just: ators during the dinner-hour bate he could' not tell fellow going to have to make up your I debate, 'is to state that we do senators how much is spent mind that you can't have an not have 'the facts required to on intelligence because "that's accounting ? shut your eyes' , allocate the resources of' the ,?a tot) secret." , and take what comes." I 'country." - ?' I Ellender 'conceded under . He promised that the Sen-i i.. SyminEfton and his 1 allies ? questioning by fellow senators , ate Armed Services Committee' 'ould conduct an in-depth analysis of the' nation's intern- I gence activities, including the ? ., restructuring recently ordered,. by the White House. - In ?the. meantime, .Stennis said, "The only thing to do is vote this amendment down" I and work for reforms in more orderly .fashion. i thus made the stiffest chal- that he did not know in - ad- lenge yet to the way Congress I vance about the CIA's financ- v/fiies to keep track of the Cen-iing of any army in -Laos. Sym- - &al Intelligence Agency, De- lington's allies, especially . fense Intelligence Agency, Na- I Chairman J. W. Fulbright of tonal - Security Agency a n d the Foreign Relations Commit- the separate intelligence arms toe, argued that such lack of of the Army, Navy and Air congressional knowledge about ;Yorce, operations which alto- worldwide activities demon- -gether .reportedly cost some strated the need for more ac- $6 billion a year. countability. ' "There is no federal agency "One of the things that wor- Of otir government whose ac- ries me most of all is the CIA t'Vities- receive less scrutiny going off and conducting a ad control than the CIA," war of its own," Eulbright said, Symington said, 'and the same He disputed - Stennis' conten- true, of other intelligence tion that revealing the total agencies- of ? the government." budgets of intelligence agen- As. a case in point, Syming- cies would disclose any raili- ton cited the Central Intelli- tary secrets. - gence subcommittee of the "I don't believe it is tragic" jArmed Services Committee for the Senate"to demand the which is chaired by Sen. John information through such a do- Stennis (D-Miss.). vice as the Symington amend- .. ? When Stennis during the de- ment, Fulbright said. "The Sen- bate said "it is so tragic" to try ate is due an explanation." to limit intelligence operations Symington 'at one point through hasty action on the shouted "I can be trusted" in Senate floor, Symington shout- expressing his frustration in ed in reply: wish his interest being .kept in; the dark abeut Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 STATI NTL T. LOUIS YOST, DISS'ATC.71 Approved For Release 2001/03i049aCIA-RDP80-01601R0 ? STATINTL n i / 1) pi irterl% t, 7,1/ .a . E, Pere, a-Je . . By a Washington 'Correspondent "in general about intelligence of the. Post-Dispatch WASHINGTON, Nov. .23? Senator St u,a r t Symington (Dern.), Missouri, in a major attack ?on secrecy in govern- inent, proposed today that Con- gress cut. intelligence expendi- tures from more than.. 5 billion dollars to a mandatory ceiling .of 4 billions. -- He, charged, in a speech pre- pared for delivery, that present intelligence operations were wasteful, overlapping and in- adequately supervised by Con- gress. ' In a. reference to the Indo- china war, he said that he be- lieved "at least one war" could have been avoided if it had not been for "pressures, combined ;with unwarranted secrecy," On the part of s the intelligence , !agencies. . . . i.? Symington's proposed ceiling would apply to the Central In- telligence Agency, the National 'Security Agency, the Defense intelligence. Agency and all other intelligence units, includ- ing, those -within the branches of the armed services. . He said that he had not been able to determine how ranch ? was being appropriated this year for intelligence operations, -although he is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Com- mittee and an exofficio mem- ber of the Appropriations Com- mittee. When 'the' final draft of the 'military appropriations bill was before the, defenseappropria- 'tons subcommittee last week. he said no, mention was made of the onultibillion-dollar appro- priation ..requests that it con- lained for much of the 15 in- telligence operating or advisory :operations.. . . T.' After the meeting, he said, .he asked the ,committee staff Appropriations." He said he was .told that the staff had been in- structed to talk about those- ap- propriations only with five -senior members of the commit- tee?chairanan Allen J. Ellencler (Dern.), Louisiana, ?and Sena- tors John L, McClellan (Dem.), Arkansas; -Sohn C. Stennis ? (Dem.), Mississippi; Milton