Congressional Record Senate

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150022-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 35
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: April 22, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
State officials since the 15th amendment ex-
tends to both. The exemption under the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 of elections for those
officials most closely affecting the day-by-
day life of local citizens is particularly in-
advisable since the disabilities under color of
law from which Negroes suffer most deeply
are imposed by such officials:
We therefore recommend the addition to
S. 1664 of sections similar to those now con-
tained in S. 1517 and H.R. 4552 amending
sections 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42
U.S.C., sec. 1971) to eliminate the provisions
limiting it to Federal elections.
CONCLUSION
The history of the development (V Negro
voting rights since the ratification of the
15th amendment in 1870 has been replete
with constant efforts, both simple and so-
phisticated, to circumvent its basic pur-
pose?elimination of distinctions on the
grounds of race or color in the right to vote.
Sincere efforts by Congress and the Ex-
ecutive to meet these problems through
the courts have proven unsuccessful
despite the provisions of the 1957, 1960, and
1964 Civil Rights Acts. The record makes
clear that administrative procedures are
essential to permit rapid and extensive reg-
istration ot persons heretofore discrimina-
torily denied the right to vote. We believe
that the proposed bill is a clearly constitu-
tional exercise of congressional power under
the 15th amendment, and we strongly urge
its prompt enactment with the strengthen-
ing and clarifying amendments we have sug-
gested.
Respectfully submitted.
Committee on Federal Legislation: Fred
N. Fishman, Chairman; Sidney H.
Asch; Charles R. Bergoffen; Eastman
Birkett; Benjamin F. Crane; Nanette
Dembitz; Sheldon H. Eisen; Leonard
Epstein; Elliot H. Goodwin; Andrew
N. Grass, Jr.; Jerome E. Hyman; Rob-
ert M. Kaufman; Ida Klaus; John E.
Massengale; Robert B. McKay; John
E. Merow; George Minkin; Gerald E.
Paley; Mahlon F. Perkins, Jr., H. David
Potter; Arthur I. Rosett; Albert J.
Rosenthal; Peter G. Schmidt; Henry
I. Stimson.
Committee on the Bill of Rights: Arnold
Bauman, Chairman; Edgar E., Barton;
Jane M. Bolin; William J. Butler;
Louis A. Craco; Norman Doreen; Vic-
tor M. Earle III; Justin N. Feldman;
William G. Fennell; Marvin E. Fran-
- kel; Callman Gottesman; Richard D.
Kahn; Robert K. Knight; Robert 0.
Lehrnian; Robert P. Patterson, Jr.;
Amos J. Peaslee, Jr.; Ilobert Pitofsky;
Seymour M. Waldra
APRIL 10, 1965.
THE SITUATION IN VIETNAM
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I noted
with great interest the debate which was
held on the floor of the Senate yester-
day with respect to the situation in
Vietnam. I believe that the suggestion
which was made by the majority leader,
the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANS-
FIELD), and concurred in by other
Members of great distinction in the Sen-
ate, was a most constructive one.
I should like to add, however, this one
point, which I believe is very important
to our country. I, like every other Sen-
ator, travel widely, particularly in my
own State, and in other States as well,
and as a result I have a very good idea
of what is worrying our people. There
are straws in the wind to indicate that
there is to be an escalation of our efforts
No. 71---7
on the ground in Vietnam. If the Com-
mander in Chief feels that a further
commitment is necessary with regard to
ground forces in the Vietnamese strug-
gle--paralleling what we are trying to do
in the air, with American aircraft actu-
ally engaged in bombardment?then, at
that point, I believe the issue should
again be submitted to Congress and to
the country, and Congress should have
an opportunity to give a new mandate
in that respect.
I point out that the joint resolution
which Congress passed on August 7,
1964?which I supported and which I
continue to support, as I support the
President's actions?"approves and sup-
ports the determination of the President,
as Commander in Chief, to take all neces-
sary measures to repel any armed at-
tack against the forces of the United
States and to prevent further aggres-
sion."
In the same resolution the President is
authorized?if he needs authorization?
"to take all necessary steps, including
the use of armed force, to assist any
member or protocol state of the South-
east Asia Collective Defense Treaty re-
questing assistance in defense of its free-
dom."
