Francesco/who-killed-jfk huggingface dataset:
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 48]
TOP SECRET                                                      46Mr. diGenova. In fact, the station chief's name and address in Athens had been presented, so when he wasiin there the address had already been printed previously.Mr. Aaron. Which was also known.Senator Huddleston. Now, if we want to say something about an added dimension to the seriousness on blowing cover or cover being diminished, is the situation in the world with terrorism or the vulnerability it makes of peopleMr. Kirbow. To the unstable.Mr. Aaron. Well, the point in the testimony is that this was an added danger, but because they've got a job to do, they're not going to really do too much about it. It's a real risk they are just going to have to bear.Senator Huddleston. That's an occupational hazard, but we are talking about how to protect their cover, and our recommendation is that they use -- have an official cover.Mr. Kirbow. Well, can the staff change the language, because we know exactly what you want to do, and without taking further time, why don't we just changecit.Mr. Maxwell. I would just hope that the two quotes after the one that David cited, the quote, he, Welch, was asked, the last quote, we could make the point in a different way because the impact of the first quotes, I think, is this guy was stupid and irresponsible, and I don't think we need to have any implication like that in the report, and the second one, I
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 49]
TOP SECRET471 think we can make the point that terrorism may constitute a2 greater threat now.3 Senator Huddleston. I think that quote ought to go entirely4 because it does leave the implication that there was a direct5 link to losing his cover and his assassination.6 Now, we don't know that.7 Mr. Aaron. So just take out the last one.8 Mr. diGenova. But still speak about the added danger of9 international terrorism. Just stop at the word "international10 terrorism."11 Senator Huddleston. Down in the recommendations I've been12 talking to Joe about defining the small business, and I think13 we fairly well understand what the concern is, or do we, Joe?14 Mr. diGenova. Senator, I was going to suggest, if you15 look at Recommendation No. 3, while it doesn't define what a16 large proprietary is, the Senator was concerned about what17 was meant by "should be kept small," and I tried to indicate18 really we are talking about Air America where you had 800019 employees of the CIA, both in Langley and abroad, and then20 another 8000 employees of the Air America complex. That is21 big.22 But I think what we should say is, organizationally small,23 and organizationally and numerically small, because what we are24 really talking about is when they get big, whether it is in25 numbers or finances, and larger in terms of people usually means
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 50]
# TOP SECRET48larger in terms of finances, also. Then you have both of the problems we addressed in the paper, which was the risk of unfair competition with private enterprise, and the risk of blowing cover, of compromising security.So I think that --Senator Huddleston. I was wondering if it could be designed in such a way as care should be taken that it not be any larger than necessary to achieve the objective for which it was established.Mr. Kirbow. Excuse me, Senator. It would not get the Air America thing because at the time they needed one twice that size.Senator Huddleston. They needed it that big, that's right.Mr. diGenova. The reason this language is in here is that the Agency officials themselves who testified, all of them, including the DDO, said they would like to have small ones, in other words, a small number of employees, small operation.Senator Huddleston. What about their insurance business?Mr. diGenova. "That's kind of an exception, although actually that is an example of a lot of money with only a few employees. There are only a couple of people that run that whole thing, Isenstead and a couple of -- one investor, Istenstead, and an auditor. There are three men that run that $32 million complex. So that is a different animal, really.