INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF LAOS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160034-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 29, 2004
• Sequence Number: 34
• Publication Date: August 12, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

1964
Approved For g66B 4 200160034-4
the difference inthese terms. I under-
stand that may not satisfy the gentle-
man, but the 5-year term was not put
there arbitrarily. It was with the idea
of continuity and, as I Say, I see no
greater virtue in 3 over 5 to begin with.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIS. Yes, sir; I am glad to
yield.
Mr. GROSS. We had in the. Govern-
ment, advising President ' Kennedy on
administrative procedures, a gentle-
man-I shall not mention his name, he
is now dead-who,, had there been a
permanent organization such as you are
proposing to create here today, I would
not have been surprised would have been
designated the permanent chairman.
Yet this gentleman who was advising
the President on administrative pro-
cedure at that time did not find it eon-
venient to pay his Federal income taxes.
I cannot think of any good reason why
the proposed Chairman should have a
5-year tenure in a new and untried field.
Let us give him 3 years and see how he
performs.
Mr. WILLIS. I will say to the gen-
tleman that the many who has been head-
ing this Conference under Executive or-
der, first under President Eisenhower
and then under former President Ken-
nedy, was Judge Prettyman.
.Mr. GROSS, I understand; and I
made no allusion. to Judge Prettyman.
Mr.. WILLIS. I know that: I caught
that. The gentleman to whom.-he was
referring was not Judge Prettyman.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate
the concern of the gentleman from Iowa
about continued conferences and perma-
nent organizations in the Government.
I would agree, as has been said here, that
there are probably many that we could
curtail and we should, consider most
carefully the question of the . establish-
ment of others. But this is one which I
think has been so well justified here, we
can say it is needed. As I have said in-
numerable, times the large. and powerful
regulatory agencies of this Government
have the economy of our country in the
palm of their hand. If you do not think
they do not control activities in the field
of economics through the regulatory pro-
cedures of this country, you should sur-
vey the authority they have. Here we
are trying to do something about it. We
are trying to do something about ineffi-
ciency, and have been doing it over the
years-inefficiency in the administrative
agencies of this Government. We are
trying to do something, about the delays
that we have discovered.
As has been stated here this afternoon
there are cases that have been pending
for years and years; someone mentioned
16 years. I can tell you of cases that
that have been before the agency for
years. That. is because of inefficiencies.
And we found in the investigation that
we carried on for 4 years that the thing
which brought about inefficiencies and
delays were often ex parte contacts in
the Government. We discovered that so
many things resulted from ex parte con-
tacts which should not have been per-
mitted, because there was no way for the
people on the outside, as has been men-
tioned, to talk to members of the regula-
tory agencies that have quasi-judicial
responsibilities in these fields and who
should have been talked to about proce-
dure in many instances.
This provides a method, a procedure
for those in the agencies, the Chairmen
of the various regulatory agencies of the
Government or some one designated by
them, those on the outside-perhaps a
member of the Federal bar or a member
of the American bar, or organizations or
individuals on the outside who could be-
come a member of this group, and have
their meetings constantly in the Confer-
ence.
There they can discuss these matters
of administrative procedures without be-
ing charged with ex parte proceedings
with the regulatory commissioners who
are serving in these responsible positions.
Mr. Chairman, if there is any one man
who ought to know what he is doing, it
is the chairman of this Conference.
Every member of the independent regu-
latory, agencies who is going to serve on
this has, an appointment for 5 to 7 years,
everyone of them.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if that is the case,
why should not the man who is going to
have charge and whose responsibility it
is to-direct the discussion at these con-
ferences of regulatory procedures not
have the same kind of tenure of office in
order that these matters may be devel-
oped with the people who are going to
consider the recommendations made? I
believe that is one way we can get at in-
efficiency and ex parte contacts, which
we cannot permit, as well as the long de-
lays that exist in these agencies in at-
tending to the business of the people
who have business before them.
Mr. Chairman, for that reason I be-
lieve the 5-year tenure of office should
be the minimum.
I strongly support the action of this
committee which gave such careful con-
sideration to this legislation.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. This several years old
case about which the gentleman speaks,
insofar as this new Administrative Con-
ference is concerned, could stay right in
that department or agency for another
18 years. They could not force it out.
All they can do is recommend to Con-
gress that someone in Congress or some-
one dig it out. That is all they can do.
If they cannot find an official of the de-
partment or agency to do it, they would
have to come to Congress, where they
now come.
Mr. HARRIS. The major responsibil-
ity is reviewing the procedures of these
regulatory agencies. That is the pur-
pose of it.
Mr. GROSS. All they do is make rec-
ommendations.
The CHAIRMAN. The question -is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Iowa [Mr. Gaoss].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. GROSS) there
were-ayes 22, noes 51.
18623
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. ELLIOTT, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Committee
having had under consideration the bill
(S. 1664) to provide for continuous im-
provement of the administrative proce-
dure of Federal agencies by creating an
Administrative Conference of the United
States, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 824, he reported the
bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on an
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en Bros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELEC-
TRIC PROJECTS ON THE COLORA-
DO RIVER BELOW GLEN CANYON
DAM
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 502) to pre-
serve the jurisdiction of the Congress
over construction of hydroelectric proj-
ect-Son the Colorado Riyer below Glen
Canyon Dam, to strike out all after the
enacting clause, and insert the bill, H.R.
