220. Report by the Task Force on Intelligence Activities of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government1

PREFACE

Scope of the Study

“Intelligence”—A Definition

The fate of the nation well may rest on accurate and complete intelligence data which may serve as a trustworthy guide for top-level governmental decisions on policy and action in a troubled world where so many forces and ideologies work at cross purposes.

The Congress has recognized the importance of the role of intelligence in our national security. It has authorized the expenditure of vast [Page 652] sums of money by appropriate departments and agencies to carry on this work.

Immediately after World War II, at the suggestion of the Chief Executive of our Government, the Congress approved the creation of a new agency unique and in many ways strange to our democratic form of government. It is known as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The CIA operates without the customary legislative restraints and reins under which other departments must function. Its work is veiled in secrecy, and it is virtually a law unto itself.

In order to evaluate the extent and effectiveness of intelligence as carried out under these conditions, the Task Force on Intelligence Activities found that it was confronted at the outset with the problem of arriving at a common understanding and agreement on the meaning of the word “intelligence,” as applied to its own areas of work and investigation.

The word has many definitions and is subject to varying shades of interpretation and meaning. In a certain context it might refer to “ability to learn”; in another context, “intellect,” or perhaps “ability to meet a new situation”; and in yet another sense, “common sense.”

In the search for an acceptable definition as applied to our own field of study, it was found that each department or agency surveyed had its own definition. Many of these definitions were lengthy, and involved use of words requiring additional interpretation or delimitation to get to their precise application.

The task force sought a definition as simple and clear as possible and arrived at the following:

“Intelligence deals with all the things which should be known in advance of initiating a course of action.”

Useful for our purposes, also, as a supplemental and expanded definition is that given in the Dictionary of United States Military Terms for Joint Usage:

“INTELLIGENCE—The product resulting from the collection, evaluation, analysis, integration, and interpretation of all available information which concerns one or more aspects of foreign nations or of areas of operations, and which is immediately or potentially significant to planning.”

Scope of Task Force Study Refined

Initially, this task force was instructed by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, hereinafter referred to as the Commission or the Hoover Commission, to study and make recommendations as to the structure and administration [Page 653] of the Central Intelligence Agency and other kindred intelligence activities.

Later, those instructions were changed by the Commission to embrace studies of all intelligence activities of the Federal Government and to submit recommendations to effect changes considered necessary to promote economy, efficiency, and improved service in this field.

The task force gave thorough consideration to the decision of the Commission to broaden the scope of the task-force studies to include all intelligence activities of the Federal Government. It developed that there are at least twelve major departments and agencies which, in one manner or another, are engaged in intelligence. Among these are the Department of State, the Department of Defense (including the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Joint Chiefs of Staff), the Central Intelligence Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, there are ten or more minor agencies or activities which expend public funds directly or indirectly on behalf of the intelligence effort of the Government.

Thus, under the broad definition of its terms of reference, the task force was confronted with the Herculean job of studying and reporting on more than twenty major and minor departments and agencies. It readily became apparent that any attempt to spread the efforts of the task force over such a large area would mean either that only minor results could be expected within the allotted time or the work period should be extended beyond the date contemplated for dissolution of the Commission on May 31, 1955. Therefore, it was apparent that the scope of the task-force work had to be refined if any useful results were to be derived from its efforts and expenditure of funds.

Positive Foreign Intelligence Vital

The most pressing need under present conditions is for those officials in responsible positions in Government, especially those responsible for foreign policy, to have readily available full and factual foreign intelligence. The word “foreign” as used here denotes the target of information as distinct from the geographical source.

Thus, it appeared to the task force that within the given time limit the best interests of the Government would be served if the task force directed its attention to the departments and agencies whose entire or primary responsibilities lie in the field of positive foreign intelligence as it pertains to national defense and security, and in whose care vast sums of money and unique authority have been entrusted. These are the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (to the extent that it deals in security intelligence), and the intelligence activities of the Atomic Energy Commission.