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 51]
# TOP SECRET491 Senator Huddleston. So if you are going to use the term2 "small," you've got to say it from the standpoint of employees3 or resources.4 Ms. Culbreath. I was just going to suggest that, since5 another of our recommendations suggests annual review of all6 of these criteria, and since their budgets are going to have to7 be included for the oversight committee with review for the8 others, and we have got a proposal that the Committee also9 establish guidelines for the approval of the creation of large10 proprietaries, should these become necessary.11 Perhaps the better thing to do, since these proprietaries12 are for a specific need at a specific time, and since we have13 got the review procedure, is sort of trust it to the oversight14 committee to see to it that they don't get too big, whatever15 that may be, and leave it to them, maybe just delete that16 second sentence.17 Mr. Kirbow. Well, that's certainly a workable way.18 Senator Huddleston. I don't see how you are going to keep19 that sentence in there without having it..20 Mr. Aaron. I would also suggest that perhaps in the21 section on proprietaries, where we make a comment about how22 large proprietaries run risks in blowing their cover, we might23 would it be possible, do you think, to make a finding or make24 an example in regard to Air America?25 Mr. diGenova. Absolutely, because they have conceded
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 52]
TOP SECRET                                                     50that's the one that ran all of the problems.Senator Huddleston. You do mention that somewhere, don't you?Mr. Aaron. It's not mentioned specifically, but it might be possible to say, you know, maybe you can put a footnote on the first paragraph which simply said --Mr. diGenova. You mean on the findings of page 66 that "too often large proprietaries have created unfair" --Mr. Aaron. "Unwarranted risks of unfair competition with private business in compromising their cover." You should say, "for example," "Air America, for example, which had 8,000 employees," and so forth, ran into both of these problems.Senator Huddleston. I think that would be all right.Mr. Aaron. And then you would have at least some reference to what "large" was.Senator Huddleston. Then you've got the review and the oversight.Mr. Inderfurth. So the idea here in the recommendation was to take out the second sentence.Mr. diGenova. Yes.Mr. Inderfurth. Why not take out the first as well and just go to Recommendation No. 2 as No. 1?Mr. diGenova. Well, I think -- can I just say this -- that by indirection, approving of an activity is, I suppose, one way of doing it. I don't see anything wrong with stepping up
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 53]
51# TOP SECRET511 and saying we examined proprietaries, we found them to be --2 they had problems but basically they were all right.3 Mr. Inderfurth. Couldn't that be in the body as well?4 Mr. Kirbow. The one thing we have failed to do on this5 Committee is where we are strongly in favor of, is to speak6 out in a manner supporting an agency under otherwise violent7 attack from many sources, and I think --8 Mr. Inderfurth. I think that is not true, Charlie. I9 think you will find, if you read the findings of Bill Miller10 and others wrote in the first part, it says very strongly,11 intelligence is necessary; we need it.12 Mr. Kirbow. I'm saying up until now it has been an agency13 under attack. I think this whole section on foreign and14 military has been to make a balance between past wrongdoing15 and current operations.16 The Chairman. There can't be anything wrong with leaving17 the sentence in there.18 Mr. Maxwell. May I raise a question to the second19 recommendation, as to the reason why by statute there would be20 an annual review rather than recommending that to Congressional21 Committees.22 The second part of that is, my understanding of a number23 of the proprietaries is that they are not operating, and to24 require GAO audit of a whole group of in a sense notional25 organizations may be preempting the kind of review that the
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 54]
TOP SECRET521 oversight committee should be doing rather than setting it out here. It's just a question.Mr. diGenova. This is a rewrite of my original recommen- dation, and it is a good point. It may very well be that that is superfluous, if you are considering oversight by a committee.Senator Huddleston. The Committee cannot conduct an audit, though.Mr. diGenova. And that was the purpose for the Committee taking on board independent GAO auditors.Mr. Maxwell. The Committee can request GAO auditors.Mr. Kirbow. Anything that appears to be on an audit calls for an audit.Senator Huddleston. Calls for a GAO audit or gives the Committee authority to call for one.Mr. diGenova. I don't think we need a statute. We can talk about it as part of Congressional oversight. As part of the Congressional oversight function, the oversight committee should review proprietaries annually and where necessary conduct audits with the assistance of the General Accounting Office.Mr. Kirbow. Here, Mr. Chairman, I think again the point we made yesterday, that we should say at least annually, so that they don't put you in a box if you want one every two months because of circumstances, "at least annually."Senator Huddleston. You could add in Section 3, at least
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 55]
