WORK OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, 85TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 68
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 26, 2014
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 28, 1957
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

r1eclassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
.4822
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
? Atieli
products. After reading of the report of - tion of my colleagues' faithful attend-
this Commission and learning Of the ance at our meetings, for their alert and
present state of research and develop- able consideration of all matters which
ment projects, I believe that if this bill have come before us this session, and for
Is enacted and a crash program is initlat- their constant attention to the foreign
ed, the demand for agricultural products policy problems With which this Nation
could exceed the ability of our Nation's is faced. I wish to record also my sin-
farmers to produce these raw materials, core appreciation for the splendid N-
I am very hopeful that the Subcommit- .partisan spirit which continues to pre-
tee on Agricultural Research and Gen- veil in the deliberations of the Com-
oral Legislation will take action on this mittee on Foreign Relations.
bill and ;hat it will be passed by the Sen- The meetings in which our members
ate early in the second session of this participated totaled 143. We have con-
Congress. , sidered many measures and have taken
\ - Research in agricultural Pioducts, final action on 14 treaties, 27 bills and
greatly broadening the area of agricul- Joint resolutions, and 22 Senate and
tural commodities in the various syn- concurrent resolutions. We are car-
thetic developments, is the new frontier rying over very_little for considera-
for agriculture in the years to come. tion next year?only such measures as
Unless we proceed in that field, it is a .are not yet ready for action. No meas-
certainty that surpluses of all our agri- ure reported by the committee is now
cultural products will continue to accu- pending on the Senate Calendar. The
mutate; and if such surpluses continue measures reported by the committee
to pile up, it is a certainty that we shall have passed the Senate either by voice
have a depressed agricultural economy.' vote or by very large majorities. The
It is for that reason that it is os import- largest number of votes cast against any
ant that we give further thought and measure reported by the committee was
study to expanding our research activi-
ties in the agricultural field.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. THYE. I yield.
Mr. CAFtISON. I should like to ex-
press my appreciation for the fine state-
ment the Senator from Minnesota has
made. He has again demonstrated a
very particular interest in the farmers
of the Nation, and in agriculture as a
whole.
I invite his attention to a statement
which I placed in the Appendix of the
RECORD earlier this week, by former
Representative Clifford Hope, who
served for 30 years in the House. He
discussed the same subject matter which
the Senator has discussed today, name-
ly, the importance of using some of our
surplus agricultural crops for industrial
purposes. if
Mr. THYE. My distinguished friend
from Kansas has referred to Clifford
Hope. Clifford Hope was one of the
greatest agricultural leaders to serve in
Congress during my lifetime. Clifford
Hope was a student of agriculture, and
It was a great loss tO the Nation when
he retired from Congress.
Again I refer to Senate bill 2306.
That bill was sponsored by a great num-
ber of Senators. It is a very important
bill, and I certainly hope that study will
be given to the proposals set forth in
the bill, and that there will be an oppor-
tunity for consideration of the hill early
In the coming session, in 1958.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
-WORK OF THE FOREIGNRELA-
TIONS COMMITTEE, 85TH CON-
GRESS, 1ST SESSION
Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, I wish to
make a brief statement on the activities
of the Committee on Foreign Relations
during the 1st session of this 85th Con-
gress.
The days since January have been very
busy ones for the chairman and mem-
bers of the committee and I take this op-
portunity to express myhigh apprecia-
25, on final passage of the Mutual Secu-
rity Act, and on that rollcall there were
57 or not to resist it, as his
palace guard sees fit? I have no confi-
dence in the palace guard, while I do
have some confidence in the President.
This?in the light of the administration's
Past record of appeasement and re-
treat?would provide a lesser deterrent
to Soviet aggression, in my opinion, than
if Congress were to state, unqualifiedly,
that it, is determined to resist Commu-
nist aggression in the Middle East, come
what may?without, however, letting the
ultimate power of decision out of Con-
gress' hands.
The men in the Kremlin are not likely
to forget that the administration con-
cluded an armistice in Korea in the face
of the unanimous judgment of our mili-
tary commanders that we could have
won that war if it were not for the po-
litical _decision by our Government to
appease the Communists. The Kremlin
is not likely to forget that the adminis-
tration supported the surrender of half
of Indochina to the Communists, an
agreement that consigned 12 million hu-
man beings to Communist slavery. The
Kremlin is not likely to forget that the
administration took the lead in pressur-
ing Britain and France to retreat from
Suez when victory over Nasser was within
their grasp. I firmly believe that we
would- give the Soviet Union a far
stronger warning against attempting an
invasion of the Middle East if we Were to
leave the power of ultimate decision in
Congress' hands rather than authorize
the White House palace guard to ap-
pease the Soviet Union in the event the
administration should decide, once again,
to knuckle under.
If this resolution is passed, as it now
stands, there is no guaranty against ad-
ditfonal American men being sent over-
seas under the int arnous Status of Forces
Treaty and similar executive agreements.
As you know, -Mr. President, I have
always been thoroughly opposed to these
agreements which deprive our service-
men of their constitutional rights when
they are serving their country overseas,
and subject them to the frequently un-
just and barbaric criminal procedures of
foreign lands. But the problem becomes ?
even more serious when we are contem-
plating sending large numbers of troops
into the Arabic nations of the Middle '
East.- ?
In one Arabic country?and I call this
particularly to the attention of the Sen-
ate and to every mother in the country
whose boy we may draft?the penalty for
stealing an orange from a goat cart is
cutting off the hand of the thief. We
would turn our boys over to that kind
of a system of justice.
How can I, a United States Senator,'
justify a vote for sending American bOSTs
abroad when our Government deliber-
ately permits foreign governments to
subject our boys to cruel and unjust pun-
ishment without lifting a finger to pro-
tect them?
In this connection, Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
In the RECORD at this point, as a part of
my remarks, an article written by Repre-
. sentative FRANK T. Bow and published in
the American Legion magazine of Janu-
ary 1957.
There being no objection, the edible
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WE LEARNED ABOUT SAP PRISONS FROM ME
INSIDEWIIAT HAPPENS WHEN CiTs ARE
SURRENDERED TO FOREIGN COURTS
(As told to Congressman flans T. Bow)
"When I stretched out my arms I could
reach across my cell from wall to wall, and
lying on the floor with arms over my head
I could touch one end with my toes. There
was a narrow bed, a washbasin on the wall,
and a bucket to use for' a toilet. This pri-
vats cell of mine was In death row, next to
the gallows, of Fukuoka Prison. Japan, where
I spent the first 4 months of my sentence
of imprisonment in solitary confinement."
Ed was describing to me the cell in which
he started to serve the sentence Imposed
upon him by a Japanese court, which tried
him for astault and robbery. He and Bill
had called at my office to give me the story
-of their experiences In Japan at first hand.
Hill Is from my congressional district and
when I first learned he had been tried and
convicted In Japan I endeavored to persuade
him to appeal his case, but he refused. Now
be wanted to explain why.
Neither boy made any effort to excuse his
offense. Each had been drinking, probably
to the point where their actions are not now
too clear to them. With a companion or
two, and no money, they engaged transporta-
tion: one a ricksha. the other a taxi. At
some point there was a scuffle with the driver
of each vehicle over payment, and the drivers
claimed to have been robbed. Assault and
robbery of taxi drivers is a popular accusa-
tion in both Japan and France.
Ed said he never saw the ricksha driver
again, although he heard his name men-
tioned in court. .
The day he went to trial he was handed a
piece of ,paper in Japanese with a type-
written translation In English which stated -
the charges against him. He had been vis-
ited the day before by an American officer,
accompanied by a Japanese lawyer who had
,
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
?
2530 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 1
been appointed by the court. This lawyer
was in a great hurry, saying he would have
only one chance to plead for Ed and wOuld
have to have all his argument written out
in advance to hand the court; therefore
he wanted to get it done.
"There were a lot of statements on.paper
to be read in court by the prosecutor," Ed
said. "Then the court interpreter was sup-
posed to translate these to me. He was an
old matt and I could not understand him.
Everything was in writing. There were no
witnesses in court to testify except my own
character witnesses. There were three
judges. some of whom seemed to be sleeping
part of the time. At noon there was a re-
cess, and after that one of the judges did
not come back and another judge took his
place. The last three found me guilty and
sentenced me about 5 days later. I think- I
was the first American to be sentenced in
Japan."
Ed was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment
and did not appeal his case. He thought
instead of spending time in jail waiting for
an appeal to be heard he had better start to
serve the sentence. Bill confirmed the pos-
sibility of delay. After he was tried and
convicted, he did appeal his case and lost.
But it had taken 6 months for this appeal.
That was the reason he would not go further
when I urged him to ski so.
The story of Bill's trial is similar to Ed's
except that the taxi driver appeared in court
and Bill's trial was stretched out in several
short sessions over a month's time. He was
not given a copy of the charges against him
until the day of the trial, and the interpreter
was not understandable. Two companions
of Bill's were not tried, a fact which still
puzzles him. His sentence was 3 years.
"I was really scared that first 4 months
in, solitary in Fukuoka Prison." said Ed.
"When I first arrived I was given a 2-hour talk
on the rules I had to observe and was told re-
peatedly that I would be punished severely
if I broke any rule. I didn't know what the
punishment might be. But almost every day
/ could hear and see through the peephole
in my door the Japanese guards beating up
a Japanese prisoner who was in solitary
across the corridor from me. This man had
a leather muzzle fastened over his mouth'
and his hands were handcuffed behind him.
In solitary in this condition I could not see
how he could break any rules; so I was
mighty careful.
"There was snow on the ground when /
was taken to Fukuoka Prison in March. and
there was no heat in my cell. All ray cloth-
ing had been replaced with thin cotton pants
and shirt. My socks and boots were taken
from me, and I was given some paperlike
soles which fastened on my feet with
thongs. During the day / tried to keep warm
by putting my blankets around me, but
when a guard discovered this my blankets
were taken away each morning and returned
at night.
"No one in the Army visited us until after
the provost marshal at the airbase learned
there were Americans in the prison. He
came on his own, bringing magazines and
books. When a major in the Army Medical
Corps visited the prison we wished he hadn't.
/ happened to be in the corridor when he
was talking to a guard who complained about
the cost of taking care of the Americans.
He mentioned the one egg and bottle of
milk we had been getting each morning as
an example. The major told him that this
was unnecessary, that one egg every 3 days
was sufficient. After that we got fried,
boiled, or raw onion 2 out of 3 days, and
finally no egg at all.