9752, which passed the House earlier
today.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause of
the bill, S. 502, and insert the provisions of
the bill, H.R. 9752, as passed by the House.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time and passed.
A similar House bill (H.R. 9752) was
laid on the table.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
-44
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF
LAOS
Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Committee on Rules I call
up House Resolution 823 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160034-4
 Approved Ft&qGFt"~uNQJ/1KECC3KUDP B~O 03R000200160032=4Auyust 12
the House resolve itself into the -Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (S.
1627) to enable the United States to con-
tribute its share of the expenses of the In-
ternational Commission for Supervision and
Control in Laos as provided in article 18 of
the protocol to the declaration on the neu-
trality of Laos. After general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and shall con-
tinue not to exceed one hour, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the five-minute rule. At
the conclusion of the consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise
and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Mr. EMT OTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may require, after
which I shall yield 30 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ANDERSON).
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 823
makes in order the consideration of S.
1627, which is a bill to enable the United
States to contribute its share of the ex-
penses of the International Commission
for Supervision and Control in Laos as
provided in article 18 of the protocol to
the declaration on the neutrality of Laos.
The resolution provides an open rule with
1 hour of general debate.
S. 1627 authorizes the appropriation of
such sums as may be necessary from time
to time for the payment by the United
States of its share of the costs of the op-
erations of the International Commis-
sion for Supervision and Control in Laos
(ICC) as provided in article 18 of the
protocol to the declaration on the neu-
trality of Laos dated July 23, 1962. Un-
der the terms of the protocol the U.S.
share of the ICC costs is 17.6 percent.
The budget of the ICC has not finally
been agreed upon for the current fiscal
year. The estimated figure is $3,780,000
of which 17.6 percent would be about
$655,000.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 823.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 823
makes in order consideration of S. 1827
which would authorize the appropriation
of such sums as may be necessary for
payment by the United States of its
share of the costs of the operations of
the International Commission for Super-
vision and Control in Laos. It is esti-
mated that this involves an authoriza-
tion of approximately $655,000 or 17.6
percent of the sum which will be re-
quired to operate this Commission dur-
Ing the ensuing year. This bill has pre-
viously passed the other body and has
been reported unanimously out of the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, our obligation to pay this
amount for the operations of the ICC
rests on the protocol to the Declaration
on the Neutrality of Laos dated July 23.
1962. The United States was 1 of the 14
signatories to that agreement whereby
among other things we undertook to
share the costs of operations of the ICC.
Mr. Speaker, I have always maintained
and continue to maintain that our Gov-
ernment committed an egregious foreign
policy blunder when it entered into the
Geneva Agreement. This abortive at-
tempt to neutralize Laos by providing
for a coalition government which in-
cluded the Communist Pathet Lao has
been a signal failure. Laos is and con-
tinues to be a staging area for North
Vietnamese assaults on the Republic of
South Vietnam. The unhappy experi-
ences under the Geneva Agreement of
1962 should end for all time the illusion
that still seems to exist in the minds of
our State Department that it is possible
to neutralize a country by including
Communists as a part of the government
of that country.
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that we
have made a commitment which is cog-
nizable under international law to dis-
charge a portion of the obligations
incurred in the operation of the Interna-
tional Control Commission. This coun-
try has historically and traditionally
stood by its agreements and has not fol-
lowed the example of those nations who
have consistently defaulted on their fi-
nancial commitments. Our vote on this
measure today must be judged in the
light of the action that Is scheduled to
take place in the General Assembly of
the United Nations when that body re-
convenes some time in November.
Mr. Speaker. I have long been among
those who believe that if the Soviet
Union, or for that matter, any other
country, persists in defaulting on its
obligations to the United Nations that
they should be barred from a vote in the
General Assembly pursuant to the terms
of article 19 of the charter. The Soviet
Union and certain other nations who are
now in default do have legal commit-
ments cognizable under international
law to meet a certain fixed share of the
expenses of the United Nations. The
failure to pay their assessed obligations
should and must be dealt with firmly in
the coming months. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the United States
in this instance and in this hour must
before the world display its willingness
to discharge the legal commitment which
it made under the Geneva Agreement of
1962. I think that by so doing we will be
in a much stronger position to urge upon
the other members of the General As-
sembly of the United Nations that they
invoke the provisions of article 19
against the U.S.S.R. If she persists in her
default.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time I do
want to make it abundantly clear that
I do not and cannot-condone the Geneva
Agreement of July 23, 1962. Further-
more. I would make it completely clear
that I do not agree with our policy of
vacillation and irresolution with respect
to Laos and southeast Asia generally. I
hope that never again will this Govern-
ment make the kind of mistake that it
made in concluding the agreement re-
ferred to.
-
Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve Itself Into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (S. 1627) to enable the United
States to contribute its share of the ex-
penses of the International Commission
for Supervision and Control in Laos as
provided in article 18 of the protocol to
the declaration on the neutrality of Laos.
The motion was agreed to.
IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill S. 1627, with Mr.