[Page 654]

Directive to the Task Force

Accordingly, a proposal to delimit the scope of the task-force studies was made to and approved by the Commission, as follows:

1.
Survey the work of the Central Intelligence Agency. Cover all activities of CIA, wherever located, including but not limited to collection, evaluation, and dissemination of intelligence, obligation and expenditure of funds, examination of auditing of funds, security, personnel, projects carried out through other agencies, relationship and coordination with other governmental intelligence agencies, communications, supply and storage; a determination of the responsibilities of the agency, as prescribed by legislative enactment or administrative action, and a study as to whether the responsibilities have been adequately defined and are being implemented.
2.
Survey the intelligence activities of the Department of Defense. Cover all intelligence activities, wherever located, of the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Agency, Army, Navy, and Air Force, including, but not limited to, collection, evaluation, and dissemination of intelligence, obligation and expenditure of funds, security, personnel, projects carried out through other agencies, communications, relationship and coordination with other governmental intelligence agencies, supply and storage; a determination of the responsibilities of the Department and all its elements for intelligence, as prescribed by legislative enactment or administrative action, and a study as to whether the responsibilities have been adequately defined and are being implemented. No survey will be made of the organization or organizational structure of tactical units in the Army, Navy, and Air Force engaged primarily in producing tactical or combat intelligence.
3.
Survey the intelligence activities of the Department of State. Cover all intelligence activities related to national defense, wherever located, of the Department of State, including but not limited to, collection, evaluation, and dissemination of intelligence, obligation and expenditure of funds, security, personnel, projects carried out through other agencies, communications, relationship and coordination with other governmental intelligence agencies, and supply; a determination of the responsibilities of the Department for intelligence, as prescribed by legislative enactment or administrative action, and a study as to whether the responsibilities have been adequately defined and are being implemented.
4.
Survey the intelligence activities of the National Security Council. Include a study of the history, legislation, development, organization, and operations of the National Security Council as they affect intelligence activities. Include study of the Operations Coordinating Board, the Intelligence Advisory Committee, and related activities.
5.
Survey limited segments of the intelligence activities of other agencies. The segments to be studied would be developed as the task force gathers information.
6.
General Considerations. Determine which of the intelligence services, activities, and functions performed by any of the agencies surveyed are (a) essential; (b) not necessary; (c) of similar nature, and what consolidations are in the public interest; (d) non-essential, and which are competitive with private enterprise; and, (e) duplicate or overlap those of other agencies.

[Page 655]

This requires a determination in the basic surveys outlined in paragraphs 1 to 5 as to what services, activities, and functions are being performed by each agency studied. Upon completion of the basic surveys, a functional survey of the work done by the agencies would be undertaken from the data developed. With such a scope, the task force would cover, among other things:

(1)
The intelligence function of the National Security Council.
(2)
The value and effectiveness of the information supplied by the operating agencies.
(3)
The effectiveness of the coordination of intelligence agencies.
(4)
The organization, procedures, methods, and performance of the several Government agencies in the field of overt and covert intelligence.
(5)
An examination of the operation and physical plant of the agencies as to economy, adequacy, effect on efficiency, and utilization.
(6)
The various programs of the several agencies in such fields as training, research and development, stockpiling, reference material, and security.
(7)
The personnel policies and manpower utilization.
(8)
All programs and procedures for the collection, development, and dissemination of information to include collection apparatus and dissemination media.
(9)
The interrelationship between the several areas thus assigned and actual areas of coverage, mutual support of one another.

In the execution of this extensive undertaking, the task force, in certain areas, had to employ the “sampling” method, particularly in the case of the study of those activities of the agencies overseas.

Sensitive Portions of Agencies Surveyed

In giving its approval of the foregoing proposal, the Commission directed that a first paragraph be added as follows:

“1. The study and survey of the sensitive portions of the agencies will be undertaken by General Clark with a minimum staff on a ‘need-to-know’ basis.”