"I was allowed out of solitary every day
for about 20 minutes to walk up and down
the corridor between the cells, and was taken
once a week to bathe. All my meals were
brought to me by a Japanese prisoner; so
the food was usually cold. We had cabbage,
potatoes, bread, and rice for the main meal,
with fish at times or animal intestines. For
a brief spell we had a small piece of meat
three times a week which didn't taste bad.
When I asked what it was the guard said
It was dog; so I didn't eat it any more. Then
they quit giving it out."
Ed said he was kept in solitary confine-
ment because the Japanese said they were
afraid of the Americans. Later they claimed
they could not find work for him. It was
not part of his sentence to be a solitary.
They finally put him to work in a basket
factory and then he got his army boots back.
Regrettably our own Defense Department
does not admit confinement in this type of
cell to be extra punishment. In excusing
Japanese prisons to Congress the Depart-
ment referred to this type of cell as an
"individual" cell as if it were a privilege
to occupy one. The report the Defense De-
partment made to Congress on the prison at
Fuchu is filled with inaccuracies.
Bill first met Ed in Fuchu Prison. Bill
was starting to serve his sentence and Ed
was transferred there as part of a program
to confine all Americans in one prison. Bill
had a month of solitary confinement before
being put to work in an ink factory. He had
several other periods in solitary.
? When the bread which was baked in the
prison got so dirty and full of foreign matter
as to be unfit to eat, Bill and Ed and six
other Americans refused to eat it. The Jap-
anese considered this as a strike and sent
6 of the 8 to solitary. The two that were not
sent were colored boys. "The Japanese
thought they could work up some prejudice
that way," Bill said.
"While working in the kitchen I once asked
a guard for some soap to wash mess dishes
because they were so greasy. When he re-
fused I jokingly called him 'Kitchinbo.' I
think that is a word for 'cheap' or 'tight.'"
Bill explained. The guard got mad and
told the head guard, which got me another
6 or 7 days in solitary.
"If you were working at Fuchu you lived
in a large cell with seven others and ate in
a mess hall," Bill continued. "There was a
large table in the center of each cell with
eight chairs around it. We slept on the floor
on pads about an Inch thick which were
rolled up with the blankets during the day
and arranged in rows, four bundles on each
side of the room. The beds had to be made
up each night and were so close to each
other we had difficulty in avoiding stepping
on each other if we Moved around. The
toilets in Fuchu cells were flush toilets, sunk
in the floor, discharging on the ground out-
side right under the window."
The cells were not heated at Fuchu, though
there were stoves in the workrooms. In
March, after the winter was almost over, the
Japanese started to issue hot water bottles to
the prisoners. "They started filling these
bottles about 3 o'clock and they were de-
livered to the cells at 5," Ed explained. "You
got to bed as early as you could to keep warm,
but usually about 7 o'clock; so there wasn't
much heat left in a bottle then. I've kicked
mine out on the floor many times. I've
known water to freeze in the cells."
Fuchu was damp as well as cold. Ed said
some of his possessions got moldy. The boys
didn't think that the blankets were ever
washed while they were there, although Bill
said they were taken away in summer.
Other food besides the bread was pretty
bad too. Bill remarked, "At dinner and
supper we would have some kind of ground
stuff in a patty. It might be ground bee(
Intestines, or whale, but it smelled so bad
you couldn't eat it." Ed said he could see
trucks delivering food at times from where
he was working in the cell blocks, and "Some
of it was so rotted it had turned green. It
was mostly intestines, whale, squid or some-
thing like that."
Prisoners are not allowed to smoke in
Japanese prisons. This brought Ed another
57 days in solitary confinement in Yokusuka
Prison. This was the prison which was said
to have central heat and to which all Ameri-
cans were to be transferred from Fuchu.
Because he had been working in the cell
blocks at Fuchu. Ed was one of those selected
to go ahead and clean up and prepare the
new quarters. There he got some cigarettes
from a Japanese guard. About a month later
he was told that his violation was known,
and he was confined alone for 14 days of
Investigation. This was followed by a 10-
day sentence and a long wait until the Japa-
nese condescended to put him to work.
Here was revealed the attitude of Japanese
toward Americans. Bill mentioned, "I had a
number of conversations at my cell door
with the assistant custody officer about my
application for work which I had sent to his
superior. He said he knew his chief had it
on his desk but that I should keep on mak-
ing the applications. I told him this would
look as if I was begging and I wouldn't do it.
He said, 'Sometimes it pays to beg. The-.
Japanese tried to make Americans beg for
everything, but I never would."
The Japanese like their role of jailers, pos-
sibly the more because they had so recently
been a conquered nation. By claiming that
the Americans were dangerous, and then re-
ducing them to supplicants, they could pose
as lion tamers. This was evident whenever
the prisoners could be exhibited to the pub-
lic.
"The Japs never moved an American Out-
side the prison without first handcuffing
him," Ed said. "Then a rope was tied around
his waist and fastened to the handcuffs. The
prisoner could then only move his hands a
few inches. If more than one prisoner Was
Moved, they would be fastened to each other
by ropes. When I was moved to Fuchu, two
of us traveled this way for 24 hours on the
train, with 4 guards, and we were paraded
through the railroad station in Tokyo man-
acled and roped together.
There were 55 Americans in Fuchu Prison
when it was decided to move them to Yoku-
suka. The Japanese made a continuing pro-
duction of the transfer, moving a few prison-
ers at a time by bus, abOut a 1-hour trip. "I
was 1 of the first 4 moved," commented Ed.
"We were manacled and roped together, in a
bus with seven Japanese guards and prison
officials. The bus was preceded by a motor-
cycle policeman and an armored car, with
two other cars loaded with guards and an-
other policeman following us."
Ed and Bill did not know anything about
House Joint Resolution 309, which I had in-
troduced in the House of Representatives in
May 1955, which would have directed the
President to try to reclaim the criminal juris-
diction over our troops abroad. When our
diplomats arranged to surrender this juris-
diction to the Japanese, they gave no thought
to prison conditions in Japan or to the laws
and procedure to which our boys might fall
victim. When the House Foreign Affairs
Committee arranged hearings on my resolu-
tion, the Defense Department paid more at-
tention to our boys in prison or awaiting
trial abroad. The move to Yokusuka Prison
was probably one result of this, in an effort
to provide a little warmth for American pris-
oners. Then, too, the criminal laws of Japan
were finally translated by the Defense De-
partment shortly before this move.
The so-called central heating in Yokusuka
prison was a disappointment, the boys said:
Running through the cells was a single 3-
inch pipe to which small metal fins were
attached for a space of about 2 feet in each
cell. The steam was turned on at about 4
o'clock each afternoon and there was some
warmth in the pipe for several hours, barely
taking the chill off. Ed often sat on the
pipe for warmth.
001 01 /RNA 0002417
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
N ?
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 'r" - 2531
?
The steiiMpipes really had too much cold
to overcome. The floors in Tokusuka were
wood, with many large crocks through which
you could ace the ground. The light and
cold came through holes in the foundation.
The men had beds to sleep on here, with rice
straw mattresses. They were fortunate to
get off the floor for enormous- rats would
come up through the wooden floors Into the
cells. Several rata had to be killed in the
cells.
The fact that the Defense Department
stepped up the visits by officers who were
to check the prison conditions and consult
with the prisoners did the American prison-
ers little good. Some officers were easily
hoodwinked. --One major was shown the food
served to the guards; the Japs claimed it was
prison fare. The mafor called the men liars
when they described the dirty and rotted
food they -were getting. Another officer told
our prisoners that everything was fine, that
he could see nothing wrong, that he thought
they were better off than they would have
been in an American detention area.or In
prison at home.
Bill was Criticized by one of these visitors
^for not having any pride in his appearance.
The officer ignored the fact that Bill was not
allowed to bathe or shave oftener than once
a week, a period shortened in summer to
every 5 days. Bill was caught with his whisk-
ers out!
Ed reported that two different American
officers were not deceived. Each found con-
ditions as described by the men to be true,
and each complained to the prison authori-
ties and promised action from American
headquarters) Neither of these officers was
allowed to mhke more than two visits. They
were replaced by other officers more eon'
corned about the good will of the Japanese
than the conditions surrounding the pris-
oners. Bill and Ed can scarcely be ? criti-
cized for the belief that the higher command
In Japan was not very sympathetic to their
situation.
The American prisoners, having gotten no-
where through their own visiting officers.
tried to present their grievances to the
warden. He refused to see them. Finally
they all Staged a sitdown strike by refusing
to leave the mess hall on one occasion, It
was then arranged that a committee of three
might see the warden in his office. Ed was
one of the committee. They took with them
a Japanese-American Who had been n civilian
employee of the Army and was then serving
a 5-month sentence for n traffic violation.
The nisei translated to the warden a long
list of requested improvements, which in-
cluded more recreation, more reading mate-
rial. Increased mailing privileges, better food,
permission to bathe and shave more fre-
quently. The warden promised everything,
Ed said, but did nothing.
Ed thinks his being one of this commit-
tee and his refusal at all times to act as ft
beggar probably delayed his release from
prison at least? months. He became eligible
for parole under Japanese regulations long
before they would grant him a hearing.
The report made by Ed and Bill must be
curtailed in this narrative. I shall only refer
to the indifference of the Japanese to the
health of the prisoners, the inadequate and
Incompetent medical and dental treatment
furnished them. I am also going to skip
over the beatings of American prisoners
which occurred on slight provocation. It
seems that any guard who felt affronted by
an American could by a blast of his whistle
have as many as 90 guards converge on the
hapless prisoner. Each guard apparently
felt that face saving then required him to
push or strike the prisoner with anything
available. Some men still carry sears on their
wrists where the manacles cut into the flesh
as they struggled through such beatings.
Ed and Bill don't think that all Americans
are together in one prison now. Before they
left Yokusuka the Japanese had shipped six
Americans back to Fuchu on the ground that
they were troublemakers. There are other
Americans in jails scattered around Japan
who are waiting the results of appeals or
serving sentences.
Of course. I have not referred to. Ed and
Bill by their true names. They are having
enough difficulty getting jobs because of
their conviction and imprisonment abroad.
and ./ feel they should not have the linger of
shame pointed at them unnecessarily. Both the I national Interest and world pence the
boys, however, are willing, and exen anxious, preservation of the Independence and in-
to appear before any congressional commit- ' tegrity of the nations of the Middle East.
tee that may be interested in hearing the To this end if the President determines the
truth about the treatment Of our soldiers In necessity thereof, the United States is pre-
Japan. I hope that in the next session of pared to use Armed Forces.
