HARPER & ROW ANNOUNCES PUBLICATION OF 'THE POLITICS OF HEROIN IN SOUTHEAST ASIA'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-01601R001400220001-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 41
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 13, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 15, 1972
• Content Type: NSPR

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