BUDGET BRIEFING FOR MESSRS. MICHAELS AND WOODRUFF

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R001700060011-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 19, 2003
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: April 12, 1967
• Content Type: MFR

T
Approved For Release 2003/08/25 : Cl
tR `7_ /, ,25X1
-RDP80B01676R 01700060011-8
12 April 1967
SUBJECT: Budget Briefing for Messrs. Michaels and Woodruff
1. Bob Michaels and Bill Woodruff were at Headquarters for
about three hours this morning for a briefing on our Fiscal Year
1968 budget. John Clarke andi gave them a very good 25X1
briefing, which included those reductions as well as increases. I
think they were impressed with the fact that there is a good deal of
reprogramming going on all the time which is not reflected if one
merely looks at the total dollar figures.
2. At the conclusion of the briefing we discussed the Katzen-
bach report and its implications, and Bill Woodruff took away with
him a copy of the A, B, and C lists for further study. We explained
to them that it is simply too early for us to know just how we will
come out on all of this and what the precise budgetary impact will
be. They were fully appreciative of the uncertainties involved. At
the same time, it was my definite impression that, insofar as our
FY 68 budget is concerned, this is perhaps the most important prob-
lem with which the committees will have to deal. , In other words,
it was my impression that Michaels and Woodruff will not challenge
our budget except as it might be affected in this important area.
They undertook to come back within the next few days to pursue the
matter with us, at which time we hope to know a little more than we
do now about where we are going. Woodruff wants to do this as soon
as possible, indicating some urgency about the matter.
3. I suggested that the deliberations of the 303 Committee and
the newly appointed Rusk committee will probably not proceed fast
enough to have a clear picture even by the end of this fiscal year and
that perhaps the best way to proceed would be to review the FY 68
budget as submitted. The committees could then set up any kind of
reporting mechanism they desire to monitor the changes as they are
effected, and the savings could be placed in our Reserve, which
would reduce or even eliminate any requests for replenishment of
Approved For Release' 2003/08125- CIA-RDP80B01676R00 TQ00 i 'F-8
SFC 1
25X1
 srr 25X1
Approved For Release 2003/08/25 : CIA- 01700060011-8
the Reserve in FY 69. This seemed to appeal to them with a slight
modification. Michaels in particular seemed to think that the only
realistic approach is to proceed with the budget as submitted. He
suggested, however, that the committee might defer the actual
markup until the eleventh hour, at which time we would know more
precisely what reductions can be made. I made the point that, even
in those areas where it has been decided that CIA will drop certain
projects completely, there are at least two requirements for some
of the funds in the budget, namely, liquidation costs of the current
projects and new projects which might be generated to accomplish
the same objectives in a manner not in conflict with the Katzenbach
report. They recognize these points as valid, but it was also quite
clear that we will have to be rather specific about liquidation costs
and the new substitute projects in order to justify retention of all or
part of the money.
4. We then philosophized a bit about our budget hearings. I
sensed that, while Michaels is quite relaxed, Woodruff seems to have
great problems. I asked if it were possible that we have a different
kind of problem in the Senate than in the House. Woodruff then be-
came quite candid and said that the real problem is how to deal with
the budget if Senator Fulbright and the other invitees sit in. The
short briefings given in previous years simply will not do and would
give Senator Fulbright real ammunition to support his contention that
the Russell committee is not really overseeing the CIA. I said that
we are of course willing to give as much time as the committee can
spare and to go into any amount of detail. Woodruff thinks that
Senator Russell has a real dilemma on his hands, inasmuch as he
probably will not want long, drawn-out hearings. One solution might
be to have a meeting of the Appropriations subcommittee, which
would exclude Senator Fulbright and the other invitees. He will give
more thought to this problem, discuss it with Bill Darden, hopefully
get some guidance from Senator Russell, and then offer us some
suggestions on the type of presentations we should make.
5. During lunch I referred to the letter to Charlie Schultze
from Representative Mahon and Senator Hayden on our
supplemental and asked them whether they had any views on where
Approved For Release 2003/08/25 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001700060011-8
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
 SFr
Approved For Release 2003/08/25 :CIA- ..~
01700060011-8
to let me know if they have any different ideas, since the Director
and I will be discussing this with Charlie Schultze within the next few
days.
6. It was obvious that both Woodruff and Michaels appreciated
having the briefing and both expressed a hope that their
committees might come to Headquarters for the budget hearings.
Michaels seemed to think that this might be a definite possibility,
whereas Woodruff's expression was clearly a hope. He opined that
he thought every member of the committee except Senators Russell
and Hayden would probably be glad to come. While Senator Hayden
is not too important in this regard, I said that I thought we would not
dare have the rest of the committee come without Senator Russell,
to which Woodruff replied, "You have a better insight into our method
of operations than I realized. "
L. K. White
Executive Director -C omptroller
cc: DD/P
D/PPB
DDCI
Approved For Release 2003/08/25 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R001700060011-8
-
25X1