Congress there will be such a committee?
and. that a resolution such as House Joint ' In other words, Congress is being asked
Resolution 309, will be presented to Congress to say, first, that it regards the hide-
for action. pendence of the Middle East states as
I wish that the State Department repre-
sentatives. who made the Agreement with
Japan and the NATO Status of Forces Agree-
&brit, might have been in my office to
answer Ed's last question: "What happened
to my constitutional rights?" he asked.
"Right after I was arrested an army officer
told me that I had lost my constitutional
rights. We' had ancestors who fought for
those rights. Soldiers have always fought
for them. I was willing to light for them,
I think they're great. I was deprived of
them. I can't understand why soldiers
should lose them anywhere. If you can
take them away from men who are defend-
ing these rights, then isn't everybody in the
United ?tates in danger of losing them?"
Perhaps the 19 members of the House
?Mean Affairs Committee who voted against
reporting House Joint Resolution 309 to the
House for action should ponder Ed's ques-
tion, too.
? / Court decisions interpreting the Consti-
Mr. McCARTHY. While the Status of
Forces Treaty, the part of it which gives
criminal jurisdiction over our uniformed
men to foreign nations, is in existence?
I refer not only to the Status of Forces
Treaty but also to the executive agree-
ments covering other nations?while
they are in existence I shall never under
any circumstances vote to send an Amer-
ican boy to a foreign soil.
NI believe every American uniformed
man drafted into the service must know
The Committee on Foreign Relations
made a change in the original language
of the resolution, which was intended,
evidently, to overcome the constitutional
objections to the resolution. However,
If that was the intention, I submit it
was wholly unsuccessful. Let me read
the relevant part of the resolution as
it now stands:
The United States regards as vital to
vital to the United States interests, and,
second, that' if the President?which
does not mean Ike; I have no quarrel
with him; it means the palace guard?
decides we should go to war to protect
these Interests, the United States will,
thereupon, do so. What . is' this but a
clear-cut grant to the President of the
right to decide whether the United
States should go to war? Yet, does not
our Constitution provide that Congress,
and only Congress, shall have the power
to declare war?
I am not denying, of course, that the
President, as Commander in Chief, has,
In some circumstances, the power to send
American forces into action without the
prior sanction of Congress. But, as I
read the Constitution and the Supreme
tution, the line separating what the
Commander in Chief may do and may
not do is very clear. He may employ
the Armed Forces of the United States
to defend American lives and American
property.
He may not, however, undertake of-
fensive operations or operations to de-
fend a foreign nation. If such opera-
tions are to be undertaken, Congress
must make the decision. This in the
constitutional context, amounts to one
that he carries the full prestige and thing, that is, that without the prior ap-
power of this Nation on his shoulders proval of Congress the palace guard can-
when he goes overseas. We owe the same not commit the sons of American
duty to our soldiers that they owe to mothers to engage in war in foreign
lands. ? ?
The President is clearly within his
rights In ordering American Armed
Forces to fight back when they are under
attack, or when American property is
under attack. There can be no question
about that. To go further than that and
to maintain that the President has the
power to use our Armed Forces to "pro-
tect American interests," as the phrase
goes, is to obliterate altogether the dis-
tinction between defensive and offensive
operations. For any offensive war, any
war to defend a foreign nation, can ob-
viously be justified in terms of "protect-
ing American interests." Once we ack-
nowledge the right of the palace guard
to send American forces into .battle
whenever they believe "American Inter-
ests" to be in danger, we will have ren-
dered utterly meaningless the constitu-
tional provision giving 'Congress alone
the power to declare war.
I am opposed to this delegation of the This resolution is not restricted to the
warmaking powers of Congress, namely, defense of American lives and American
that it violates the Constitution. property. It contemplates that the
- their country. I wish I could say that
our country has a record of honoring its
duty to our fighting men. But as every-
one knows, 467 American servicemen?
and they are the forgotten men, and 467
is the latest number by sworn testimony
of officials of the Department of Defense
and the Department of State?are now
languishing in Communist dungeons or
have not been accounted for, because our
Government has not had the moral cour-
age to enforce the terms of the Korean
armistice.
Until that blight on our national
honor has been wiped out, and until the
infamous Status ,of Forces Treaty and
similar executive agreements are re-
pealed. I for one will never vote for a
resolution which would authorize the
President or anyone else to send addi-
tional troops overseas without the pro-
tection of our Constitution.
Let me now turn to the third reason
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr .2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
2532 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
President will send our Armed Forces
Into action in the event a foreign coun-
try is attacked by the Soviet Union. It
attempts, in other words, to give to the
President a power that the Constitution
gave to Congress. But Congress cannot
divest itself of its constitutional powers.
Such an alteration of the constitu-
tional scheme can be accomplished only
by an amendment to the Constitution.
Since it is foi Congress, not for the
President, to decide when and if v>e
should go to war, I am offering an
amendment to the resolution which
Would delete the phrase: "If the Presi-
dent determines the necessity thereof."
The resolution would then read:
The United States regards as vital to the
national interests and world peace the pres-
ervation and independence of the nations of
the Middle East. To this end, the United
States is prepared to use armed forces to
assist any nation or group of nations re-
questing assistance against armed aggression
from any country controlled by international
communism.
I am offering this amendment not be-
cause it will make the resolution more
palatable to me, but because I think it
will improve it.
? The language I propose states, as
plainly as it is possible to state it, the
determination of Congress to oppose
Soviet aggression in the Middle East.
Thus, the deterrent requested by the ad-
ministration is provided, but without an
unconstitutional delegation of congres,
sional powers.
I might add that this is substantially
the language recommended by the
Speaker of the House, Mr. Ravsorm, sev-
eral weeks ago.
Let me make my position clear: If this
amendment, in substance, is not adopted,
I can, under no circumstances, support
the resolution. My oath of office re-
quires that I exercise continuing discre-
tion in matters that are the proper con-
cern of Congress. I am not empowered,
indeed, I am forbidden, to delegate that
discretion to anyone.
And I wonder, Mr. President, how any
Member of this body can justify this
delegation of power?
I know it is very likely that my good
friends of the press will headline my
statement as a fight against President
Eisenhower. Nothing can be further
from the truth. I have no personal ani-
mosity toward him. I have raised my
right hand and taken about the same
oath that the President has taken to de-
fend this country- against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. I must fulfill
that oath regardless of who is in the
White House. Even if my great and
good friend the late Bob Taft were
President, I imagine there would be a
number of occasions when I would feel I
had to oppose some of his policies?and
being acquainted with the rights and
duties of a United States Senator, that is
exactly what he would want ihe to do.
As a matter of fact, when we were in
the Senate together I did oppose Taft on
a matter very close to his heart. I
thought that Taft's housing bill was, in
some respects, inadequate, and, in others,
too costly and unrealistic. As a result,
I rewrote the entire housing act, which,
incidentally, Passed the Senate without
a single dissenting vote. Bob Taft bore
me no ill will for that; in fact, as I have
indicated, he ended up supporting my
bill. I do not, obviously, insist that Presi-
dent Eisenhower adopt my views. But
I do insist that the differences of opinion
between us be resolved on the merits of
the issues that separate us.
I mention this, Mr. President, to spade
any statements that, so far as I am con-
cerned, this is a personal contest with the
President of the United States. I do not
care who temporarily passes across the
public scene; while I am here I shall
abide by my oath. And that is what I
am doing today.
' It has been argued that the President
has promised to consult congressional
leaders should he deem it necessary to
use American armed forces. I am won-
dering if the President had reference to
the kind of consultation with Congress
that took place last week when the
President flew back from his Georgia va-
cation to discuss the question of impos-
ing sanctions on Israel. The President
conferred with congressional leaders
and found, so it has been reported, that
they were unanimously opposed to im-
posing sanctions on Israel as long as
Russian aggression in Hungary and In-
dian aggression in Kashmir went un-
punished.
Yet, Mr. President, within a Matter of
hours?and I should like to have the
attention of the very able Senator from
Virginia (Mr. BYRD), because I am sure
this is something which may concern
him?within a matter of hours the Pres-
ident went before the American people,
in the face of this determined congres-
sional opposition, and declared that the
administration was prepared to support
sanctions against Israel.
That is the type of consultation we are
being promised now as Members of Con-
gress.
Yes, Congress may be consulted, pro
forma; but what reason is there to sup-
pose that the administration has any
intention of deferring to the views of
Congress?
When we come down to it, Mr. Presi-
dent, why should the administration pay
any attention to Congress, once this
resolution is adopted? If we pass the
resolution as it now stands, the Presi-
dent will, as a matter of law, be entitled
- to lead this country into war or not, as
he sees fit. We will have given the ad-
ministration what it wants; namely, a
guaranty that Congress will stay out of
the picture for the duration of the Mid-
dle East crisis.
Let me hasten to add that the admin-
istration is not asking for an entirely
free hand in this matter. While it wants
to be free of congressional control, it is
evidently determined to subject Amer-
ican foreign policy to United Nations
control. Let me read a paragraph from
the President's address to Congress on
January 5:
These measures?
Meaning the employment of American
Armed Forces?
would have to be consonant with the treaty
obligations of the United States?including
the Charter of the United Nations, and with
any action or recommendations of the United
00 1 0 1 8 5 0
March .1
Nations. They would also, if armed attack
occurs, be subject to the overriding authority
of the United Nations Security Council in
accordance with the charter.
I invite any Senator to read any differ-
ent meaning into those incredible words
than that in the event of an armed at-
tack in the Middle East by the Soviet
Union, the administration's decision to
resist or not to resist that attack would
be subject to a decision of the United
Nations Security Council, which, ? of
course, would be subject to the Soviet
veto.
It has been Suggested, however, that
the President did not really mean what
he said. What the President really
meant, Secretary Dulles has said, was
that, in the event of a Soviet attack, he
would take the matter to the United Na-
tions Security Council?not to Congress,
mind you, but to the United Nations
Security Council?to see if the Secu-
rity Council would support collective
action against the aggression. If such a
motion were vetoed by the Soviet Union,
according to Dulles, the administration
would be prepared to go ahead on its own
under article 51 of the charter. I do hot
know what the President meant; I know
only what he said in a formal address to
Congress which was presumably gone
over extremely carefully, word by word, ..,
comma by comma, by the President, or
.if not by him, by his staff. On the basis
of that statement, I ant unwilling to run
the risk of voting for a resolution that is
intended to subordinate American for-
eign policy to the veto power of Commu-
nist Russia.