ELLIOTT in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZA-
BLocKIl will be recognized for 30 minutes
and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
BROOMFIELD] will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCISII.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, only
last week Congress passed the southeast
Asia resolution supporting and approv-
ing the actions of the President in re-
sisting Communist military aggression
in southeast Asia.
On June 2 the President summarized
four simple propositions that are our
policy in southeast Asia when he stated:
1. America keeps her word. Here as else-
where. we must and shall honor our com-
mitments.
2. The issue is the future of southeast Asia
as a whole. A threat to any nation in that
region is a threat to all, and a threat to us.
3. Our purpose is peace. We have no mili-
tary, political, or territorial ambitions in
the area.
4. This is not just a jungle war, but a strug-
gle for freedom on every front of human
activity.
Some may ask what is the connection
between that joint resolution and the
content of this bill.
I think these four points are the con-
nection.
Some may ask why is this bill neces-
sary? That is a reasonable and proper
question that I shall try to answer.
It should be remembered that the res-
olution of last week did not rule out the
desire of our Government to pursue every
honorable method to bring peace to
southeast Asia. This bill is a logical
complement to that resolution and is
evidence of the intent of the United
States to use such machinery as is avail-
able to end the strife in wartorn Laos.
Let me briefly outline the events that
have made this bill necessary. When
Laos gained its independence in 1954,
there was created an International Com-
mission for Supervision and Control in
Laos, popularly referred to as the ICC. It
consisted of three Commissioners-an
Indian, a Canadian, and a Pole-repre-
senting a neutral power, a pro-Western
power, and a Communist power. Their
responsibility was to assure that foreign
intervention in Laos was brought to an
end. By 1958 Laos felt confident that it
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160034-4
 Approved For tjSlks 66 200160034-4
T 96I~ jt:jq~6ff ? 18625
could maintain itself and the work of the
ICC ended.
By 19'61, the Communists had stepped
up their activities in that country. To
meet that threat, the ICC was reestab-
lished. A conference of 14 interested
powers was convened in Geneva to deal
with the Laotian situation. The United
States was one, of the participants. Out
of the Geneva Conference came a dec-
laration on the neutrality of Laos and
a protocol to that declaration.
The declaration called for the neu-
trality of Laos and the withdrawal of
foreign troops from that country. The
protocol, among other matters, gave to
the International Control Commission
the responsibility to make certain that
the provisions of the Geneva Conference
were carried out. Specifically, the ICC
was given these responsibilities:
First. To supervise and control' , the
withdrawal of foreign military personnel
from Laos;
Third. To investigate cases of illegal
introduction of foreign military person-
nel into Laos;
Fourth. To assist the Government of
Laos in cases of illegal introduction of
Fifth, To investigate other possible
violations of the provisions of the pro-
tocol and agreement.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman. from Ohio.
Mr. FEIGHAN. During the time of
the international Control Commission in
Korea, according to my understanding,
the Commission was not permitted to go
to North Korea. I wonder if there is
a provision which makes it mandatory
so that this Commission would have au-
thority which it could exercise?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. To the gentleman
from Ohio, I wish to say that I intend
to deal with the'problems facing the In-
ternational Control, Commission. Of
course, the gentleman realizes that the
United Nations Commission in Korea
was an efntirely different body from the
International Control Commission we
are discussing this afternoon.
I will deal with the difficulties, which
the International Control commission
has had, and it has had difficulties, The
Communists prevented the International
Control Commission from going into the
northern provinces of Laos, which is self-
incriminating and evidence that the
Communists are not carrying out the
agreements embodied in the Geneva
accord.
It is common knowledge that the Com-
mission has not been able to discharge
all of its responsibilities in Laos. The
Commission had not been able to exer-
cise its powers in the northern provinces.
This is not because of any lack of
desire on the Commission's part but is
due entirely to the failure of the Com-
nitinist elements to enable it. to do so.
On the other hand, the IOC" has carried
out investigations on numerous oc-
casions, often under most difficult cir-
cumstances, On 31 occasions the I,CC
has made reports. Acting under major-
ity rule, the Indian and Canadian mem-
bers have conducted numerous investiga-
tions of violations of the Geneva
agreement and reported these to the
British and Soviet co-chairmen of the
Geneva meeting. It has facilitated
meetings between the competing factions
of the Laotian Government. Through
special arrangements it has been able to
insure security at meetings of rival and
hostile elements and has played a help-
ful role in support of the Lao Govern-
ment against attempts to overthrow that
Government. No one of these accom-
plishments in itself may seem important.
But taken together they do indicate that
the precarious stability, within the Lao
Government is largely the result of the
Commission's efforts.
Let me refer to the financial side of
the Commission. That is the matter of
most immediate consideration so far as
this bill is concerned. For the period
during which the Geneva Conference
was meeting and the Commission was re-
activated-that is, from-.May 1961 to
July 1962-the five' principal powers-
the United States, Britain, France, the
'Soviet Union, and Communist China-
each agreed to contribute $450,000.
The Geneva agreement of July 1962,
included a method of annual assess-
ments. Each of the five principal powers
agreed'to pay 17.6 percent of the Com-
mission's costs. That accounts for 88
percent of the budget. The three Com-
mission powers-India, Canada, and
Poland-are to pay 1 percent each. And
the six small powers are to pay 1.5 per-
cent each.