TOP SECRET1 there, giving the Committee authority to establish guidelines,2 to establish for large proprietaries, should they become3 necessary.4 You could also make the statement there that the Committee5 may call for a GAO audit periodically.6 Mr. diGenova. So we will rewrite 2 to eliminate the statute7 Senator Huddleston. Independent GAO audit.8 Mr. Aaron. No. 2 is rewritten so it is not required by9 statute that there be an audit, internal audit?10 Mr. Kirbow. No GAO audit.11 Senator Huddleston. The only thing I had in mind of12 taking out of 2 was just the independent GAO audit being13 required by statute, and leave that to the discretion of14 the Committee, but leave the rest of the review, right?15 Mr. Maxwell. You amend it by statute that an annual16 review of all proprietaries?17 Senator Huddleston. An internal CIA audit.18 Mr. Maxwell. Or would it recommend that, I'm not sure19 which.20 Mr. diGenova. I'm wondering whether it should be done21 by statute. Maybe we should recommend to the oversight22 committee that there should be an annual review consisting of23 internal CIA audit.24 Mr. Maxwell. An annual report to the oversight committee25 and such GAO audits as the Committee --
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 56]
TOP SECRET                                                             541 Mr. diGenova. May deem necessary.2 Senator Huddleston. That's all right.3 Mr. diGenova. And then we could add, as part of its4 annual report, the GAO should record all of its intercessions.5 That should be "report." They record all of them, so change6 "record" to "report".7 We can rewrite that.8 Senator Huddleston. Make that a little stronger.9 Mr. diGenova. Must report?10 Senator Huddleston. Shall be required to report.11 Mr. Aaron. I'm sorry.12 Could we now have a recapitulation by whomever thinks they13 followed this?14 Mr. diGenova. Elliot?15 I defer.16 Mr. Maxwell. "There should be an annual review"--17 Mr. Aaron. There is no longer a statute. The Committee18 recommends that there be, right?19 Mr. Maxwell. -- "a review, at least annually, of all20 CIA proprietaries."21 Mr. Aaron. By whom?22 Ms. Culbreath. By the oversight committee.23 Senator Huddleston. By the oversight committee..24 Mr. Maxwell. Well, you're defining what the review is25 in the next part. "consisting of an internal CIA audit and a
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 57]
TOP SECRET 551 report to the oversight committee as well as such independent2 GAO audits as the committee shall direct. As part of its3 annual report to the oversight Committee" --- "As part of its4 report to the oversight Committee, the CIA shall report," and5 then the rest of the sentence, "all its intercessions on6 behalf of its proprietaries."7 Mr. Aaron. May I just make a quick editorial fix? "The8 Committee recommends the overight Committee conduct an annual9 review of all proprietaries consisting of an internal CIA10 audit and report to the oversight Committee."11 Mr. Kirbow. No, the Committee cannot conduct a GAO12 audit. They can insist that that's part of the report that is13 presented to it.14 Mr. Aaron. That's it, consisting of a report to the over-15 sight Committee of an internal CIA audit, is that rigt?16 Mr. Kirbow. What you are trying to do is to require17 the CIA to reveiw it, to conduct a CIA audit, and to report18 fully all of the review entailed.19 Mr. diGenova. Not just the audit themselves. There are20 certain operational details you are going to want to know about21 also, not just financial security.22 Mr. Kirbow. Mr. Chairman, let us rewrite that one. We23 will include it.24 Senator Huddleston. Well, you see, you could combine25 1 and 2 together, since we are just going to use one sentence,TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 58]
TOP SECRET56the first sentence in No. 1, and after we say the external and internal controls, the oversight committee should require an annual report of all proprietaries by the CIA, including an internal CIA audit and all intercessions that the CIA may have made on behalf of proprietaries.Mr. diGenova. That's it, that's all in one sentence. We can fix that.Mr. Aaron. All right. We'll take Joe's fix.Mr. Kirbow. In three I am not sure what you mean, "In the DCI's budget presentation." That almost has a word of art connotation in the Senate. A budget presentation is that thing which the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the CIA makes to the Appropriations Committee.Mr. diGenova. We are talking about an authorization, aren't we, an annual authorization here?Mr. Inderfurth. Look on page 26 and you'll see the definition of that under (b). The DCI shall have responsibility for preparing the budget of the national intelligence program for presentation to the President and the Congress. This is the budget presentation that's being referred to under this.Mr. Kirbow. Well, now you come to the real question, proprietaries being listed in the DCI's budget presentation.Most of his proprietaries neither use any money up nor make any money or anything. They are just shelf items.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 59]