But putting that point aside, no claim
has been made that the President did not
mean what he said in the first sentence
of that paragraph when he asserted that
any action we would take under this reso-
lution would have to be consonant with
"any action or recommendations of the
United Nations." That statement can
have no other meaning than that if the
General Assembly of the United Nations
should decide by a resolution that Soviet
aggression should not be opposed, the
administration would feel obliged not to
resist the aggression.
Is there not something wrong here, Mr.
President? Is there not something
wrong when we are told (a) that the
situation is so urgent in the Middle East
that the Congress must be deprived of its
right to participate in the making of
American foreign policy and must sur-
render its war powers, but (b) that
American policy must be subject to a
veto of the United Nations, including
Soviet Russia?that aimless, hypocritical,
Pettifogging organization in which the
balance of power is held by Communists
and neutralists? Did anyone in this body
believe, when the Senate ratified the
United Nations Charter, that the United
Nations was to be given a veto over Amer-
ican foreign policy? If ratification of
the charter had been understood to mean
that, I feel it would have been rejected bY
the Senate.
Mr. President, I may say that I am in-
creasingly disturbed by the apparent
recognition of Dag Hammarskjold as the
Secretary of State of the United States.
The United States does nothing in for-
0002418
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
'1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
eing policy unless Dag Hammarskjold is
first consulted. I always thought the
position of Secretary of State was so
important that the man who was acting
as the Secretary of State Would come
before the Senate to have his nomination
either confirmed or rejected. But that is
not the situation as of today.
Now the United Nations has become a
power superior to the Government of
the United States. The administration
Is urging?and it does so increasingly,
day after day, on almost all matters of
foreign policy?that the United States
must subordinate its own policy to the
decisions of the United Nations. The
administration maintains that we must
follow the lead of the United Nations
as a matter of moral principle. But
what kind of principle is that that
equates morality with a majority reso-
lution by the United Nations? Are we
henceforth to settle all questions of right
and wrong on the basis of what the
United Nations decides?the United Na-
tions, which has cravenly and hypocri-
tically refused to take any action against
Soviet brutality in Hungary or Indian
aggression in Kashmir, but is quite pre-
pared to punish a nation like Israel,
which is weak, and relatively friendless,
and which has committed, if any, a far
less serious crime?
What I am saying, Mr. President, is
that the United Nations has not earned
our admiration or our confidence or
our trust; it has earned nothing but
contempt from men who are interested
In defeating world communism and in
promoting international morality and
justice. In the circumstances, I find the
proposal that the United States subor-
dinate its foreign policy to United Na-
tions policy insufferable.
There is no way in which Congress
can prevent the administration from
trotting to the United Nations for U. N.
approval before it puts its policies into
effect. But we can refuse to give the
administration any official sanction for
doing so, and we can put the palace
guard on notice that we as individual
Senators are totally opposed to weak-
ening American policy by tying it to
the United Nations.
Finally, let me comment very briefly
on the request for additional funds for
assistance to Middle East nations. I
am opposed to this request at this time
for two reasons: First, there are already
substantial funds available Which could
be spent on the Middle East, but which
? have not been spent so far because the
administration has not yet thought up
projects on which they might be spent.
For example, as will be recalled, ap-
proximately 2 years ago we appropriated
$100 million, to be used in the Middle
East at the discretion of the adminis-
tration. How much of that money was
used? Mr. President, I do not have the
exact figure at hand; but, as I recall,
approximately $7 million was used. The
balance of the appropriation was not
used, because our spenders could not
find projects on which to spend the
money.
But at this time we are asked for an-
other $400 million; and when the wit-
nesses came before the cotnmittees, they
No. 35-4
said, ''We do not know how to spend it.
But give it to us, arid in the future we
shall decide how to spend it."
Second, assuming that in the future
there will be a need for greater funds
than those now available, there is no
reason to make more funds available
until such time as the administration
has definitely established a need for
them. Time and again, Secretary Dulles
was asked by members of the Committee
on Foreign Relations and the Armed
Services Committee how he intended to
spend this money. His answer, invaria-
bly, was that the administration had
not yet made up its mind. Mr. Presi-
dent, if the administration has not made
up its mind, it has no business coming.
before Congress and requesting funds.
The sensible and orderly procedure, it
seems to me, is for the administration
first to determine what projects are nec-
essary in the Middle East, and then to
come before Congress and request funds
for the projects.
The Secretary of State has said on a
number of occasions that it would be un-
wise to explain these projects publicly,
because that would be tipping our hand
to the Communists. Very well; then let
him come before the appropriate con-
gressional committees in executive or
secret session. I think the members of
the Armed Services Committee and the
Committee on Foreign Relations are good
security risks?as good, at least, as the
bureaucrats in the executive branch-r-
and can be counted on not to betray our
secrets to the Communists.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wisconsin yield to me?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield.
Mr. LONG. I certainly agree with the
point the Senator from Wisconsin has
made in that respect. It seems to me
that Senators of the caliber of the senior
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Russat],
the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, are excellent Security risks,
and are entitled to know the plans in
connection with this matter, and that it
would not be too great a security risk
to let them be informed of the plans
our country is making with foreign pow-
ers about how the money is to be spent.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena-
tor from Louisiana for making that
point. I agree with him very strongly
that the Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, the senior Senator from
Georgia RussELL1, and all the other
members of that committee can be told
about how it is proposed to spend the
$400 million. If they are not so told, I
do not think the Congress should author-
ize the spending of one red cent, in view
of the fact that there is still roughly?
I admit that the figure I use may not be
entirely accurate?$95 million available.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wisconsin yield further to
me?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield.
Mr. LONG. I formerly was a member
of the Armed Services Committee, and
at the present time I am a member of
the Foreign Relations Committee. I
would not insist that something of a
secret nature, if involved in this matter,
be told to me. But if we have reached
2533
the point where not one Member on this
side of the aisle?not even a Member
who has been entirely faithful in keep-
ing secrets when they should be kept?
can be told about this matter, that is
going too far, particularly when such
Senators have kept things secret when
they should be kept secret, whereas, on
the other hand, some members of the
palace guard seem to have a way of let-
ting secret matters be made available
to Time magazine, Life magazine, the
New York Herald Tribune, and certain
other, publications. But apparently some
Members of Congress who experience
has shown can be trusted, are not trusted
with the information, whereas the palace
guard has the information, and leaks it
to certain members of the press.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
could not agree more fully with any
statement recently made on the floor of
the Senate. I feel that when a Senator,
such as the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
LoNc] formerly a member of the Armed
Services Committee, and now a member
of the Foreign Relations Committee, has
been elected by the people of his sover-
eign State, he has received from them
their vote of confidence, and certainly
he is entitled to the information, over
and above the palace guard, many of
whom could not even be elected dog
catcher, if they ran for the Job. How-
ever, for some unknown reason they
come before the Senator's committee and
say, "We cannot tell you what we are
going to do. We cannot trust you with
the information. All we want from you
is that you sign a blank check."
Mr. President, the people of Louisiana,
who elected the Senator from Louisi-
ana?and I believe they were wise in
doing so?could certainly expect that in
connection with the making of this deci-
sion, the Senator from Louisiana would
have the information which members of
the palace guard have.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield again to me?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
Mr. LONG. To the best of my infor-
mation?I have been seeking to ascer-
tain whether the statement is true; and
I believe it is true?it seems that not a
single Member on this side of the aisle,
which is the majority side of the Senate,
has been entrusted with any information
regarding what is to be done if the
strings are removed from this money and
if the administration is permitted to
parcel it out without making any ac-
counting whatsoever, and with the for-
eign rulers being relieved of the respon-
sibility of telling us what they are doing
with the money. I am curious to know
whether a single Member on the Repub-
lican side of the aisle has been entrusted
with the information, for I should like
to know whether a single Member of the
United States Senate is in the confidence
of the administration, to the extent that
he has any idea whatever of a single
project for which the money is to be used%
or how it is to be used, along the line
of the information which was printed in
the New York Herald Tribune, and which
apparently was derived from Arabian
sources.
?
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
2534 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE March 1
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, let
me say that I am not exactly on a "Dear
Milt?Dear Joe" basis with Milton Eisen-
hower, so that information has not been
given to me. But I am sure all other
Senators will agree when I say that in-
formation which could well be considered
to be of a. secret nature has constantly
been "leaked"?not by Members of Con-
gress, either Democrats or Republicans.
I do not know of a single Democrat or
Republican Member who has "leaked"
any secret information, but we do read
information of this type in some of the
so-called?I do not like to use the word
"liberal"?in some of the leftwing news-
papers and magazines. I think it has
been proven that the Senator from Loui-
siana is 100-percent correct; that so far
as the Members of the Senate are con-
cerned, we respect absolutely any confi-
dence which is reposed in us.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin will yield further,
I should like to make it clear that I do
not expect the administration or any
Senator to make available to me any in-
formation which it or he possesses, be-
cause it is very clear that the adminis-
tration does not want the junior Senator
from Louisiana to know anything about
how the money is to be spent or about
how much of it any particular nation
would receive. But I am curious to
know whether any Senator on the Re-
publican side of the aisle knows?inas-
much as, so far as I can determine, no
Member on the Democratic side has been
entrusted with the information.
Mr. McCARTHY. I do not know of
any Senator on either side of the aisle
who has been entrusted with the infor-
mation. I may say that I have read ar-
ticles?the last one I believe was on Jan-
uary 29?to the effect that "Galloping
Harold," who is supposed to be head of
disarmament, was urging that we uni-
laterally quit experimenting with long-
range, intercontinental guided missiles.
I believe that, in fairness to the Senate
and the members of the committee to
which the Senator from Louisiana be-
longs, they should know why. I think
we should know why a man in that high
position urges so strongly that we should
stop experimenting with the only weapon
which may decide who will win the next
war. I would much rather entrust such
information to the members of the Sen-
ator's committee than to some of the
bureaucrats.
Mr. LONG. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wisconsin yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am glad to yield.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator is aware,
Is he not, that in the recent past the
President of the United States, the Sec-
retary of State, and others had confer-
ences in Washington with King Saud of
Arabia and his entourage?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am fully aware of
that.