The authorization for an appropria-
tion contained in this bill will enable the
United States to pay its assessed share.
During each of the last 2 years the ICC
budget has been about $3.8 million of
which the United States share has been
about $680,000.
The question was asked before the
Rules Committee as to for what the
money is used. The money is used to
support the operations of the Commis-
sion. Details of the budget may be found
in the hearings on this bill on pages 8 to
14.
I have just this morning received, the
budget for fiscal year 1964. If the gen-
tleman or any other members of the
Committee desire to see it, I will be de-
lighted to show it to them. It is unfor-
tunate we do not have additional copies
for general distribution.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has
consumed 10 minutes.
Mr. ZABLOCII. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 4 additional minutes.
We must remember that there are
problems for the ICC other than those
created by the obstinacy of the Commu-
nists. Laos is a country of mountains
and jungles about the size of Great.
Britain. Communication between points
is either poor or nonexistent. Contact
with field investigating teams is main-
tained in-
tained by radio. Personnel must- be,
moved by helicopter or light aircraft
when jeeps cannot get over the terrain.
All the equipment must be serviced in
Laos. That is one of the principal pur-
poses for which the money is used.
The next question one may ask is how
much has the United States paid to date.
As I indicated, for the period from May
1961 to July 1962, the five principal pow-
ers each agreed to contribute $450,000.
The United States has paid that sum.
For fiscal 1963 the U.S. share under the
formula of the Geneva agreement was
$665,280. The United States has also
paid that. But the Department of State
lacks authority to make any further pay-
ments without congressional authoriza-
tion. That is why this bill is before the
Congress. Hence our Government has
not paid its assessment of $683,000 for
the last year, fiscal. year 1964.
What about the payments by the other
principal powers? Only Communist
China owes more than the United States.
The United Kingdom, France, and the
Soviet Union have paid all that they owe
for fiscal year 1963 and have made sub-
stantial payments for fiscal year 1964.
If there are these defaults, it may be
asked how has the Commission been able
to operate. The Commission is opera-
tional because the three supervisory
powers-India, Canada, and Poland-
have advanced about $1.5 million above
their own assessments to cover travel and
personnel costs. Further, the Commis-
sion is simply not paying some of their
bills. For example, it owes the United
States $379,000 for the cost of helicopters.
This amount will be deducted from the
U.S. payments when we make our fu-
ture payments.
Although this bill carries permanent
authorization, I should like to point out
that the parties to the Geneva accord
agreed to make recommendations re-
garding its continuation not later than
1965. Thus, next year the 14powers will
make a determination on the future of
the Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I was the chairman of
a special study mission that visited Laos
last fall. Our group had an opportunity
to meet with the Indian and the Cana
than Commissioners and had a first-
hand report of their work and the dif-
ficulties under which they operate. I
can assure the Members that they are
not living a life of luxury and ease, in
Laos. They are trying to do their very
best under most difficult and trying cir-
cumstances.
In urging the passage of this bill I am
making my case on the simple ground
that the United States entered into an
agreement to maintain some peacekeep-
ing mechanism alive in Laos. I want to
make plain that our payment is not the
difference between success and failure
in Laos. If we were to write, off the
Commission, we would be commiting a
tremendous political and psychological
blunder. Our continued support of the
Commission is only one bit of tangible
evidence that we intend to exert our ef-
forts to maintain peace in that part of
the world. I urge the passage of S. 1627.
Mr.. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
I yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. BROOMFIELD asked and was,
given permission to revise and extend his.
remarks)
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
last fall I was one of eight members of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs who
made a trip to southeast Asia, to study
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP66B0003R000200160034-4
 18626
Approved FdEMe MffiQ 1 Q,k1, - P6 O00 SE R000200160034-4 ugust 12
at first hand the nature of our programs
and policies in that area. We included
Laos in our itinerary because we were
aware of its importance as one of the
probing points of Communist expansion.
Since its Independence in 1954, the
landlocked Kingdom of Laos has been
seeking to achieve some degree of unity
and national identification. It is a fasci-
nating country of mountains and jungles
inhabited by about 21/2 million people
who are divided by ethnic and linguistic
differences. Loosely organized factions
centering around personalities rather
than issues give the country a veneer of
political organization. Its problems of
survival have been complicated by the
presence and pressure of Communist ele-
ments that draw their principal support
from North Vietnam.
The 1962 Geneva agreements to which
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
ZeaLOCxt] has referred were designed to
enable this small nation to preserve its
neutral status and thereby survive as a
sovereign, independent, non-Communist
state and a buffer between Communist
China and North Vietnam and the free
nations of Thailand, Cambodia, and the
Republic of Vietnam.
The United States has taken every
occasion. to make abundantly clear Its
support of the Geneva agreements. In
accordance with those agreements the
United States withdrew its military ad-
visory group. The same cannot be said
of the Communists who have not only
remained In the country but have been
actively engaged in seizing more terri-
tory,
The three-member International Con-
trol Commission created to supervise the
arrangements made at Geneva for the
neutrality of Laos plays an important
role In the current situation in Laos.