Pursuant to the foregoing directive, arrangements were made orally between Mr. Allen Dulles, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and General Mark W. Clark, chairman of the Task Force on Intelligence Activities, initially for General Clark and Colonel Herman O. Lane, a member of the task-force staff, to have access to CIA activities, both overt and covert. Shortly after this arrangement was implemented, it developed that a requirement existed for at least one additional member of the task force to have access to covert activities of the agency. Accordingly, Admiral Richard L. Connolly’s name was added to the list.

This arrangement continued until a decision was made that certain members of the task force and staff should inspect intelligence activities in the European and Far East areas. Since General Clark was [Page 656] unable to take part in one of these inspection trips, the problem confronting the task forces, as a result of the existing restrictions on the clearance of the task force to sensitive material of the agency, was presented to the Director of Central Intelligence. The following quoted letter was received from the director:

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Washington 25, D.C.
Office of the Director
27 January 1955

General J.G. Christiansen

Staff Director

Task Force on Intelligence Activities

Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government

Washington D.C.

Dear General Christiansen:

With further reference to your letter of 20 January 1955,2 and our telephone conversations of yesterday evening and today, I have arranged clearance for Mr. Henry Kearns and for you to have access to CIA activities, both overt and covert, in connection with your trip to the Pacific area. It is also understood that all members of the Task Force and you, yourself, will be cleared to consider the report with respect to both overt and covert activities of the CIA which may be submitted by those members of your staff who have been cleared for on-the-spot investigation of those activities. I quite appreciate that this is necessary in connection with the preparation of the Task Force report.

This procedure has been cleared with Governor Adams.

Faithfully yours,

Allen W. Dulles

Director

Cost of the Intelligence Effort

Precise figures on the cost in money and manpower engaged in intelligence activities in the interest of national defense and security are not a matter of record. Any attempt to compile such data accurately would require the expenditure of money out of all proportion to the value of the findings. The task force estimates, however, that the annual expenditure is in the order of $800 million.

[Page 657]

Organization of the Task Force

Security Impact on Selection of Personnel

The Task Force on Intelligence Activities was the last to be authorized by the Hoover Commission. The director and deputy of the staff assumed their duties on October 1, 1954. The limited pool of available personnel in the United States with prior experience in the intelligence field influenced to some extent the structure of the staff and its methods of operation.

Personnel of the Intelligence Task Force and of the staff had to be screened carefully for background security and possible prejudicial interest arising from prior association with departments and agencies under investigation.

Before a member of the task force or staff could have access to any material, a security background investigation was conducted and the individual declared by proper authority to be eligible for access to “Top Secret” information. In each case where the inquiry involved access to atomic energy data, a special clearance was obtained.

It was found that each department and agency had evolved its criteria, practices, and standards for clearance. The task force adopted a policy in conformity with the policies and requirements of the department or agency involved in each specific investigation.

In the interest of security and economy, the task force also decided to keep its staff as compact as possible. Sensitive material was studied generally on the premises of the agencies.

Staff Organization

After careful consideration by the task force of the possible methods of organizing the staff and its work, it was decided that the most practical course would be to assign some teams composed of one or two staff members to study specific agencies, and to delegate to other teams specific across-the-board survey functions. Individual task force members were assigned across-the-board responsibilities paralleling the work of designated staff teams. Thus, all members would be in a position to interject their influence and guidance in the staff activities and at the same time obtain valuable first-hand knowledge of the overall problem.

Initially, five staff study groups were organized. Some were assigned responsibility for study of a single department; others, where feasible, covered two or more agencies.

The restrictions imposed on the staff in its survey of the Central Intelligence Agency necessitated that the work be broken down into two classifications, with one group studying the covert aspects of CIA, and the other surveying the overt operations of the Agency. These two teams carefully coordinated and correlated their studies, except where [Page 658] information on the more sensitive areas of the Agency’s work was restricted to designated individuals. This arrangement proved very cumbersome, was time-consuming, and seriously interfered with the conduct of the survey.

As each task group completed the study of a particular department or agency, it was assigned to studies of specific functions common to two or more agencies.