R. Young (Rep.), North. Dakota, and Margaret .Chase Smith (Rep.), Maine. . Symington said he had the greatest respect for the five members, "but I olo not believe that they, and they alone, should render final, decision on both said authorizations and ap- propriations without the knoy,\ 1- eclg,e,let alone the approval, of any other Senators, including -:those on the Armed Services Cominittce who are not. on this five-member subcommittee of -appropriations, and all Mem- bers of the Senate Foreign Re- lations Committee." . Symington quoted press esti- mates that put intelligence. ex- penditures at 5 to. G billion dol- lars a year. Ile said that de- spite his committee assign- ments he had been unable to say _whether . these estimates were accurate. Another Sen- ate source termed them fairly accurate. ? - ? .- ...The Senator renewed his criti- cism of a reorganization of the intelligence machine Ty an- nounced earlier this month by :President Richard ? M. Nixon... . He said it could mean turning intelligence operations. over to 'the military, thus leading to billions of dollars -in additional And often unnecessary defense expenditures, because military, estirnates of enemy plans,- pro-' 'grams and production tend to be higher than civilian esti- 'mates. . ? ' Ile..objected also. that the re- organization put policy control .9f intelligence in a new com- mittee in the White Haus e, ' headed by Henry A. Kissinger,. presidential assistant for na- tional security affairs. .. "This gives executive privi- lege to ,the final policymakers and therefore, except for the power of the purse, enables the policymakeos to, in effect, take the entire question of intellio gence out of the hands of Con- gress," he said. Symington had charged earli- er .this year that Kissinger, rather than Secretary or State. P;Rogers, had become the President chief adviser On. foreign policy and, unlike. Rogers, was not available for. questioning. by Senate commit-. tees. He complained recently that. the change in intelligence. -ar- oangements had not. been dis- cussed with anyone in the Sen- ate. He said today that Kissin- ger, had called him and . said that Symington was correct and that the change should have been discussed with the proper committees of Congress. .. Symington said it was non? sense for anyone to think that a high degree of secrecy was' necessary for intetlia.,enc& oper- ations. pointed out that congres- sional and public discussions constantly referred to the costs of such new weapons as the nuclear aircraft carrier; the C-5A transport -plane or the main battle tank. These discus- sions ,olo not go into how these weapons' wauld be used in a war, he said. . "By the same token, knoW1-2. 'edge of the over-all Cost of in- telligence does not in any way entail the release of knowledge: about how the various intelli- gence groups function or plan to function," he said. "Why should there. be greater danger to the national security in making public over-all intel- ligence costs than. in =kind public- other over-all security costs?" . STATI NTL Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 : :NATION i 5 NOV 1971 Approved For (EXECUTIVE SHELL GAME Release 2001/03/04 : CIA-ROPAZIZ111401 . . _ _ - - ? iC) - ? ? - [WM ? L5Dlii r-,Fq 15 .? - ?. , LOUP:t3 EiTI31.7-11,313. . . . . Mr. Fisher is the author of President and Congress: Power. andPolicy, to be-published? by the Free Press in January. . . . . .. ??- According to the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, it is the policy of Congress that the accounting of the govemMent provide "full disclosure of the results of :financial_ operations, adequate financial. information needed in the management of operations and the formu- lation and execution of the Budget, and effective control over income, expenditures, funds, property, and other assets." Despite that general policy, it has been estimated that, hi a ,budget for fiscal 1972 of $229.2 billion, seeret ftinds,may amount to $15 billion. to $20 billion... The- financing of the war in. Vietnam illustrates how billions can be ,spent .for programs known to relatively few Congressmen. In September 1966, President Johnson expressed. his "deep admiration as 'well as that of the ? American people for .the action recently taken by. the ..Philippines to send a civic action. group of 2,000 _men to assist the Vietnamese in resisting aggression and rebuild- ing their country." Other announcements from the White House created the impression that not only the Philippines . but Thailand, South Korea, and other members .of the "Free World Forces" had volunteered troops. ? However, hearings held by the -Symington subcommit- tee in 