Despite obstructionism by the Polish
member who has always sided with the
Communist Pathet Lao, the Commission
under its Indian chairman has taken sig-
nificant steps to preserve the 1962 agree-
ments and to help stabilize the political-
military situation. The Polish member,
acting In conjunction with the Pathet
Lao representatives, has so far thwarted
all efforts of the Commission to Institute
an investigation into the presence of
North Vietnamese troops in Laos.
I think that all eight of us who vis-
ited Laos last fall and met with the
Indian and Canadian members of the
Commission were tremendously im-
pressed by the enormity of their task
and their determination to discharge
their responsibilities to the best of their
ability. The fact that they have not
always been successful is no reflection
on them. Rather it underscores the
Communist determination to prevent the
execution of the Geneva agreements to
which the Communists subscribed. In
my opinion there is a lesson in foreign
policy for us In the attitude of the Com-
munists. Simply stated it is that we
need not go to the conference table for
more negotiations and agreements. Let
the Communists abide by the agreements
they have already entered into.
I would like to amplify one further
point made by my colleague from Wis-
consin. That is on the matter of fi-
nancing the Commission. During the 14
months when the Geneva conference
was meeting, the $450,000 that consti-
tuted our contribution toward the ex-
penses of the Commission was funded
under the section of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act dealing with voluntary contri-
butions to international organizations.
Once the Geneva agreements were
signed, the United States assumed an
annual assessment of 17.6 percent of the
cost of the Commission. It was possible
to appropriate funds for our fiscal year
1963 share under the authority given
the Department of State which permits
our payment of assessments in inter-
national bodies such as the ICC for 1
year without congressional approval.
Beyond the 1 year period congressional
author iation Is necessary for continued
financial support. That is why this bill
Is before the Congress.
For the preaccord period from May
1961 to July 1962, we have contributed
our share of $450,000. For fiscal year
1963 we have paid $665,280-our assessed
share for that year. Thus our total
payments have amounted to $1,115,280.
We have not paid $683,000 that we owe
for the last fiscal year; nor is there au-
thority to pay our share for the current
fiscal year which will be about the same
amount as last year.
Briefly, for the 3 fiscal years 1962
through 1964. Communist China owes
$1,099,056; the United States owes $683,-
000; the Soviet Union, $411,400; France,
$330,228; and the United Kingdom,
$311,695. The latter three countries-
the United Kingdom, France, and the
Soviet Union-have made partial pay-
ments on their 1964 assessment.
Mr. Chairman, there are few alterna-
tive courses of action open to us in Laos
that will permit us to carry out our policy
objectives. The support of the Interna-
tional Control Commission Is perhaps the
most important one available to us.
Like my colleagues who have given this
matter some study, I can offer no assur-
ance that the Commission will succeed.
But I am certain that its failure will only
multiply our problems in that country
and In that area. I urge the passage of
S. 1627.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. BRUCE].
(Mr. BRUCE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, I have
asked for this time solely for the purpose
of trying to bring my own thinking into
line and Into mind as to what exactly we
are dealing with in Laos.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all
aware that we are dealing here with mat-
ters of security and that some of the
information is under the security label.
I do want to ask some questions of the
distinguished chairman of this subcom-
mittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. ZsaLocxi], and I will understand if
at any time I am getting into a sensitive
area he waves me off, and I know the
gentleman will.
But, Mr. Chairman, in view of the
situation those of us who are Interested
in foreign affairs to a certain degree must
find our own source of Information. It is
paramount upon us to check where we
can as to the validity of information that
we receive.
Is it a correct assessment that the pur-
pose of our support of the ICC is to stop
Communist aggression in Laos?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, the gentleman is
correct- That is our purpose.
Mr. BRUCE. Is the statement that
was made earlier, that the Polish mem-
bers of the Commission have blocked any
real inspection of the Communist Pathet
Lao-controlled areas of Laos, correct?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The ICC in Laos op-
erates under a majority rule. Therefore,
if the Polish member did not cooperate
or should try to put stumbling blocks be-
fore the ICC, the two remaining mem-
bers, India and Canada, can operate as a
majority. These two members have un-
dertaken investigations.
As I said in my opening statement the
problem is not in the ICC. It is the
Communists who have tried to prevent
the ICC from investigating the situation
with reference to the Plaine des Jarres.
We have a report as recently as June
1964. If the gentleman will come to the
table, I shall be happy to show him the
report. It does indicate that the situa-
tion with reference to the Plaine des
Jarres plainly lies with the fault of the
Communists.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BRUCE. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. That is splitting a hair
right down the middle to say that the
Communists might do it, but the Poles
do not.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Even in this case,
the committee was able to investigate
and has made a report as recently as
June 1964.
Mr. BRUCE. Has the Commission it-
self actually had full access to the free
areas of Laos?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. No.
Mr. BRUCE. Who is blocking that?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The Communists.
Mr. BRUCE. Have the Polish mem-
bers of the ICC cooperated with the
Canadians and the Indians, or both, or
did they engage in harassment and the
blocking of it?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. They are not coop-
erative.
Mr. BRUCE. The Communist mem-
bers of the Commission are appointed by
the Polish Government?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes.
Mr. BRUCE. The Polish Government
is Communist, so they would appoint
Communist members as their representa-
tives?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes.
Mr. BRUCE. Do the Polish members
have full and free access in the non-
Communist area?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes. We have
nothing to hide. There is no aggression
on the part of the freedom-loving peo-
ple over there.