That resolution gave the President au-
thority, if he needed any. I urge upon
the President that he again ask the ad-
vice of Congress if we are to engage in
the struggle in Vietnam on yet another
level by Commitment of an appreciable
number of our ground forces in actual
combat. I say that because such a com-
mitment is of such a nature and of such
importance that Congress should again
have the opportunity to pass on it by
resolution.
I shall draft a resolution on that sub-
ject, if it is needed, though the admin-
istration is well able to do it. However,
I urge that it be done that way, rather
than through unilateral action by the
Commander in Chief, if that is the step
we contemplate.
CHARLES B. BOLTON, RECIPIENT
OF HAWKEN SCHOOL ALUMNI
AWARD
Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, recently
a distinguished citizen of Ohio received
the coveted Hawken School Alumni
Award for his work in education in vari-
ous fields. He is Charles B. Bolton,
business executive and philanthropist of
Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Bolton considers
as tremendously exciting the challenge
of today confronting educational estab-
lishments, independent, parochial and
public. But he regards it as sobering in
the realization that the future of this
and other countries is at stake.
It is his considered opinion that the
present social unrest will be resolved only
through education.
Because his acceptance speech sets
forth impressive perspective in the fund-
amentals of the mission of education, I
ask unanimous consent that it be placed
in the REcoan at this point.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
7989-
President, members of the alumni,
ladies, and friends, many thoughts are rac-
ing through my mind as I stand here to-
night. Thoughts that are most difficult to
put into words. Basically these are a con-
fused mixture of incredibility, surprise,
humbleness, and disbelief flavored with the
salt of pride and gratitude. To be honored
by men, many of whom I have known in-
timately as friends over a period of 50 years,
is something I cannot talk about as I feel
an emotion that mere words tend to destroy.
I've searched diligently, however, for a simple
word or phrase to adequately express my
feelings and only one truly does. I use it
in its very broadest and all encompassing
sense?thank you.
John Newell, our president, has asked that
I talk to you about Hawken School as I see
it, both today and tomorrow. This I am
more than willing to do provided all of you
remember these thoughts and opinions are
mine alone. They do not necessarily ex-
press any official conceptions of or de-
cisions by the board of trustees, but are
strictly those of an alumnus who has been
forntunate enough to be associated with
Hawken in some capacity since its inception.
In thinking of Hawken School today one
cannot help but think of the many well-lived
yesterdays that made the immediate real-
ities of today and the great dreams of to-
morrow even possible. These memories lump
together, I'm sure, in your minds as well as
In mine, but let me briefly sort them out
into three categories; housing, traditions, and
individuals.
All of us here tonight are fully aware of
the humble facilities available in first one
quarter and then a second on Ansel Road
that housed the newborn but lusty Hawken,
followed by the move to the then new build-
ing in Lyndhurst. All three changes in lo-
cation were implemented by the growth of
the student body and were made only after
much study and thought by Mr. Hawken and
the then small board of trustees. The
school resembled an adolescent, growing in
great spurts and, as is typical of youth, con-
stantly on the verge of fiscal collapse with
only faith and friends as parents to turn to
in the struggle toward manhood. These
moves were followed by a period of compara-
tive calm during which reorganization and
strengthening were stressed. Growth, how-
ever, was not to be denied and the Lynd-
hurst facilities grew in size to be followed,
only recently, by the addition of the nucleus
of an upper school in Gates Mills. Thus at
last Hawken attained a semblance of man-
hood as far as a physical framework is con-
cerned at the youthful age of 50 years.
What, you may ask, was the moving force
behind this growth, the flame under the
broiler and the fuel to feed the fire. I be-
lieve it was the desire to extend the tradition
of excellence in education envisioned by the
founders, the concept of fairplay and the
desire that each generation introduce its suc-
cessor to a higher plane of living. These
three traditions, you will agree, have formed
Hawken's Triangulum Major in the heavens
and as such arethe constellation that has
set the school's course. It is and has been a
great and true reference point and guide
through sunlight and storm. May it always
be so.