Mr. MORSE. Is the Senator under
the impression, based upon newspaper
accounts, that It is to be assumed, as a
result of those conferences, an agree-
ment of some kind was reached between
the President and King Saud of Arabia
In regard to the relationships between
our two countries? ?
Mr. McCARTHY. I may say to the
able Senator I can only guess at that.
My guess would be of no great value, but,
In line with the thought of the Senator
from Oregon, we know that the conver-
sations, the possible agreements, were
not divulged to the American people.
For example, one of the matters I read
about, which was leaked, was that we
could not use the airbases, which we built
in Saudi Arabia at tremendous cost, if
we allowed any Jewish personnel on
those airbases. There has been no con-
firmation or denial of that statement.
There should be either a confirmation or
denial, because I do not believe this coun-
try should bend and scrape and bow its
knee and let a foreign nation decide that,
because of race, religion, or color, we
cannot have our citizens on bases, which
we have paid for, in other countries. I
may have gotten off the Senator's ques-
tion slightly.
Mr. MORSE. Not at all; not at all.
Taking up another facet of my ques-
tion, if arrangements were entered into,
in agreement between the President of
the United States and the King of Saudi
Arabia, with respect to the use of air-
bases or with respect to any other eco-
nomic understanding, does the Senator
know of any member of the Foreign Re-
lations Committee or the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate who has been
informed as to the specifics of those
agreements?
Mr. McCARTHY. I may say I do not
attend the conferences at the White
House as yet; but, so far as I know, the
answer is "No." However, some of the
leaders on both sides of the aisle would
be in a better position to answer that
question.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from
Wisconsin think it fair to assume that,
whatever agreements were entered into
between the President of the United
States and the King of Saudi Arabia, in
all probability the members of the Arab
entourage- who accompanied the King
of Saudi Arabia to the United States
know more about that particular phase
of American foreign policy than do Mem-
bers of the United States Senate?
Mr. McCARTHY. I fear the Senator's
statement is correct. But I hope that
at an early date at least the members of
the Foreign Relations Committee and the
leadership on both sides of the aisle will
be told very frankly, as they should be,
what, if any, agreements were made or
proposed.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from
Wisconsin agree with me that the refusal
of this administration to accept any
amendment to the pending resolution
that would place a requirement upon the
President to get the approval of the Con-
gress of the United States for any spe-
cific grant to any of the countries of the
Middle East, or for any specific project,
is further evidence on the part of the
administration that we are being led
down the road toward government by
secrecy?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am sorry. I did
not get the entire question.
019 loins 0
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from
Wisconsin agree with me that the re-
fusal on the part of the administration,
through its chief spokesman on the pend-
ing resolution, the Secretary of State,
to accept any amendment to the resolu-
tion which would require the adminis-
tration to get the approval of the Con-
gress for the use of funds for any spe-
cific project in the Middle East is but
additional evidence that we are being led
down the road toward government by
secrecy in the United States?
Mr. McCARTHY. And also, I might
add, there is a request that Congress
abdicate its constitutional power?not
only its power, but its duty. Under the
Constitution, we have the duty to deter-
mine where American boys will fight. It
Is not merely our power; it is our duty
to determine that. So far as I am con-
cerned, I spent considerable time in one
war. I personally would be glad to spend
additional time fighting the Communist
conspiracy any place else in the world.
Let me say?and I am not sure if this
is an answer to the question of the Sen-
ator?I will not vote to send American
boys to a foreign land unless they have
the assurance that they pack all the
power, all the dignity, of this Nation,
on their shoulders, and that never
again will we see what we are witness-
ing as of this moment?not as of yes-
terday or the day before, but as of this
moment?the spectacle of 467 uniformed
men, according to the sworn testimony
of officials of the State Department and
the Defense Department, who are either
In Communist dungeons or unaccounted
for.
If I may digress a minute from the
answer to the question, the question is
what we should do. The sands in the
hourglass of time are rapidly running
out. We have lost our dignity as a na-
tion. There was a time, as the Senator
well knows, when no nation would dare
place his foot on the neck of an Ameri-
can uniformed man.
For example, in 1904, when Teddy
Roosevelt was President, Raisuli, a Mo-
roccan bandit, captured Tangier and
seized several foreigners whom he held
for ransom. Among the prisoners was
Ion H. Perdicaris, a native of Greece,
who had become a naturalized American
citizen. Samuel R. Gummere, the Amer-
ican Consul at Tangier, demanded the
release of Perdicaris, but the Sultan of
Morocco, who apparently did not wish
to offend Raisuli, delayed action by ne-
gotiations.
One June 22, 1904, Secretary of State
John Hay, after consultation with Presi-
dent Roosevelt, sent a message to Gum-
mere containing the following sentence:
"Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."
This was, perhaps, the shortest note
in diplomatic history.
I think if we tore a page from Teddy
Roosevelt's book, the Senator and I
would feel better about the Congress vot-
ing to send American ? boys to foreign
lands.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I yield.
0002419
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-R DP60-00321 R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
/957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. MORSE. In the course of his
speech the Senator referred to the re-
quest in this resolution being not merely
a request for $200 million, but, in effect,
a request for $400 million. Does the
Senator from Wisconsin agree with me
that when we come to vote upon the joint
resolution to give this unlimited discre-
tionary power to the President of the
United States to use the $200 million
mentioned in the resolution in any way
he deems desirable, we also must face the
fact that that will be a precedent for
further requests upon the part of the
President? He has already indicated in
one public statement that he will ask
for an additional $200 million for each
of the years 1957 and 1958. Is that the
Senator's understanding?
Mr. McCARTHY. I think the Senator
has stated the situation very well. I am
not optimistic about this resolution re-
ceiving deep and thorough study. I am
not optimistic about this fantastic reso-
lution being defeated. I am afraid that
in the Senate we shall do what we have
done so often before, namely, roll over
and play dead. I know that I shall hear
on this floor the argument which I have
heard so often in the past when the
President asked for authority. The ar-
gument will be, "You must vote the
authority. Otherwise you are not ex-
pressing confidence in the President." I
should like to express a bit of confidence-
in the United States Senate instead, with
no reflection on the President.
Mr. MORSE. Returning to my ques-
tion for a moment for further comment
on what the Senator has just said, does
the Senator from Wisconsin share my
fear that if we vote this $200 million, to
be followed by further requests on the
part of the President, as already an-
nounced by him, we shall find ourselves,
In the not distant future, as the Senator
from Arkansas has said in the debate,
dealing with requests for not $200 mil-
lion, $400 million, or $600 million, but
several billion dollars, to be spent at the
arbitrary discretion of a President? I
speak not of this President, but of the
office of the Presidency. Does the Sena-
tor think there is that danger?
Mr. McCARTHY. I could not more .
heartily agree with the Senator.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator agree
with me that if we establish that kind
of precedent we may even lose what has
always been described in the past as one
of the great strengths of the Congress,
namely, its control of the purse strings?
Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator is cor-
rect. I may go a step further and say
that if we continue to abdicate our duty
and turn it over to a President we may
as well go back to our home States and
take up some other occupation. I think
we are violating our duty when we turn
over to a President?I am not speaking
about Eisenhower, but any President,
because we have seen this encroachment
Over the years?the power which the
Constitution vests in the Congress.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from
Wisconsin agree with me that if we re-
fuse to grant the President the authority
he has asked for under this resolution
we shall, in fact, be strengthening the
Office of the President of the United
States, because we shall be protecting
it in respect to its full constitutional
responsibilities?
Mr. McCARTHY. Let me phrase my
answer in different language. I think
we would be strengthening the Govern-
ment of the United States,
Mr. MORSE. Finally, on the question
of lack of confidence, I have listened to
some of my colleagues, in speeches off
the floor of the Senate, give every reason
why we should not vote for this resolu-
tion and then close their speeches by
saying, "But?." I am always inter-
ested in the "but" clauses. Many such
speeches end with the words, "But what
can we do? If we do not vote for this,
our President will stand naked before
the world."
Let me say to my colleagues on this
side of the aisle that I think it is about
time the Democratic Party stopped pro-
viding the clothes for Dwight D. Eisen-
hower,
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Senator
very much. I gather he was not calling
for an answer to that observation.
Let me say also to the Senator, when
we are talking about the Democrat or the
Republican side, that I am a Republican,
root and center. I always have been. I
feel that I should support Republican
principles. However, I will not support
the principles of any man, whether Dem-
ocrat or Republican, at any time when
I feel that what he is doing is wrong. I
am sure the Senator would agree with
me in that position.
Mr. MORSE. I merely submit my
record.
Mr. McCARTHY. In closing, let me
say that if the appropriate Senate com-
mittees are satisfied that the projects
are worthwhile, if they have been given
information, and not a lot of gobble-
dygook, and if they are satisfied that
currently authorized funds are not ade-
quate, then there will be some force to
the argument that we should authorize
additional funds. But, so far as I know,
no such information has been given to
any congressional committee up to this
time.
The electorate of my State did not
send me to the United States Senate to
sign blank checks, and I assure not only
the people of Wisconsin. but the people
of the United States, that I do not in-
tend to sign any blank checks.
On the question of funds, as with all
other aspects of the resolution, the fun-
damental question is whether Congress
will discharge its constitutional and
moral responsibilities, or will abdicate
to the President. Let us not try to avoid
this question, Mr. President, for the fate
of representaive government in our
country hangs in the balance.
Mr. President, I regret I have held up
for so long consideration of the Russell
amendment, which is before the Senate.
I shall either vote for it, or pair with
one of my good friends who is absent
from the Senate, in favor of the amend-
ment, not because I intend to vote for
the resolution as an end result, but be-
cause I think the Russell amendment is
better than the resolution as reported.
However, there are two phrases in
the Russell amendment to which I object.
The first is on page 1, line 4?"if the
2535
President determines the necessity there-
of."
To make it a sensible resolution, that
phrase should be stricken.
On page 2, lines 6 and 7, the phrase
"created by action of the United Na-
tions" makes it a bad resolution. Some
of my friends may wonder why I shall
vote for it. I shall vote for the Rus-
sell amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute. I shall not vote for the resolu-
tion when it comes up for final passage.
I shall vote for the Russell amendment
only, because I think it is an improve-
ment over the resolution.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I believe
the Senator made reference to page 2.