1969 and 1970 revealed that the United States had offered sizable subsidies to countries that involved them- selves in Vietnam. It was learned that the Philippines had received river patrol craft, engineering equipment, a special overseas allowance for its soldiers sent to Vietnam, and additional equipment to strengthen Filipino forces at home. It cost the United States $38.8 million to send one Fili- pino construction battalion to Vietnam. Senator Fulbright said. that as he saw it, "all we did was go over and hire their soldiers in order to support our then administration's, view that so many,..people. were in sympathy -With our war in Vietnam." ? . - - ? - -- -? ? The Philippine government denied that U.S. contribu- : ticins represented. a subsidy or a fee in 'return for the sending or the construction battalion, but an investigation ? -- ? ? Mr. Fisher's article is the second _ of . three- which The .Nation is ,running this fall, on the elusive ways whereby accounts are kept, and 'expenses budgeted, by the federal goverrpnent. "Military Budget: Double-Talk Bookkeeping" by Richard F. Kaufman , appeared in the iSsue of November .1; an article by -Sen. Frank Church on the executive's power to im- pound funds authorized by the Congress Will be published SPOIL by the General Accounting Office confirmed thaf "quid pro quo assistance" had indeed been given. Moreover, there was evidence that the Johnson administration had, increased othApcfsrovednliktirReleswel2loafinlim ' ? Philippines in exchange for its commitment of a battalion to Vietnam. ? ? ? . The Symington subcommittee also uncovered an agree- ment that the Johnson administration had made with the Royal Thai Government, back in 1967, to 'cover any ad- ditional costs connected with the sending of Thai soldiers to Vietnam. The State Department estimated that U.S. support to Thai forces?including payment of overseas allowances?came to approximately $200 million. A num- ber of other expenses were also involved, such as modern- ization of Thai forces and the development of an anti- aircraft Hawk battery in Thailand. The Foreign Ministry, of Thailand denied that the United States had ofTeredOTATINT payments to induce Thailand. to send armed forces to Vietnam, but GAO investigators revealed that- U.S. funds had been used for such purposes. as the training of Thai troops, payment of overseas allowances, and payment of separation bonuses to Thai soldiers who had served in Vietnam. An interim GAO report estimated that.the U.S. Government had invested "probably more than' $260 million in equipment, allowances, subsistence; construc- tion, military sales concessions, and other support to the Thais for theircontribution under the Free World Military 'Assistance program to Vietnam." ? ? . U.S. subsidies were used Once again to facilitate the sending of South Korean forces to Vietnam. Assistance included equipment to modernize Korean forces at home, equipment and all additional costs to cover the deploy- ment of Korean troops in Vietnam, additional loans froth the Agency for International Development, and increased ammunition and communications facilities. in Korea. To assure that the dispatch of men to Vietnam -would not weaken the defensive capabilities of the Republic of Korea, the Johnson administration wit-cod to finance the training of forces to tePlace those deployed in Vietnam and to improve South Korea's anti-infiltration capability. From fiscal 1965 to fiscal 1970, Korea's military presence in Vietnam was estimated to have cost. the United States $927.5 million. ?n? - The legal basis for this' assistance to free world forces in Vietnam derives from authorization and appropriation ? statutes ,cf 1966. Funds were 'made available to support Vietnanhese "and other_ free world forces in Vietnam, and related costs . on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may determine." In 1967 assistance. was broadened to include local forces in Laos :and Thai- land. Reports on such expenditures were submitted only go the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees of each house. One would not know from the general Ian- guage.of the statutes what type of financial'arrangement the Administration 'might enter into, or with- what country. Even staff people who had access to the reports said that they did not know the nature and dimension of financing the free world forces, until hearings were held by the Symington subcommittee. ? ? , ? Legislation in: 1969 and 1970 tightened...up the language o he statutes somewhat by placing a ceiling on the funds :t 01338Qi04.60iFt004400220C611451'ds were . also established for payments of overseas allowances. The (3ant :Itt-n--t X.01Y. Approved Por Release 2001/93017:914-RDP80-01601 STATINTL ? . Uti hz7: 7b..reeensEz.":(32;20.k;': Oi a A ge, Ily FELIX MUM jr. Sprolel to Tile new York Timo3 WASHINGTON, Nov. 8?Sen- ator J. W. Fulbright, chairman of the ?Senilte Foreign Relations Committee, served notice today that he would fight extension beyond next Monday of the continuing resolution that pro- vides foreign-aid spending au- thority, unless the committee's $3.3-billion bill was acted on by that time. Senator Fulbright, Democrat of Arkansas, made his an- nouncement in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Ap- propriations Committee. The announcement could mean that More than 4,000 ,employes of the Agbricy for International Development would lose their jobs if the committee bill was not approved by the Monday deadline. Fulbright Cites a Probilibition Since the current fiscal year began, on July 1, the agency, which administers foreign aid, has - been operating under a continuing resolution that ex- pires at midnight Monday. To prevent wholesale dismissals and a cut-off of all aid spend- ing, the House is schedule;i1 to act tomorrow on thte solution for a 30-day extension. Follow- up approval by the Senate has been a formality in time past. However, in his letter to the committee chairman, ? Senator Allen J. Ellender of Louisiana, Senator Fulbright s:dd that he would invoke a_ provision writ- the Administration's $3.5-billion ? ten into the law last year. The provision, never invoked, pro- hibits the use of a continuing resolution unless authorizing legislation is poding in both houses of Congress. Senator Fulbright suggested that the time had come to im- plement the prohibition in view of the Senate's defeat Oct. 30 of the authorizing legislation and "the great uncertainty sur- rounding the future of the en- tire foreign aid program." "To allow continuation of ap- propriations for foreign aid and military sales under the circum- stances would make this restric- tion a nullity and create pre- cisely the type of situation which the provision was de- signed to correct," Senator Ful- bright added. o . He specifically requested that any provision for additional funding of foreign aid pro- grams or personnel be deleted from the House's continuing resolution "until Congress has enacted an authorization bill." Versions Must L;?;ree Congressional ena-ctment re- quires not only passage of leg- islation by both houses but sep- arate approval of a conference report resolving differences be- tween the Senate and House versions. Oiarvers agreed that to accomplish this by Monday would require a burst of speed unequalled since the early days of the New Deal. Pending. action on the corn- mittee's 'truncated version of request,. Senator Fulbright sug- gested that the necessity of terminating the employment of AID. employes would not arise until Nov. 23, rather than Nov. 15, as Administration spokes- men contend. The Senator is understood to have obtained an informal opin- ion from the Controller General that the agency could meet its Nov. 23 payroll "because of the lag between the end of pay pe- riods and actual payment of salaries." The resolution that the Nouse will considered tomor- row would extend foreign-aid spending authority for af days beyond Monday, or until ad- journment of the present Con- gressional session. It would be. at the same annual spending rate of $2.6-billion that Con- gress appropriated for. last year. Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 WORLD PATOET OCT1971 Approved- For Release 2001/013)04 : CIA-RDP8(5MR001 ? ?-k / / 'r?i l'.." ) H.v), .:3,-1 )\ CI," II \\.S. ... ? .- _ , l'i i ' 1 11 V't II 11-_,..7, .. j\ Ii 1 11..-..-:,41 is, 11, h ti [IV I .1, C i '- 11.\ .;,-.:zi II \\ t!--.6,4 ?:::::',9 \`...::::ti-) 1.1 i V 1 1--,-,:;9 \ i q ) ,,, \ r:-.,_,:,,,.., ???`-:-.-_,-,.. i1 1.:?--a-.'''' C,'..-."7.:,...i' - 1 t i 1 , '':....."_%-i' F L.7-g$ek /.1 Just how valid are ,the charges against the Central Intelligence Agency? 