Mr. BRUCE. It would be within the
purview of the intelligence of the Polish
members of the Commission to know the
troop location, the supplies location, by
their free access as a member of the
Commission?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160034-4
 1964
Mr. ZABLOC1 T `Ih y would know
how many troops there are. referto
the troops of the Kingdom of Laos.
Mr TIZCE is the Commission the
one that takes credit for the Royal Gov-
ernmeht of Laos merging the Pathet Lao
into their Armed li orces?
Mr. ZABLOCKI Thatwais worked out
under the Geneva-agreement
Mr., BRUCE. ,. It was not the.I C that
was 'charged with carrying this out? As
I read the report that is the impression
I get.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. That is true.
Mr. BRUCE. When the Commission
finds a violation of .the , agreement.
somewhere in Laos to whom do_they, re-
port?
;Mr. ZAB"LOCKI. They report to the
cochairman.
Mr. BRUCE. Who are' the cochair-
men.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The British and the
Bcviet Union.
Mr. BRUCE. I thank---the gentleman
very much for his cooperation in answer-
ing these questions.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. There is one other
observation I would like to make: It we
did not have the ICC we would not have
that report.
Mr. BRUCE. May I `pursue 't1iat for
a moment? Ffas the. situation, since
the letter of Secretary Rusk, dated May
20, changed in Plaine des Jarres? Has it
changed any?
Mr. LABLOCKI. Yes. It is our posi
tion that there will be no reconvening
of the 14 powers until there Is a cease-
fire and the Communists withdraw from
areas in the Plaine des Jarres that they
have seized.
Mr. BRUCE. Is this not a rather ,ac-
curate description of the situation in
Laos right now: In effect, under Com-
munist control, there is a funnel for sup-
plying troops in Vietnam under sanc-
tuary of the Communist controlled area
in Laos?
Mr. ZABLOCKI.. There has been a
movement of Communist equipment and
personnel through the northern part of
Laos into Vietnam,, . But -1 -point out if
we did , nat have the ICC there, would
be even greater movements of troops and
military equipment. The ICC in Laos
has acted as a deterrent to further Com-
munist activities. Let me make clear
at this point that a vote for the bill is
not giving aid and comfort to the Com,-
munists, ,
.Mr. BRUCE. I thank the chairman
very much. It may be that the obliga-
tion we have calls upon us to approve
the appropriation of these funds. But I
raise, the grave question of policy, of de-
termining what goal we are leading to.
We have. time and time, again seen the
fallacy of trying to form coalitions with
Communists. The Poles named- to this
Commission by the Communist-Polish
Clovernn ent would ,not beanything ex-
cept agents of the world Commnpis t con
spiracy. I would not talk about separate
Communist entities in Vietnam, or South
America, or any other place in any mean-
ingful, terms. It is part of the : same
tics where necessary. ' T6 believe that
the Poles and the Soviets are not work-
ing hand in glove with the Communist
leaders elsewhere is the height of naivete.
it would seem to me after all the ex-
perience we have had that sooner or later
we would come to the conclusion we
might try to reach a goal that would
mean victory in the cold war.
I do not believe we are going to achieve
victory by putting our reliance on com-
missions that include Communists. I do
not believe we can take any real steps
toward victory by forcing a coalition on a
people such as we did in Laos. We should
have learned this thing clearly. Liter-
ally, we coerce them into taking the
Pathet Lao only to have them betray
the trust, as was easily predictable. I
suggest that the time is long overdue
when the United States must recognize
that you do not put your trust in Com-
munists. This is what we are doing.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRUCE. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The gentleman has
come to an entirely wrong conclusion.
We are opposing Communist aggression.
Mr. BRUCE. They are part of the
International Control Commission.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, but in 1961 the
situation was deteriorating.
Mr. BRUCE. How did it deteriorate so
badly? How did they get into that situ-
ation? - Why did the royal government
get into the position where they took the
Communists into the government in a
coalition?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. We wanted to deal
effectively with the Communists, but the
gentleman would not want the Commu-
nists to have a free hand in Laos.
Mr. BRUCE. I would say to the gentle-
man the Communists got exactly the
free hand they wanted.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The gentleman
would say they have a free hand?
Mr. BRUCE. I would say they have
exactly a free hand. They have the fa-
cilities of a funnel for Vietnamese troops,
and to get supplies into Vietnam. This
is their technique. We are talking at the
conference table with them, and they are
accomplishing their goal.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time on this
side.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
I have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read
the bill for amendment.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That there is
hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of State such sums as may be.,
necessary from time to time for the pay-
ment by the United States of its -share of-
the costs of the operations of the Interna-
tional Commission for Supervision and Con-
trol in Laos as provided in article 18 of the
protocol to the declaration on the neutrality
of Laos dated July 23, 1962.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair
[Mr. 19LLIOTT] Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Commit-
tee having had under consideration the
bill (S. 1627) to'enable the United States
to contribute its share of the expenses
of the International Commission for
Supervision and Control in Laos as pro-
vided in article 18 of the protocol to the
declaration on the neutrality of Laos
pursuant to House Resolution 823, he re-
ported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading
of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 268, nays 89, not voting 74,
as follows:
[Roll No. 220]
YEAS-268
Abernethy Corman Hanna
Adair Cunningham Hansen
Addabbo Curtin Harding
Albert Curtis Hardy
Anderson Daddario Harris
Andrews, Ala. Daniels Hawkins
Andrews, Davis, Ga. Hays
N. Dak. Dawson. Healey
Arends Delaney Hechler
Ashley Denton Henderson
Ashmore Derwinski Herlong
Aspinall Donohue Holifleld
Avery Duncan. Horan
Ayres Dwyer Horton
Baker Edmondson Hosmer
Barrett Edwards Huddleston
Barry Elliott Hull
Bates Ellsworth Ichord
Battin Everett Jarman
Beckworth Evins Jennings
Bennett, Fla. Farbstein Joelson
Blatnik Pascell Johnson, Calif.