Procedures for Gathering Data

The task force scrupulously avoided the use of questionnaires. The statistical matter which appears throughout this report was extracted from documentary files maintained by the departments and agencies.

The task force and staff had the benefit of detailed briefings by each agency studied. These briefings were characterized by informality. Oral questions and answers were the rule rather than the exception. No verbatim transcriptions of the conversations and comments of witnesses were deemed necessary. In some instances, however, copies of the prepared briefings were furnished to the staff for ready reference.

Discussions were had with all echelons of personnel in each department and agency, from the clerk at the working level to and including the Secretary of State, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence.

The task force also had the benefit of expert advice from many individuals who are not in Government employ but who previously occupied positions of prime responsibility in the development of our present intelligence operations and organization. Their help and advice were of inestimable value.

Some of these witnesses appeared before the task force at no expense to the Government and at considerable personal sacrifice. The task force wishes to express its unqualified appreciation to these public-spirited individuals in private life who gave freely of their time, and who by their objective approach to the problem materially enlightened the task force.

Teams Make First-Hand Studies Abroad

In order to obtain a clearer picture of intelligence operations, two teams, each composed of a member or members of the task force and members of the staff, were sent abroad for on-the-spot investigations. One team visited the European sector and the other went to the Far East.

These staff groups had discussions with the senior United States representatives, senior military commanders, and representatives of the Central Intelligence Agency in the countries visited. The visits and discussions afforded the task force first-hand information which could be obtained in no other fashion.

[Page 659]

The conclusions reached and the recommendations contained in this report reflect the benefits of those personal tours of inspection.

Results of the Recommendations Made in 1948 by the First Hoover Commission As They Related to Intelligence

The first Hoover Commission3 directed its attention primarily to the functional responsibilities and relationships of the heads of the various departments and agencies established under the National Security Act. The principal recommendation relating directly to intelligence was incorporated in the following general recommendation:

“That more adequate and effective relations be developed at working level among the appropriate committees of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on one hand, and the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, Research and Development Board, Munitions Board, and the National Security Resources Board on the other hand. That vigorous steps be taken to improve the Central Intelligence Agency and its work.”

Results

The Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 19534 transferred the functions of the National Security Resources Board and Munitions Board to the Office of Defense Mobilization. The functions of the Research and Development Board were transferred to the Secretary of Defense by Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1953,5 where they are incorporated in the functions of the Assistant Secretary of Research and Development. There are apparently no relationships on working levels in the intelligence field between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of Defense Mobilization, except through the representation of the Secretary of Defense in the National Security Council. As far as the intelligence relations between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Central Intelligence Agency on working levels are concerned, they are implicit in the representation of the joint intelligence group of the Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the Intelligence Advisory Committee. The degree of coordination effected through these relationships will be discussed more fully in this report in the section devoted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The steps taken subsequent to the publication of the report of the first Hoover Commission to improve the Central Intelligence Agency are [Page 660] discussed in the following paragraphs relating to the recommendations of the task force of the first Hoover Commission.

Observations, Recommendations, and Results of the Task Force on Intelligence Activities within the National Defense Organization

The task force of the first Hoover Commission confined its observations and recommendations to the Central Intelligence Agency, its internal problems, and its relationships with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the National Security Council, and the intelligence agencies of the three military services.

The present task force has been unable to determine the degree to which these observations and recommendations were published and disseminated, except as they are reflected in the recommendation of the Commission discussed previously. However, as they influenced to some degree the direction of the efforts of this task force, a brief discussion of the observations of this task force in the same areas is believed to be pertinent.