17lia' guarantees do Americans have that it is under tight ,control? A point-by-point de- fense of the.organization comes from a man who served in top posts for 18 years. Following is an cmalysis of intelligence operations by Lyman Li. Kirkpatrick, Jr., former executive direc- tor-comptroller of. the ? Central Intelligence Agency: The Central Intelligence Agency was created by the Na- tional Security Act of 19-17 as an independent agency in the executive branch of the United .States Government, report- ing to the President. Ever since that ,late it has been sub- jected to criticism both at home and abroad: for what- it has allegedly clone, as well as for what it has failed to do. Our most cherished freedoms are those of speech and the press and the right to protest. It is not only a right, but an. obligation of citizenship to be critical of our institutions, and no organization can be immune from scrutiny. Ti is necessary that eriticisin be responsible, objective and. constructive. Tf should be recognized that as Americans we have an inherent mistrust of anything secret: The unknown is always a worry. We distrust the powerful. A secret organization de- scribed as powerful must appear as most dangerous of all. ? It was my responsibility for my last 12 years with the CIA ?first as inspector general, then, as executive director- comptroller?to insure that all responsible criticisms of the CIA were properly and thoroughly examined and, when -required, remedial action taken. I am confident this practice has been followed by my successors, not because of any direct knowledge, but because the present Director of Cen- tral Intelligence was my respected friend and colleague for more than two decades, and this is how he operates. ? It is with tins as background that I comment on the cur- 'rent allegations, none of which are original with this critic but any of which should be of concern to any American citizen. ? CIA and the Intelligence System Is Teo Big, This raises the questions of bow much we are willing to pay for national security, and how much is enough. First, .what are the responsibilities of the CIA. and the ? other intelligence organizations of our Government? Very briefly, the intelligence system -is charged with in- suring that the United States learns as far in advance as pos- sible of any potential threats to our national interests: A moment's contemplation will put in perspective what this ac- tually fineans. It can range. all the way from Russian missiles STAT I NTI I ATTNTLSTATINTL pointed at North America to threats' to U. S. ships or bases, to expropriation of American properties, to dangers to any one of our allies whom We are pledged by treaty to protect., It is the interface of world competition between superior powers. Few are those- who have served in the intelligence system \\la.? have not wished that there could be some limita- tion of responsibilities'or some lessening of encyclopedic cc- (I-Laren-10.1)N about the world. It is also safe to suggest that our senior policy makers undoubtedly wish that their span of required information could be less and that not every dis- turbance in every part of the world came into their purview. ? - (Note: This should, hot be interpreted as meaning that the U. S. means to intervene. It does- mean that when there is a ? Mr. Kirkpatrick Lyman ? B. Kirkpatrick, Jr., now professor of political science at Brown University, joined the Central Intelli- gence Agency in 1947 and advanced to assistant direc- tor, inspector general and ex- ecutive director-comptroller before leaving in 1965. He has written extensively on' intelligence and espionage. Among other honors, he holds the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civil- ian Service and the Distin- guished Intelligence Medal. boundary dispute or major disagreement between other na- tions, the U. S. is expected to exert its leadership to help solve, the dispute. It does mean that we will resist subversion against small, new nations. Thus the demand by U. S. policy ? makers that they be kept informed.) . What this means for our intelligence system is world- wide coverage. - 'To my-personal knowledge, there has not been an Admin- istration in Washington ti cit has not been actively concerned' with the size and cost of the intelligence system. All Admin- istrations have kept the intelligence, agencies under tight ..con- Approved For Release 2001/03/04: CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5 ooro 1 nu e J Ct\IFIr.):2iA0pr6Albd FOr3RFAERVSIEFI20 SO. ILLIN)1SAN Ec4.1-63 4 lait S 28,219 Eike.:,, / . ? - . . .. V p /7 !I . . ri il ? tl r--''11 /A , ,\:,..il\I (7:17 V .67?.. (77-', 1.:. f 3 7) i 1, , Y 'ii. \d. Li [j :::-:.jj I i ti"-1 1/4 ) . ) Cil f Yly Jack NeNVolliy Ooloo.1-.,?.:11onsl Quextc.,-?tv 1 - requiring '? direlss'?uro . 'of ? the 'i'unc,tio)ls, names, (Ificial titles, . caiaxi.es c;',.' nura-ers of person- '. ha' employed. by the, agency. - To the CIA dizetter, the law gri!nto4 tho authority to E.p.,-,q2d ,mo,ny "v?ithout regard th to e ? proy4ions of ? law and toguia- Aiens relating ti) the el./endituif'a 1-o: pvz--,..??.;-,-,ent, ftral?,?" 1: ?The Senatu Appropnlation:i; . Ckirarnitt,:e 'lies a five-Mall FA7b- '0111.2'n1tt.C.:?, ? with the primary (4 )eviowiiict - the ' .CIA hudgot, a figura which later is .hidden ut the accounts of - othcr