I wonder whether he was referring to
the same line I had in mind. I refer to
line 2 on page 2, to the phrase "with the
Charter of the United Nations."
Mr. McCARTHY. I was referring to
lines 6 and 7 on page 2. The phrase on
line 2 is equally objectionable, but I be-
lieve that has been stricken.
Mr. LONG. Yes. That is what I had
In mind.
Mr. McCARTHY. I am referring to
lines 6 and 7, which have not been
stricken.
PROPOSED IINANIMOVS-CONSENT AGREEMENT To
LIMIT DEBATE
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, it is my intention, as soon as we
are able to obtain a quorum, to suggest
to the Senate, on behalf of the distin-
guished minority leader and myself, a
unanimous-consent agreement. I shOuld
-like to read it for the information of the
Senate and for the information of the
. staff.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator speak louder?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Yes; or the
Senator might move closer. It is diffi-
cult for me to speak too loud.
I should like to read the proposed
agreement for the information of Sena-
tors and for the information of the staff;
and to suggest to the staff that they Pro-
ceed to notify each Senator that we will
have a quorum call at the conclusion of
my very brief statement, and that the
clerk will then be called upon to read the
unanimous-consent agreement.
I read the proposed unanimous-con-
sentagreement as follows:
Ordered, That, effective on Thursday,
March?, 1957, at 10 o'clock a. m., during the
further consideration of the joint resolution
(S. J. Res. 19) to authorize the President to
undertake economic and military coopela-
tion with nations in the general area of the
Middle East in Order to assist in the strength-
ening and defense of their independence, de-
bate on any amendment, Motion, or appeal,
except a motion to lay on the table, shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and
controlled by the mover of any suet amend-
ment or motion and the majority leader:
Provided, That in the event the majority
leader is in favor of any such amendment or
motion, the time in opposition shall be con-
trolled by the minority leader or some Sena-
tor designated by him: Provided further,
That no amendment that Is not germane to
the provisions of the said joint resolution
shall be recelted.
Ordered further, That if and when the
committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, whether or not amended, is agreed
to, the Committees on Foreign Relations and
Armed Services jointly shall be deemed to be
I Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
2536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
discharged from the further consideration of
House Joint Resolution 117, the companion
House measure; that said joint resolution
shall be deemed to be amended by striking
out all after the enacting clause, and in lieu
thereof inserting the text of Senate Joint
Resolution 19, as amended; and that the
amendment to the said House joint resolu-
tion shall be deemed to have been engrossed
and the joint resolution shall then be read
the third time.
Ordered further, That on the question on
the final passage of the said joint resolution,
debate shall be limited to 3 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled, respectively,
by the majority and minority leaders; Pro-
vided, That the said leaders or either of them,
may, from the time under their control on
the passage of the joint resolution, allot ad-
ditional time to any Senator during the con-
sideration of any amendment, motion, or
appeal.
Mr. President, I am prepared to change
the day from Thursday to Wednesday or
from Wednesday to Tuesday or from
Tuesday to Monday, or from Monday to
Saturday. I have previously announced
that I plan to be absent from the Sen-
ate on Wednesday, and I may have to
arrange with the distinguished minority
leader to find me a pair on his side of
the aisle.
The proposed unanimous-consent re-
quest is submitted at the suggestion of
the able junior Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. Loom], who believes that certainly
between now and next Thursday we will
have ample opportunity to discuss the
legislation and that every Senator will
have an opportunity to express himself.
This agreement would permit Senators
to go ahead and firm up their schedules
and make their arrangements with some
certainty as to when the vote will take
place.
The Senator from Texas has no prefer-
ence in the matter other than to try to
accommodate the wishes of Senators.
Mr. ENOVVLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. ICNOWLAND. The distinguished
majority leader had consulted with me
on this subject, as he has courteously
done on other matters of this kind. I
have joined with him in proposing the
unanimous-consent request because of
indications that Thursday would prob-
ably be the first day with reference to
which we could get a unanimous-con-
sent agreement applying to the whole
resolution.
I might say that. it would be my pref-
erence, as the distinguished majority
leader has said it would be his preference,
to be able to enter into an agreement
which would apply today or tomorrow or
Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday.
However, I, have learned, in almost 12
years of' service in the Senate, that we
cannot always get what we would like to
have; therefore, it is necessary to ac-
commodate ourselves to what can finally
be worked out among 96 Members of the
Senate.
I should like to make one clarifying
point for the FtEcORD and for the infor-
mation of the Senators. We now have
pending before the Senate, upon which
we have now had at least 2 days of de-
bate, if not longer, the so-called Russell
amendment. There are other amend-
ments at the desk, and still others may
be proposed. .
I should like to have an understanding,
If the proposed unanimous-consent
agreement should be entered into, that
the agreement would not prevent a vote
on either the pending amendment prior
to the effective date of the unanimous-
consent agreement, or on other amend-
ments as they might be offered, but
that the unanimous-consent agree-
ment would fix the date so far as voting
on the resolution itself is concerned and
on any amendments which should be of-
fered at that time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I see noth-
ing in the proposed agrement which
would prevent a vote on the pending
amendment or on any amendment there-
to at any time the Senate is ready and
willing to vote. However, the agreement
would begin to run on Thursday, March
7, at 10 o'clock a. m. if we have not al-
ready disposed of the resolution by that
time.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. ANDERSON. I merely wish to
compliment the majority leader and the
minority leader on their patience in this
matter, and to express the hope that this
agreement will be entered into. .
Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield..
Mr. THYE. 1, like the majority leader,
have made a commitment. I have made
a commitment for Thursday of next
week, March 7. The majority leader has
a commitment for Wednesday, the 6th of
March. I would find it extremely em-
barrassing if a vote on this important
question should come up on Thursday of
next week, because I had agreed several
months ago to address the annual na-
tional meeting of the FtEA at Chicago on
Thursday morning. I hope it will be
possible for a vote to be taken before that
date. I believe that we would have
ample time to discuss the question and
begin voting even as early as Tuesday
of next week.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Does the
Senator object?
Mr. THYE. No; I do not wish to ob-
ject, because I think the patience of the
majority leader and the minority leader
has been tried in their endeavor to bring
the question to a vote. I hesitate to raise
any question, and, therefore, I shall ad-
just myself to the convenience of the
Senate, and if lam not present when the
vote is had, I shall later state my posi-
tion. If some Senator would be willing
to pair with me I should be delighted to
have him do so.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the
Senator from Minnesota for his fine at-
titude at this time as always.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, in
view of the fact that the Senator from
Texas is going to suggest the absence
of a quorum and is discussing it now to
get a complete picture, would the Sen-
ator object if I suggested the -absence
of a quorum?
00 1 0 1 7 8 5 0
?
March 1
?
. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I was going
to do it. I thought if any Senator was
going to object he would so indicate by
asmkinrgKN LANDquoeswtions.
. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. ICNOWLAND, Mr. President, I
have just had a discussion with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SALTONSTALL] concerning one point
which may require some clarification.
I think the Senator has already made it
clear that nothing in the agreement, if it
should be entered into by the Senate,
would prevent a vote on the pending
amendment or such other amendments
as might be offered, prior to Thursday,
if that is the date which is accepted. I
should also like to ask if there is any-
thing which would preclude supple-
mentary unanimous-consent requests
confined to individual amendments if
the Senate by unanimous consent de-
cided to fix an hour on amendments so
that Senators might be advised of the
time of voting.
My own answer would be that there
Is nothing in the unanimous-consent re-
quest which would prevent such sup-
plementary agreements, but I wanted to
get the opinion of the distinguished
Senator from Texas, the majority leader.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I share the
minority leader's viewpoint.
I would ask the Chair if he will advise
the Senate on that point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Corrox in the chair). The Chair is
informed by the Parliamentarian that
the Senate by unanimous consent can
enter into other agreements without in
any way, shape, or manner affecting the
pending unanimous-consent request.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I under-
stand that nothing in the proposed
agreement would prevent the Senate
from voting on the Russell amendment
today or any other day prior to the 7th
of the month. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I also understand that
the Senate will convene on the 7th of
March at 10 o'clock a. m.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is my
hope.
Mr. CHAVEZ. And, also, that there
will be a morning hour?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. No; that is
not planned.
Mr. CHAVEZ. The request calls for 6
hours of debate on the Russell amend-
ment, if it is still pending?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Not to ex-
ceed 6 hours.
Mr. CHAVEZ. That would mean, then,
that we would hardly be voting on
Thursday, March 7, until?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I would say
that the request provides not to exceed
3 hours on the resolution; that is, 3
hours to each side. Time could be yield-
ed cin any or all amendments.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Will the Senate vote on
the Russell amendment if it is still pend-
ing that day?
0002420
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
1957
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2537
Mr. JOHNSON ef Texas. I hope the
Russell ..amendnient can be voted on -
today.
Mr. CHAVEZ. The Senator from
Texas cannot hurt my feelings by bring-
ing that about.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I am at-
tempting to avoid hurting the Senator's
feelings.
Mr. CHAVEZ. The Senator always
does.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I am trying to adjust
my time. In case we have to go to the
7th, when does the Senator think a vote
will be taken?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I do not have
that kind of crystal ball. I hope we can
vote. on the Russell amendment today,
and that, then, any other amendment
which may be.pending will be called up,
and that we can vote with as much dis-
patch as is possible in the event action
on the amendment is not concluded to-
day. Certain Senators have suggested
that to me because they desire to make
plans, and this procedure will permit
them to do it. I am doing it largely as a
courtesy to them, because I think they
have that right.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. For all practical pur-
poses, if the Russell amendment is voted
upon today and adopted, will not this
matter be all over?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I would not
so consider it.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Texas yield? ?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that my name be
placed on the quorum call. An inipor-
tent committee meeting is to be' held
beginning at 2 o'clock this afternoon
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I would have to object to that, in
order to maintain the procedure which
we have in the Senate.
? Mr. McCARTHY. Does the Senator
object to that?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I must ob-
ject. The absence of a quorum has not
Yet been suggested, and may not be.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Texas yield?
? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I yield to my friehd from Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I must
object to the unanimous-consent request.
? I speak somewhat with a feeling of
sadness about it, Mr. President, because
I do not think we need to become in-
volved in this type of parliamentary con-
troversy at this time. But we are in it;
so, for the record, I want to make this
very brief observation as to my reasons
for objecting.