# TOP SECRETHere again you come to the notional.Mr. diGenova. No, no, Charles, because the point they made during our review out there was that never have the proprietaries appeared in the budget presentation. They have been hidden, and the object is to identify them in the budget as a line item, for example.Mr. Maxwell. One suggestion might be, be listed, that implies a list of proprietaries.Senator Huddleston. Where does this list go?Mr. Kirbow. What you want to do is to require them to include a discussion of the proprietaries in his annual report to the oversight committee is what you want to do, isn't it, because they don't have that now. They don't report to the Armed Services_Committee. They only report to Appropriations.Senator Huddleston. How would it be listed in the budget under your proposition here, Joe?Mr. diGenova. Well, I'm just assuming -- well, I am assuming in terms of oversight the Committee is going to want to know, even though this is not going to be published, where this money is going and what it is going to be used for, if they are going to authorize it.Mr. Aaron. I think the term really should be --Mr. Kirbow. I think it ought to be more than in the budget.Mr. diGenova. I know that's not just what they are going# TOP SECRET
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 60]
# TOP SECRET1 to be asking, but the thrust of this was to make sure that2 proprietaries found their way into the budget, and that Senators3 knew what they were authorizing when they authorized the budget.4 Now, how it gets in there, I am not a budget expert.5 Mr. Kirbow. That is what I am trying to supply here because6 in this process there is a procedure that when you say there shal7 be authorizing legislation, where the line items are discussed8 before the authorizing committee and not before the budget9 committee, which is the appropriations committee, and if you10 require that he discuss or report the annual operation of the11 proprietaries in his annual report to the oversight committee,12 you will accomplish what you are trying to do, and not exclude13 it only for the presentation before the Appropriations Committee.14 Mr. Maxwell. Could I try a fix on this?15 Mr. diGenova. You are invited.16 Mr. Maxwell. The oversight committee should require that17 the DCI's budget presentation to the Appropriations Committee18 and the oversight committee_include a specific discussion of19 the financial aspects of CIA proprietaries. I mean, we are20 trying to bring them out and see what the impact is on the21 budget, where do they fit in.22 Senator Huddleston. Can they do that, though, without23 identifying the proprietary and where it is located and whatever.24 Mr. diGenova. They have indicated they could.25 Mr. Aaron. Jim, Taylor, when he was here talking to the
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 61]
TOP SECRET1 Committee, talked about how they are beginning to -- drawing a2 way to work in the proprietaries so that they can both identify3 them and indicate their cash flow implications for the budget,4 and in effect --5 Senator Huddleston. What would you have proprietaries --6 Mr. Aaron. Proprietaries, income and outgo.7 Mr. Kirbow. But that would never be published, Senator.8 If you want to accomplish what you are suggesting here,9 that they report the cash status or the financial status, you10 add that additional sentence to this combined 1 and 2 up here11 that the Senator just proposed a minute ago, and indicate that12 that report should also include the financial status or the --13 Senator Huddleston. But you do that with the audit, don't14 you, the internal audit?15 Mr. Kirbow. Well, in fact you do, in fact you do.16 Mr. Aaron. Well, I think the point -- maybe I'm not17 captioning this properly, Joe, but I think the point here is18 that proprietaries either earn money or cost money, sometimes19 a little of both, and it has an impact, therefore, on the20 overall CIA budget, particularly in the past when income from21 the proprietaries could be placed in either the contingency22 reserve or used to finance, in effect, operational purposes23 of the proprietary. In other words, Air America was earning24 money on its operations, and yet it was costing them more25 because they were engaged in certain risky operations. In
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 62]