Boggs Findley Johnson, Pa.
Boland Fino Jonas
Bonner Fisher Jones, Mo.
Brademas Flood Karsten
Bromwell Fogarty Karth
Brooks Fountain Kastenmeler
Broomfield Fraser Kelly
Brotzman Frelinghuysen Keogh
Brown, Calif. Friedel Kilgore
Brown, Ohio Fulton, Pa. King, Calif
Broyhill, Va. Fulton, Tenn. Kluczynski
Burke Fuqua Kornegay
Burkhalter Gallagher Kunkel
Burleson Gary Kyl
Burton, Calif, Gathings Laird
Byrne, Pa. Giaimo Libonati
Cahill Gibbons Long, La.
Cameron Gilbert Long, Md.
Carey Gonzalez McClory
Casey Grabowski McDade
Cederberg Grant McDowell
Celler Gray McFall
Chelf Green, Oreg. Macdonald
Clark Green, Pa. Madden
Cleveland Griffin Mahon
Colmer Griffiths Marsh
Conte Hagen, Calif. Martin, Mass.
Cooley Halleck Matsunaga
Corbett Halpern Matthews
Approved For Release 2005/02/10: CIA-RDP66BQ0403R0002001 60034-4
 A I~
18628 Approved For0 Ig O9 /1R 0 W P USE 3R000200160034--4August. 12
Miller, Calif.
Purcell
Stafford
Milliken
Quie
Steed
Mills
Randall
Stephens
Mlnish
Reid. N.Y.
Stratton
Monagan
Reifel
Stubblefield
Montoya
Reuss
Sullivan
Moorhead
Rhodes, Pa.
Taft
Morgan
Riehlman
Taylor
Morris
Rivers, Alaska
Teague, Calif.
Morrison
Rivers, S.C.
Teague, Tex.
Morse
Robison
Thomas
Mosher
Rodino
Thompson, N.J.
Moss
Rogers, Colo.
Thompson. Tex.
Multer
Rogers, Fla.
Thomson,
Murphy, Ill.
Rogers, Tex.
Tollefson
Murphy, N.Y.
Rooney, N.Y.
Trimble
Murray
Rooney, Pa.
Tuck
Natcher
Roosevelt
Tupper
Norblad
Rosenthal
Tuten
O'Brien, N.Y.
Rostenkowski
Udall
O'Hara, Ill.
Roush
Ullman
O'Hara, Mich.
Roybal
Van Deerlin
Olsen, Mont.
Rumsfeid
Vanik
O'Neill
Ryan, N.Y.
Watson
Osmers
St. Onge
Watts
Ostertag
Schneebeli
Weaver
Patman
Schweiker
Weitner
Patten
Schwengel
Whalley
Pelly
Secrest
White
Pepper
Belden
Whitener
Perkins
Benner
Whitten
Philbin
Shriver
Wickersham
Pickle
Sibal
Wldnali
Pike
Sickles
Wilson.
Pillion
Sikes
Charles H.
Pirnie
Skubitz
Wright
Poage
Slack
Wydler
Price
Smith, Iowa
Young
Pucinski
Springer
Zablocki
NAYS-89
Abbitt
Glenn Moore
Abele
Goodell Morton
Ashbrook
Doodling Nelsen
Baldwin
Gross O'Konski
Becker
Grover Poff
Beermann
Gubser Pool
Belcher
Gurney Quillen
Bell
Hall Reid. Ill.
Berry
Harrison Rhodes, Ariz.
Betts
Harsha Rich
Bolton,
Harvey, Ind. Roudebush
Oliver P.
Hoeven St. George
Bow
Hutchinson Saylor
Bray
Jensen Schadeberg
Broyhill,N.C.
Johansen Schenck
Bruce
Keith Short
Byrnes, Wis.
Kilburn Stier
Chamberlain
King, N.Y. Smith, Calif.
Clancy
Knox Snyder
Clausen,
Langen Stinson
Don H.
Latta Talcott
Clawson, Del
Lennon Utt
Cramer
Lipscomb Van Pelt
Dague
McCulloch Waggonner
Derounian
McIntire Williams
Devine
McLoskey Wilson, Bob
Dole
MacGregor Wilson, Ind,
Dora
Martin, Nebr. Wyman
Dowdy
May. Younger
Dulski
Michel
Ford
Minshall
NOT VOTING -74
Alger
Gill
Olson, Minn.
Auchincloss
Hagan, Ga.