First, -as to this specific case, I think
our foreign policy is in such a state of
flux in these critical hours that we should.
not be laboring under any misapprehen-
sions in the debate in the Senate. I.
think we should keep ourselves free at
every moment to take, from a parlia-
mentary standpoint, whatever turn new
facts developing in foreign policy might
warrant.
Second, Mr. President, in 12 years I
have been in many discussiohs concern-
ing unanimous-consent agreements. As
a matter of general policy, I think unan-
imous-consent agreements are a bad
policy in conducting Senate business.
Many times when unanimous-consent
requests have been denied in the Senate
we have closed the debate a considerable
length of time ahead of the time at
which it would have been closed if we
had been operating under the unani-
mous-consent agreement. I think that
is true in this instance. If we would go
ahead and debate the question and start
voting on amendments, my guess is that
we would be through with the whole pro-
gram long before Thursday of next week.
Mr. President, I now wish to address
myself to a very sensitive point which is
involved in this discussion, because we
know that many of these unanimous-
consent requests are made in order to
accommodate colleagues.
I have been accommodated many
times, as has every other Member who
has served any length of time in the
Senate. Yet I cannot escape the fact,
after 12 years of observation of this pro-
cedure, that transacting business in the
Senate by unanimous consent as the
rule?and it has almost become that?
has done harm to debate in the Senate.
It has done injury to what I think is the
primary historic purpose of the Senate,
that is, for the elected representatives
of a tree people from the various sover-
eign States of the Nation to come onto
the floor, to exchange their respective
points of view on the merits of an issue,
and to vote. I have said many times
that in order to perfect that system the
Senate ought to adopt 'a rule of ger-
maneness; but that is another matter.
What is actually happening?and no
one can succestfuuly deny it in this
discussion?is that swhen we accept a
unanimous-consent agreement to vote as
of a certain time on any question, we
not only accommodate X. Y, or 4 who
may find himself in a position where he
must go to his home or somewhere else
so as to take care of some personal mat-
ter, but also we proceed to accommodate
the whole Senate, or a large segment of
the Senate in a practice of absenteeism.
I do not ask any Senator to share
my view about this?I know many Sen-
ators do not?but one of the reasons
for the unanimous-consent rule in the
Senate is to give the individual Mem-
bers of the Senate the right to exercise
their honest opinion as to what they
consider their duty to be. I feel that
that we need to do something to restore
what I believe to be a very sound his-
toric practice in the Senate, namely, that
the Senate vote in accordance with the
rule of the regular order, with the ex-
ception that unanimous consent may be
given to limit the available time of debate
for emergency purposes.
I made a study a couple of years ago,
when this matter was previously before
the Senate, and I intend to bring it up
to date as soon as I can, of the whole
history of unanimous-consent agree-
ments. There were decades in the Senate
when such agreements were a rarity;
but I think also in those decades the opin-
ions were formed on the floor of the Sen-
ate more than they are now, on the basis
of evidence presented in debate.
So I object to this request not only
because I believe in this particular in-
stance we ought to keep ourselves in a
state of flux on the resolution before the
Senate, and should not be tied down by
the straitjacket of a unanimous-consent
agreement, but also because some of us
should raise our voices in protest against
this growing change in the historic policy
of the .Senate, a policy which I think is
doing the Senate great damage. I do
not think that Members of the Senate
have the right constantly to ask for per-
sonal accommodations to the detriment
of what I consider to be a very impor-
tant, historic practice in the Senate.
I am not saying that I shall object to
all unanimous-consent agreements, but
I am saying that a much stronger case
for a unanimous-consent agreement will
have to be made than has been made to
date for this one before I shall agree to
it. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is
not yet in order to object to the unani-
mouslconsent agreement, because the
Senator from Texas has not yet offered
it. He merely has served notice that he
Intends to offer it.
Mr. MORSE. I beg the Senator's par-
don; I thought the unanimous-consent
agreement was at the desk.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. No. I
Merely expressed the hope that Senators
would give consideration to it and would
try to approach it with an open mind.
If it seemed to appeal to them, we could
then have a quorum call. It is the prac-
tice always to have a quorum call before
a unanimous-consent agreement is pro-
posed.
Mr. KENNEDY obtained the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from Massachu-
setts yield to me for two purposes:
First, that I may propose an order that
when the Senate concludes its business
today, it stand in adjournment until 11
o'clock tomorrow morning; and second,
for the purpose of suggesting the absence
of a quorum, with the understanding
that the Senator from Massachusetts
will not lose the floor?
Mr. KENNEDY. I shall be glad to
yield for those purposes.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTth
11 A. M. TOMORROW N
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that when
the Senate concludes its business today,
It stand in adjournment until 11 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
PROMOTION OF PEACE AND STABIL-
ITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The Senate resumed the con:sideration
of the joint resolution (S. J. Has. 19) to
authorize the President to undertake
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
2538 CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD ? SENATE March 1
economic and military cooperation with
natiOns in the general area of the Middle
East in order to assist in the strengthen-
ing and defense of their independence.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
Aiken Mender
Allott Flanders
Anderson Gore
Beall Green
Makley ? Hayden
Hennings
Hill
Humphrey
Javits
Johnson, Tex.
Kerauver
Kennedy
Long
Mansfield
McClellan
Rush
Carlson
Carroll
Chavez
Church
Clark
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Dworshak
Monroney
Morse
Mundt
Murray
Payne
Purtell
Robertson
Russell
Smothers
Stennis
Wiley
Williams
Young
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moff-
RONEY in the chair). Forty-three Sena-
tors have answered to their names. A
quorum is not present. The clerk will
call the names of the absent Senators.
? The legislative clerk called the names
of the absent Senators, and Mr. BEN-
NETT, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BRICKER, Mr. BUTLER,
Mr. CASE of New Jersey, Mr. CASE of
South Dakota, Mr. DIRkSEN, Mr. DOUG-
LAS, Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. ERVIN, Mr. PREAR,
? Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr.
HRUSKA, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. JOHNSTON of
South Carolina, Mr. KUCHEL, Mr.
LAUSCHE, Mr. MARTIN Of Iowa, Mr. MARTIN
of Pennsylvania, Mr. NEUBERGER, Mr.
PASTORS, Mr. POTTER, Mr. SALTONSTALL,
Mrs. SMITH, of Maine, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr.
SYMINGTON, Mr. TALMADGE, Mr. THUR-
MOND, Mr. THEE, and Mr. WArxiss an-
swered to their names when called.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-
four Senators having answered to their
names, a quorum is present.
In accordance with the understand-
ing before the quorum call, the junior
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY] has the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY: Mr. President, I de-
sire to address the Senate very briefly
on the two major questions pending be-
fore it:
(a) Should the President's Mideast
resolution, as amended in committee, be
passed; and
(b) Should the economic and military-
aid provisions in the resolution be strick-
en, as urged by a pending amendment?
I intend to vote for the resolution, as
amended by the committee, despite my
very real dissatisfaction with it. Permit
me to explain my position further. -
I believe the resolution to have been
unsatisfactorily worded, particularly in
the original version prior to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Montana [Mr.
MANSFIELD] and the Senator from Min-
nesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] 'for it dodges?
and may obscure further?grave consti-
tutional questions of presidential and
congressional powers, leaving any future
occupant of the White House in doubt
as to whether his office has been
strengthened by this broad grant of
authority, weakened by a precedent that
requires congressional approval of in-
herent Executive powers, 'or left un-
touched.
I believe the resolution to have been
unsatisfactorily designed; for it lumps
together in unwieldy fashion an unnec-
essary repetition of existing economic
and military aid authorizations, a vague
and restrictive restatement of our deter-
mination to resist Communist aggres-
sion, and a more technical and tempo-
rary waiver of existing aid limitations?
which waivers, I suspect,- constitute all
that the administration really desired in
the first place, but which they felt needed
a cloak of arms and crisis to pass the
Congress.
I believe the resolution to have been
unsatisfactorily presented to Congress
and the world?through worldwide reve-
lation before congressional consultation,
a dramatic Saturday session, urgent
pleas for speed and unanimity, exag-
gerated justifications and evasive testi-
mony, without any demonstration of
critical need.
Finally, I believe this resolution?and
the time we have devoted to it?to have
been largely unnecessary in terms of
the real problems in the Middle East, for
the resolution offers solutions to neither
the immediate crises of Gaza and Aqaba,
nor the more long-range crises of Com-
munist subversion, arms traffic, Suez,
refugees, boundaries, and other factors
- in the continuing Arab-Israeli dispute.
In short, it could well be argued that
this entire undertaking was an unnec-
essary error from the time it was first
conceived and submitted. Existing aid
programs were already underway. The
Soviets were already on notice of our
determination to resist attack. A simple
suspension of the three limitations on
economic aid might have been more
readily forthcoming had Congress been
approached with more candor at the
beginning.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator
from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. I find the statement of
the able and distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts quite provocative. He
has said that the resolution was unsatis-
factorily presented; that, in his opinion,
it was unnecessary; that, indeed, its
mere presentation may have been an
error. Would the Senator go so far as
to add also that thus far it has been
unproductive and unfruitful, and con-
tains no promise of being so?
Mr.- KENNEDY. As the Senator
knows, we already have military com-
mitments, through NATO or SEATO,
with Pakistan and Turkey. The Presi-
dent and his secretary, Mr. Hagerty, on
several occasions have indicated our
close ties with Iran, and that we would
view any attack in that area as a threat
to the United States. Admiral Radford
indicated there was no 'doubt in the
Soviet's mind that the United States
Government would act if Russia moved
into Iran. These countries border on
Russia. If a direct attack were made
by Russia, Russia would have to go
through those countries. Therefore, I
say the resolution is unnecessary if it is
Intended to put Russia on notice that
we would regard an attack in that area
as a threat to ourselves.
Mr. GORE. Will the Senator yield
further?
? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. /
Mr. GORE. Is it fair to conclude that
the Senator has said that the resolution
as such, insofar as it serves notice on the
Soviet Union, contains nothing new?
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. It
formalizes our view, but, in my opinion,
Presidential statements have made our
policy clear. .
The fact remains, however, that the
resolution has been presented to Con-
gressrand all the world knows it. It
thus- seems to me that we are no longer
able to consider this resolution on its
merits alone. We have been forced by
the President's action to consider also
the effects of the resolution's passage or
defeat by this body.