# TOP SECRETIn effect, the proprietary was earning money which was financing the proprietary organization.Mr. Kirbow. But they can no longer do that. What they earn now must go into the general Treasury.Mr. Aaron. No, gross earnings do not go into the general Treasury. Their net, and part of the cost of doing business would include the cost of some of their operational purposes.I think the point of this inclusion here was to see if one could require in connection with the budget, not just in general, with an audit of what it does specifically, but in terms of the entire activity of the CIA, to get a spelling out of its sort of macrobudget implications in terms of up or down, and secondly, its budget implications for the certain categories of operations which were involved, such as, if you are talking about the conduct of the support for the activities in Laos.Mr. diGenova. Paramilitary operations.Mr. Kirbow. Well, leave it like it is if that is what you are trying to do, because they will be sure to report it-to the Appropriations Committee in excruciating detail, but they won't report it to the authorization committee unless they require it to get money.So if you want to leave it a detailed budget, their presentation to the budget committee, this language will get that done.Senator Huddleston. Well, what if you said something like
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 63]
# TOP SECRETthis, furthermore, or adding to that, the fiscal impact or the budgetary impact of the proprietaries should be included or defined in the DCI's budget presentation.Mr. Maxwell. Specifically discussed?Mr. diGenova. That language would mean it's included in his presentation in some way because the allusion that David made to Jim Taylor is that they are beginning to put it into their budget presentation. I know that is a term of art.Senator Huddleston. That eliminates any idea of listing them.Mr. diGenova. Elliot's point also about the authorization committee should be added in there.Senator Huddleston. We've got so much money invested, and 33 money made money and 40 made money for a net gain of so and so.Mr. Maxwell. And you should have some notion of that and the problem was that you weren't able to get ahold of it.Senator Huddleston. And we sold two or three of them for this amount.Mr. diGenova. That is the whole issue of their visibility in the budget, the whole question.Senator Huddleston. Well, where does that visibility disappear?Mr. diGenova. Well, before they never showed up.Mr. Maxwell. Before you had the covert action.
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 64]
# TOP SECRET62Senator Huddleston. Well, where will it disappear now? It won't come to the authorization committee and the appropriations committee. I mean, it won't be a line item.Mr. Aaron. Proprietaries as a category?Mr. Maxwell. I would assume it is going to be a subsection of operational support in covert action.Mr. Aaron. Not necessarily. I think they are struggling with that at this point trying to define it properly and how it should be presented. I mean, I really don't think we know. They have an intention to do it because they recognize that potentially it is a source of real question as to how much money is being spent on clandestine activities that is self-generated by the Agency because of its proprietary activities.Mr. diGenova. The impact, Senator, was also to show that the Committee had looked at this broadly, was aware of possible budget and authorization implications of various entities, including proprietaries, and that it wanted to say something about that. It was not necessarily anything dramatic.Senator Huddleston. Well, I will agree with that. I am just worried about if you say you expose proprietaries too much, you are exposing cover.Mr. Aaron. Well, this is internal. This is classified.Mr. diGenova. This is not public.Mr. Maxwell. Well, I think the language the Senator
[157-10014-10125.pdf — page 65]
# TOP SECRET1 suggested got to that.2 Mr. Aaron. Well, let me see if I can read out what I would3 propose along the lines I think we discussed.4 The oversight committee should require that the fiscal5 impact of proprietaries be made clear in the DCI's budget6 presentation to the oversight committee. If you want to add7 the appropriations committee, you can, but I think the point is8 that that happens.9 Mr. Kirbow. If you'll listen just one minute, Mr. Miller10 knows and I believe the Senator knows that "in the Senate there11 is a formal budget presentation made to the Appropriations12 Committees." They are not made elsewyere. Reports are made13 to oversight committees on the status and all of these other14 things, and if they request any money for those proprietaries,15 they would request that before the authorizing committee. If16 you are just trying to accomplish getting it made known to the17 oversight committee, drop the word "budget presentation" and18 adopt the common usage of the annual report of the Agency or19 of the DCI.20 But that is kind of a word of art. Those are words of21 art in the Senate, and they will seize on it because today22 they don't do it for anybody else but the Appropriations23 Committee.24 Senator Huddleston. I think that's reasonable enough.25 It ought to be clear.