Passman
Baring
Haley
Pitcher
Bass
Harvey, Mich.
Powell
Bolling
H?bert
Rains
Bolton,
Hoffman
Roberts, Ala.
Frances P.
Holland
Roberts, Tex.
Brock
Johnson, Wis.
Ryan. Mich.
Buckley
Jones, Ala.
St (ermafn
Burton, Utah
Kee
Scott
Chenoweth
Kirwan
Sheppard
Cobelan
Landrum
Shipley
Collier
Lankford
Sisk
Davis, Tenn.
Leggett
Smith, Va.
Dent
Lesinaki
Staebler
Digs
Lindsay
Staggers
Dingell
Lloyd
Thompson, La.
Downing
McMillan
Toll
Fallon
Maiiliard
Vinson
Feighan
Martin, Calif.
Wallhauser
Finnegan
Mathias
Westland
Flynt
Meader
Wharton
Foreman
Miller, N.Y.
Willis
Forrester
Nedzi
Winstead
Garmatz
Nix
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs :
Mr. Mailliard for, with Mr. Burton of Utah
against.
Mr. Mathias for, with Mr. Martin of Cali-
fornia against.
Mr. Kirwan for, with Mr. Hoffman against.
Mr. Lindsay for, with Mr. Alger against.
Mr. Wallhauser for, with Mr. Foreman
against.
Mr. Garmatz for, with Mr. Auchinclosa
against.
Mr. Fallon for, with Mr. Meader against.
Mr. Hibert for, with Mr. Westland against.
Mr. Cohelan for, with Mr. Collier against.
Mr. Nix for, with Mr. Chenoweth against.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana for, with Mr.
Brock against.
Mr. Baring for, with Mr. Wharton against.
Mr. St Germain for, with Mr. Harvey of
Michigan against.
Mr. Winstead for, with Mr. Buckley against.
Mr. Jones of Alabama for, with Mr. Fin-
negan against.
Mr. Feighan for, with Mr. Ryan of Michi-
gan against.
Mr. Sisk for, with Mr. Holland against.
Mr. Dent for, with Mr. Diggs against.
Mr. Dingell for, with Mr. Lankford against.
Mr. Nedzi for, with Mrs. Kee against.
Mr. Lesinaki for, with Mr. Passman against.
Mr. Shipley for, with Mr. Powell against.
Mr. Roberts of Alabama for, with Mr. Shep-
pard against.
Mr, Downing for, with Mr. Davis of Ten-
nessee against.
Mr. Forrester for, with Mr. Haley against.
Mr. Gill for, with Mr. Pitcher against.
Mr. Rains for, with Mr. McMillan against.
Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin for, with Mr.
Leggett against.
Mr. Landrum for, with Mr. Staebler against.
Mr. Roberts of Texas for, with Mr. Scott
against.
Mr. Toll for, with Mr. Staggers against.
Mr. Willis for, with Mr. Smith of Virginia
against,
Mr. Olson of Minnesota for, with Mr. Vin-
son against.
Mr. Flynt for, with Mr. Base against.
Messrs. SHORT, SCHADEBERG, BOB
WILSON, and CHAMBERLAIN changed
their vote from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
REMARKS
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which
to extend their remarks on the bill just
passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Wis-
consin?
There was no objection.
SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA
INDIAN RESERVATION
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 8334) to
transfer to the Salt River Pima-Mart-
copa Indian community certain lands
within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Reservation, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and concur in the
Senate aitiendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment,
as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and
insert: "That all the right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to the following-
described lands within the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Reservation, Arizona. con-
sisting of approximately 27.3625 acres, pur-
ehased for school purposes from Indian
moneys proceeds of labor funds and now
excess to the needs of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, are hereby declared to be held by the
United States in trust for the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community:
"South half north half south half north-
east quarter southwest quarter southeast
quarter,
"South half south half northeast quarter
southwest quarter southeast quarter,
"North half northwest quarter southwest
quarter southeast quarter.
"North half north half south half north-
west quarter southwest quarter southeast
quarter,
"West half east half southeast quarter
southwest quarter,
"West half east half east half southeast
quarter southwest quarter,
"East half northeast quarter northeast
quarter southeast quarter southwest quarter,
"North half northeast quarter southeast
quarter northeast quarter southeast quarter
southwest quarter,
"Section 32, township 2 north, range 5 east,
G & SRP & M, Arizona.
"Six. 2. The Indian Claims Commission is
directed to determine In accordance with the
provisions of section 2 of the Act of August
13, 1946 (80 Stat. 1050), the extent to which
the value of the title conveyed by this Act
should or should not be set off against any
claim the United States determined by the
Commission
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Colo-
rado? .
Mr. GROSS. Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, do I understand cor-
rectly that this is one of the bills the
gentleman intends to call up this eve-
ning?
Mr. ASPINALL. Yes. This is one of
three bills I am going to call up and ask
to concur In the Senate amendments. I
may say to the gentleman that all the
amendments are germane to those bills.
Mr. GROSS. All the amendments to
those bills are germane?
Mr. ASPINALL. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Colo-
rado?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendment was concurred
in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC
ISLANDS
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1988) to
provide for the settlement of claims of
certain residents of the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and concur in the
Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment,
as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert: That the Congress hereby assumes
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160034-4