Observations of the Task Force of First Hoover Commission and Comments of this Task Force Thereon

1.
“Judgment as to the effectiveness of the CIA must be tempered by considerations of its apparent youth, its lack of tradition and established, time-tried procedures, and of continuity of personnel.” The soundness of that observation is self-evident and is supported by the observations of this task force as set forth in its report.
2.
“There seems to be an excess of administrative personnel, and there is undue interference with operating agencies. Reduction of administrative overhead is possible and desirable, and interference with operating agencies should be eliminated.” There still exists some excess of administrative personnel because of considerations relating to compartmentalization for security reasons, and because of the fact that the agency is now scattered among thirty-four buildings. This administrative overhead is a matter of constant concern and study to the agency. Plans for new construction have been initiated and funds will be requested.
3.
“The CIA is scattered among twenty-two buildings, causing many administrative difficulties, although some scattering may be desirable for security reasons.” The number of buildings now occupied by the agency has been increased to thirty-four, thus magnifying the administrative difficulties.
4.
“The CIA has fallen short of its objectives as a source of national intelligence, especially in the fields of scientific intelligence, including medical. This information should be evaluated centrally.” This observation will be commented upon in the discussion following recommendation 3 below.
5.
“The CIA’s main problem is one of securing and retaining qualified personnel. This is also true of other intelligence agencies.” The securing and retaining of qualified personnel has been largely solved by the agency as it has had sufficient funds to attract the best qualified people, sometimes, unfortunately, at the expense of the intelligence agencies of the three services. This situation will be discussed more fully in the section covering the Central Intelligence Agency and the military services.
6.
“The services must rid their intelligence estimates of service bias.” Attempts on the part of service intelligence agencies to present honest intelligence estimates particular to that agency are sometimes “slanted” by the command echelons of the services in support of budgetary requests. This tendency should not be charged to intelligence agencies, which on the whole, are doing an honest job as far as this task force has been able to observe.
7.
[1 paragraph (7 lines) not declassified]
8.
“Thought should be given to desirability of splitting CIA in time of war, and transferring operational services, such as open and covert collection, to the Department of Defense. Changes should be made in peacetime organization to facilitate this split.” Much thought has been given by the officials of the CIA and the military services concerning the proper relationships in time of war between the CIA and the military services. Present plans of the CIA do not contemplate the transfer of any of CIA’s current functions and responsibilities to the Department of Defense in time of war. However, current plans (approved by the Secretary of Defense and the DCI) envisage the transfer of operational control over CIA’s component forces in active theaters of war where American Forces are engaged to the military commander thereof, who will exercise such control in the same manner as control is exercised by him over components of the Army, Navy, and Air Force assigned to the same command (see Appendix II). The task force believes that the seriousness of this ever-present problem warrants continued study to arrive, if possible, at the most suitable solution prior to the outbreak of war.
9.
“The military services, including Joint Chiefs of Staff, tend to withhold details of operational information and military plans on the grounds of security.” This situation has not been solved to the complete satisfaction of all interested parties.
10.
“The ties binding the JCS, among others, to the CIA are too tenuous.” This observation resulted in recommendation 3 of the task force and will be commented on in the discussion following that recommendation.
11.
“Any proposals for the revision of laws so as to permit conviction, regardless of intent, in cases of dangerous disclosures by indiscreet [Page 662] and irresponsible persons, should be examined most carefully by Congress in the light of our concepts of freedom.” As far as this task force has been able to determine, no statutory authority exists or is contemplated which covers the situation of former employees who may, negligently or otherwise, without intent, make unauthorized disclosures.
12.
“The National Security Organization, as established by the National Security Act of 1947, is soundly conceived. In order to improve operations, the NSC should give more thought and attention to the relationships of CIA with other agencies, and by working through the Secretaries of State and Defense, should encourage the improvement of other intelligence agencies.” This observation is incorporated in recommendation 1 of the task force below.
13.
“Such of the reforms as suggested by this committee, as well as those of the Dulles Committee,6 should be made promptly, but when action has been taken, the agencies affected should be permitted a period of internal development free from examination and its attendant publicity.” Any comment on this sound observation would be redundant.