What are the ill effects that could re-
sult from passage of the resolution? It
Is said that little or nothing will be
accomplished?Arab unity will not be
increased, friendly governments will still
fall, Communist influence will still grow,
and Ameridan prestige will still decline?
but this is no worse than the status quo.
It is said that passage of the resolution
will leave unsolved the major problems
of the Middle East?but they are un-
solved today. It is said that the reso-
lution grants vast powers to the Presi-
dent should he feel an emergency threat-
ens our national security?but practi-
cally all constitutional authorities agree
he would possess such powers in any
event. It is said that the resolution
grants the President unprecedented dis-
cretion to spend vast sums in foreign
aid?but, as I shall detail in a moment,
this resolution does not add one penny
to the foreign-aid bill; it grants no flexi-
bility to the President in the use of for-
eign-aid funds substantially different
from that which we have previously ex-
tended; and, on the contrary, it adds
new conditions of congressional review
which its defeat would deny to us. No
country is to receive aid that is not al-
ready eligible to receive it; no types of
Projects are to be supported that could
not already be supported under existing
law.
In short, while this resolution may ac-
complish very little, while it may have
originally been ? unnecessary, unjustifi-
able, and erroneous, it is difficult to de-
monstrate any new major ill effects that
will flow from its passage.
On the other hand, if Congress de-
feats the resolution, we shall have gained
nothing?save the political embarrass-
ment of the President and Mr. Dulles,
if that is considered a gain?for the Pres-
ident will still possess great constitu-
tional and statutory powers, as the Sen-
ator from Arkansas [Mr. Futancfa],
among other Senators, has pointed out,
to make whatever financial and military
commitments he feels the national secu-
rity requires. But we will have repudi-
ated the Executive on a major foreign-
policy issue before the eyes of the world,
In a manner that would certainly cause
the fall or resignation of-any government
under a parliamentary system. We will
001
9002421 ? 017:Ica ?
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
?
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
have demonstrated domestic dissension,
dikunity, and a lack of confidence in our
Chief Executive at the very time he is
Involved in critical negotiations with
other nations. We will have blunted our
warning to the Soviets to stay out of
the Middle East, and dismayed those
friendly Middle Eastern_uations who fa-
vor this approach.
For the reasons I believe Congress
would be ill-advised to defeat this reso-
lution, now that it has been publicized
? and submitted, however ill-advised that
original submission may have been.
Many of us would prefer not to vote
for this resolution; but we dare not, un-
der present world conditions, vote
against it And we can, perhaps, seek
consolation in the words of Abraham
Lincoln:
.There are few things wholly evil or whol-
ly good. Almost everything, especially of
Government policy, is an inseparable com-
pound of the two, so that our best Judgment
of the preponderance between them is con-
tinually demanded.
/ -
I shall vote for passage of the resolu-
tion, therefore, because of my belief that
the evil flowing from its defeat -would
be preponderantly greater than the good.
Permit me to turn now to the second
and more difficult question as to whether
all economic and military assistance
should be stricken I from the resolution.
Passage of the measure without these
provisions would, of course, still serve as
a warning to the Communists and as a
declaration of our concern for the Mid-
dle East, and the President's request
would not be wholly ignored.
But the rejection of so vital a part of
the President's proposal would still have
grave psychological effects on the Pres-
tige of our Government and Chief Exec-
utive abroad. "It would be interpreted,
moreover, with disastrous effects on our
leadership in the area, and by our friends
- as well as by Communist and anti-Amer-
ican agitators, as 'proof of the charge
that we think of the Middle East only in
terms of guns and bases and military al-
lies against communism, not in terms of
friendly people and their economic well-
being and stability.
Moreover, what would sir& an amend-
ment accomplish? It is said that this
resolution prOlddes vast sums of money
for wasteful Middle Eastern projects that
could be better spent at home, but the
truth of the matter is that this measure
does not provide, appropriate, or author-
ize one additional dollar of foreign aid.
Deletion of these provisions would not
save the American taxpayer one cent?
for the money has already been author-
ized and appropriated, it is already
able, and can undoubtedly be obligated
regardless of whether those provisions
remain. Nothing more is sought by these
provisions than to relieve Mr. Richards
and the administration from three re-
strictions imposed last year which the
delays caused by 'Middle East hostilities
have outmoded, and which, if not tempo-
rarily suspended, would only cause a
more hasty, wasteful expenditure of
funds. Senators understand, of course,
that very little of the money we appro-
priated for the Middle East for this fis-
cal year has been obligated because of
the outbreak of war. Failure to pass
these three waivers will still not save any
of this money, but simply require the ad-
ministration to rush to obligate 80 per-
cent of it before April 30, long before Mr.
Richards can make a thorough exami-
nation of actual needs.
Whatever wasteful projects Members
may fear will be forthcoming, it should
be recalled that passage of this resolu-
tion is not necessary for these purposes.
The money is already available, from
funds appropriated for the Middle East,
from the President's discretionary fund
under section 401 (b), and from other
sources which he can transfer under
sections 401 (a) and 501 of the foreign-
aid bill. The only major difference would
be that Congress and its committees
would not have the review of these proj-
ects that it would have under section 3
of this resolution. Though it may be
argued that this is only a right of report
and review, not disapproval, the admin-
istration. in the absence of this resolu-
tion, would be able to spend the same
amount of money anyway without even
report or review; and it Would be re-
quired, moreover, to spend it in a man-
ner and on projects which, in its judg-
j.ment, are not as useful as the expendi-
tures that could be made ?nee these
three outmoded restrictions are waived.
Furthermore, it should be remembered
that Mr. Richards has a very fine repu-
tation in the Congress and, also, a repu-
tation for being strict in connection with
foreign aid. I think he led the light
in the House for a cut of almost $1 bil-
lion last year.
Moreover, these projects must be re-
ported to the Congress at the very time
when we shall be considering foreign aid
for the fiscal year 1958. Obviously, if
the projects are wasteful, it seems to
Me that Congress can then take suitable
action in considering appropriations for
1958. However, the important point is
that the administration can spend this
money under the present law without
making a report, however unsatisfactory
the report procedure may be, as the Sen-
ator from Oregon argued in the com-
mittee.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I think the distin-
guished Senator from Massachusetts
was on the floor yesterday when I asked
Questions of the Senator from Wiscon-
sin on that very point.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. PASTORE. As I recall I asked
the question whether or not the use of
this $200 million would be broader than
was originally intended with respect to
the appropriation of $750 million. I
think the answer was in the affirmative.
Do I correctly understand now from the
distinguished Senator that such is not
the case?
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator re-
phrase his question, as to whether the
powers are broader?
Mr. PASTORE. I mean wider pur-
poses than those originally intended,
and including other nations that might
have been intended when the $750 mil-
lion was approprtated.
2539
Mr. KENNEDY. Other nations. That
Is correct. There is no?doubt about it.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Is it not also true that
under the power proposed to be granted
the President by this resolution, he could'
use the funds for other purposes?
Mr. KENNEDY. There is no doubt
that he could use the money for other
purposes. However, the point I intended
to make in response to the Senator was
that of the $750 million we are discuss-
ing?and I say this without revealing
classified information?more than two-
thirds is intended for countries with
which the United States has had intimate
treaty relations. In the case of at least
one of those countries, I think the ad-
ministration might today argue that
money which they thought could be
wisely spent during this fiscal year, be-.
cause of circumstances within that coun-
try, cannot be wisely spent. If we do not
pass this joint resolution there will be
nothing to prevent the administration
from spending that money in that coun-
try, even though it does not believe it
could be wisely spent.
On the other hand, instead of doing
what they would consider to be waste-
ful, under this plan they could spend it
in other areas more satisfactorily, but
would be required to make a report to the
Congress before obligating the funds.
In answer to the observation of the
Senator from Oregon, I should say that
Ion the one hand, taking X country, for
which a large sum of the money is in-
tended, when the administration indi-
cates that it !cannot be wisely spent in
X country, it will still be possible, if we
adopt the Russell amendment, for the
administration to spend it unwisely in
that count?.
Under the resolution as it now stands,
It would be possible for the administra-
tion to spend it in ways it considers
more satisfactory; and the administra-
tion would have to make a report to the
Congress. So it seems to me we would
have more control under the resolution
as it stands than if we did not pass the
resolution.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Is it not true that if
'the administration does not think the
money can be spent wisely at the pres-
ent time, it is not compelled to spend
it at all?
Mr. KENNEDY. No; there is no obli-
gation to spend it; but it is a question
of their judgment. It seems to me that
we would be suggesting, by the Russell
amendment, that we do not have confi-
dence in their judgment, and that we be-
lieve they would not provide for projects
which were wise and economical. On
the other hand, they still have authority
to spend the money unwisely and un-
economically, so we are trusting their
judgment to that extent.
Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator know
what the money is to be spent for?
Mr. KENNEDY. No; but the purpose
of the Richards Commission is to find
out. Under the act whibh Congress
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @50-Yr 2014/03/26 : CIA-RDP60-00321R000100090001-1
2540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
passed last year, the administration is
entitled to spend the money with rather
broad discretion. It seems to me that
by passage of the resolution in its pres-
ent form, the Congress would have
greater control, because the administra-
tion would be obliged to make a report
to us, while under the present act it is
not obliged to make such a report.
Mr. MORSE. Will the Senator permit
me to raise a question with respect to
his comment as to whether we have con-
fidence in the judgment of members of
the administration? How can we have
any feeling one way or the other until
we know what they are going to spend
the money for? Certainly the language
of the revised resolution that the Presi-
dent must report his proposed expendi-
tures 15 days before he spends the money
is no effective check upon the President.
,The language does not provide the re-
quirement that they must obtain our
approval before they spend it. The 15-
day report requirement is only a gesture.
They can file a report and then go ahead
and spend the money. They could wait
15 days and then go ahead and spend
it anyway. Why does not the Senator
support an amendment requiring the ad-
ministration to obtain approval for spe-
cific expenditures after it has Made its
report?
Mr. KENNEDY. Under this resolu-
tion Mr. Richards, in whom we have
great confidence, and who has a repu-
tation in this field for being strict and
careful, is required to approve the proj-
ect himself. He is obliged to submit it
to the Congress. Projects for which the
money will be spent will be reported to
us. They will be reported to us at the
time when we are considering foreign aid
for the fiscal year 1958, which will give
us a sanction not only with respect to
the $250 million, but also with respect
to the $4 billion or more recommended
for the fiscal year 1958.
On