Recommendations of the Task Force of the First Hoover Commission

1.
“That more adequate and effective relations be established at the working levels between appropriate committees of the JCS and the Joint Staff and their countermembers in (1) the National Security Council, (2) the Central Intelligence Agency, (3) the Research and Development Board, (4) the Munitions Board, and (5) the National Security Resources Board, to the end that in their strategic planning the JCS will weigh adequately and on a systematic, reciprocal basis, considerations of foreign policy, intelligence, scientific research and development, and economic capabilities.” This recommendation is substantially the same as the recommendation of the commission, and the results will be discussed in the sections of this report devoted to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
2.
“That the Secretary of Defense be the sole representative of the national military establishment on the National Security Council. The Committee suggests, however, in order that the JCS may be fully and currently posted on our national policy, that they be invited, as a general rule, to attend meetings of the NSC, but without membership thereon. The civilian departmental secretaries, although not members, should also be invited to attend council meetings in appropriate circumstances.” The National Security Act of 1947, as amended, now provides that the Secretary of Defense is the sole National Defense Establishment member. However, secretaries and under secretaries of the military departments may serve as members at the pleasure of the President. [Page 663] The law also provides that the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be the principal military advisers to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. It has been observed by this task force that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff habitually attends the meetings of the National Security Council and the other members attend for those items in which the Joint Chiefs are concerned. When departmental matters are before the Council which are of concern to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, the secretary concerned will be invited and may bring his military chief as an adviser, in which case that military chief will not be attending in his role as a member of the JCS.
3.
“That vigorous efforts be made to improve the internal structure of the CIA and the quality of its product, especially in the fields of scientific and medical intelligence; that there be established within the agency at the top echelon an evaluation board or section composed of competent and experienced personnel who would have no administrative responsibility and whose duties would be confined solely to intelligence evaluation; and that positive efforts be made to foster relations of mutual confidence between the CIA and the several departments and agencies it serves.” This task force has observed that positive efforts have been made to improve the quality of scientific and medical intelligence. The Office of Scientific Intelligence is adequately staffed to include medical personnel. In the quality of its products, this agency is definitely handicapped by the inability of the intelligence community as a whole to collect information from the Soviet bloc. The Office of National Estimates is a top-echelon evaluation board, composed of competent and experienced personnel with no administrative responsibilities and whose duties are confined solely to intelligence evaluation, the product of which appears in the form of national estimates. Specific recommendations with regard to deficiencies in the relations of the Central Intelligence Agency with the services will be found in those sections devoted to CIA and the Department of Defense.
4.
“That the Research and Development Board and the CIA, as a joint undertaking, establish immediately within one or the other agency an efficient and capable unit to collect, collate, and evaluate scientific and medical intelligence, in order that our present glaring deficiencies in this field be promptly eliminated.” The Research and Development Board has been dissolved and its functions transferred to the Secretary of Defense. Progress made by the Central Intelligence Agency in the field of scientific and medical intelligence is fully discussed in the section of this report devoted to that agency.

INTRODUCTION

The machinery for accomplishing our intelligence objectives, hereinafter called the intelligence community when referred to as a whole, includes the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, [Page 664] the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the intelligence sections of the Department of State, of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and of the Atomic Energy Commission. Some of these agencies approach or exceed the operations of the CIA in functions and in expenditures. However, since CIA is charged with the overall responsibility for coordinating the output of all intelligence forces, the task force gave special attention to the work of that Agency.

Our investigations showed that the sensitive and vital work of the intelligence community is being led by a group which is sincere, and dedicated to the service of the nation. We discovered no valid ground for the suspicion that the CIA or any other element of the intelligence family was being effectively contaminated by any organized subversive or Communistic clique. Charges were made by some individuals alleging a few members of the intelligence community to be poor security risks. All such cases, except those obviously without merit, were investigated by proper authority, or investigations are in the process of being made.

On the basis of its comprehensive studies, the task force feels that the American people can and should give their full confidence and support to the intelligence program, and contribute in every possible way to the vital work in which these agencies are engaged. We found the Director of Central Intelligence to be industrious, objective, selfless, enthusiastic, and imaginative. We are convinced, however, that in his enthusiasm he has taken upon himself too many burdensome duties and responsibilities on the operational side of CIA’s activities. The task force feels that certain administrative flaws have developed in the CIA, which must be corrected to give proper emphasis and direction to its basic responsibilities

The major aim would be greater concentration on the collection of intelligence information from our primary target—Russia and her satellites, and Communist China.

The task force is deeply concerned over the lack of adequate intelligence data from behind the Iron Curtain. The information we need on the political plans, scientific progress, and military potential of the Communists is there to be had, and we must exert every conceivable and practicable effort to get it. Proper directional emphasis, aggressive leadership, boldness and persistence are essential to achieve the desired results.

The glamor and excitement of some angles of our intelligence effort must not be permitted to overshadow other vital phases of the work or cause neglect of primary functions. A majority of the task force is convinced that an internal reorganization of the CIA is necessary to give assurance that each of these functions receives adequate attention without diversionary interest.

[Page 665]

The task force further is concerned over the absence of satisfactory machinery for surveillance of the stewardship of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is making recommendations which it believes will provide the proper type of “watch-dog” commission as a means of reestablishing that relationship between the CIA and the Congress so essential to and characteristic of our democratic form of government, but which was abrogated by the enactment of Public Law 1107 and other statutes relating to the Agency. It would include representatives of both Houses of Congress and of the Chief Executive. Its duties would embrace a review of the operations and effectiveness not only of the CIA, but also of all other intelligence agencies.

One of the aims in the creation of a compact commission of this type would be to keep the public assured of the essential and trustworthy accomplishments of our intelligence forces, and to enlist public support and participation in the intelligence effort.

Action of this sort is needed to promote a general awareness and appreciation among the people of the significance and objectives of the intelligence program. There is a corollary demand for clarification of misunderstandings which have arisen in the public mind, largely as a result of the misapplication of secrecy. However, it must be recognized that intelligence operations require a large element of secrecy as an essential to success.

The task force further is greatly concerned about the inadequate guidance being given to NSA by the United States Communication Intelligence Board, and about certain aspects of communications. Recommendations to improve the current status are made in Appendix I, Parts 1 and 2.

The intelligence community should draw more widely on the available pool of retired citizens with wide previous business experience in the foreign field, and among retired military personnel who have specialized over a long period in the intelligence field. It should develop a more attractive program of career incentives for its officials, and of benefits for its overseas employees.

Recommendations to achieve these desirable results are being offered by the task force.

[Omitted here are the body of the report and the Appendices.]

  1. Source: Central Intelligence Agency, Executive Registry, Job 86–B00269R, Box 1. Top Secret. Regarding the background to this report, see Document 185. This report, which includes two appendices, is attached to a transmittal letter from the task force members to Herbert Hoover, May 1955, not printed. The letter outlined the task force’s awareness of “the grave responsibility implicit in its assigned mission,” and it expressed the members’ “personal appreciation for the wholehearted and enthusiastic cooperation given us by the departments and agencies involved.” It also noted, however, that “the task force was severely hampered by the security restrictions imposed upon it in its survey of the clandestine operations of the Central Intelligence Agency. While the necessity for carefully safeguarding sensitive material is well recognized, the fact remains that the restrictions complicated the conduct of the survey of this vital segment of our national intelligence community.” The letter also transmitted the unclassified report, which was subsequently published and sent to Congress (Document 221). Only the Preface and Introduction to the classified report are printed here.
  2. Not found.
  3. Some documentation on the first Hoover Commission (1948) is in Foreign Relations, 1945–1950, Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment, Documents 351352, 360, and 399.
  4. Effective June 12, 1953; 67 Stat. 634.
  5. Effective June 30, 1953; 67 Stat. 638.
  6. For a summary of the Dulles Committee Report, see Foreign Relations, 1945–1950, Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment, Document 358.
  7. A reference to the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, approved June 20, 1949, which exempted the Central Intelligence Agency from disclosure of certain information concerning its organization such as functions, official titles, and number of personnel. (63 Stat. 208)