Now, for a minute, I want to pay tribute to
those rare and devoted men and women who
conceived the idea we call Hawken, and also
to those who joined the original group in
ensuing years, who nurtured it on all fronts,
in good times and in bad, who have taken the
knocks and the bows and who have made this
school loved and respected by not only our-
selves but by countless others as well. Time
limitations prevent each to be named but no
one of them ever requires his name to be
mentioned. Each is aware that Hawken.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 1965
School stands firmly on the broad founcla- our boys be given a real chance to fully de- unless the President finds that such ship-
tion built many years ago with the bricks and velop inborn, God-given capacities. ment is "in the interest of the United
mortar of true ideals and practical devotion I cannot, at this time, be as specific con- States."
by men not now on the stage but who will cerning the Gates Mills campus. Our cur-
never be forgotten. Humbly we thank each riculura there as well as its programing Nasser has told the United States to
of them, must be broadened and refined. This will take its aid and jump in the sea.
Hawken School today is a macrocosm of the lead to a determination of student body size In the face of this sorry record, PreSi-
1915 Ansel Road beginning. As defined in and finally to a master building plan. All dent Nasser's reported request for an Id-
the December 11 edition of the Upper School these facets must be flexible but again they ditional $500 million in U.S. economic aid
paper, the affirmative no, in its lead editorial; should surround the student with greater shows an unbelievable misreading of
"The primary concern of the Hawken philos- opportunities for self-discipline through sentiment in the United States by those
ophy is the individual and his relation to learning. It is a challenging, exciting who have been advising President John-
society. It is a philosophy not narrowly future.
confined by academic considerations, but In conclusion I want to quote President son who are in communication with
based upon a consideration of the student as Millis of Western Reserve University as he President Nasser, and who have carried
a future citizen. Inherent in this philosophy expresses our opportunities so well. I am out this costly, harmful appeasemant
is the hope that Hawken can guide the in- sure he will not mind as his beliefs are mine' policy for over a decade.
dividual toward an awareness of his environ- "There is in education both permanency From 1952 to the present time?under
ment and a sincere concern for the welfare of and change. The eternal values of the well- three d' fferent administrations?both
his fellow men. Hawken is an academic in- furnished and literate mind, the intellectu- Republican and Democratic?U.S. f or-
stitution devoted to excellence, but perhaps ally oriented person, remain the same. The
more important it is devoted to instilling in same basic skills of communication, of un-
eign policy in the Middle East has been
the student certain basic qualities of charac- derstanding, of the organization of thought, vacillating, weak, and ineffectual.
ter so that upon his graduation he may enter the approach to problems, and the solution The lack on the part of the United
into whatever he undertakes, able to make of problems, remain here as they did for me, States of sound policies, firmly bedded in
responsible decisions based on a valid evalua- for my father, for my grandfather. But moral principles aimed at bringing about
tion of his situation." at the same time, they are within the per- lasting peace in the Middle East, has
It is increasingly difficult these days to spective and the framework of an ever- contributed greatly to the tinderbox
establish and expand an environment to changing society and world. New knowledge,
situation existing there today.
nurture this philosophy of excellence and new concepts, and a sense of new values.
awareness. One hears on all sides of the Therefore, it is to meld this change and this U.S. appeasement, time and time and
tremendous advances by science and the element of permanency that is the essential time again during those years, of the
effect they have on the society in which we task of devising the instruction of the dictator of Egypt, President Nasser, has
live. In reality these are broader concepts student." led to almost unbelievable arrogance on
of basic truths but they tend to effect the A never-ending challenge lies before us. his part, ever-widening aggressicns
confusion in the minds of students toward Let us continue with the help of the Al- against his neighbors, and a growing
these truths. Hawken students are no ex- mighty to give these young men every op- closeness to communism, making his ac-
ception. I can honestly say the board of portunity for self-development and self -die- tions more and more resemble those of
trustees, the headmas ter, the faculty, and cipline coupled with a true desire to con-
even the students themselves are constantly tinue the stoking of the fires of their own any other Russian satellite.
striving to maintain the vital balance be- learning. In this fashion, guided by fair I was in Egypt over 2 years ago on a
tween the heart and the mind so essential play, excellence will prevail and each gener- study mission for the Senate Committee
if we are to live up to the philosophy ex- ation cannot help but introduce its succes- on Government Operations to observe the
pressed above. How do we attempt this? sor to a higher plane of living. Thank you administration of the U.S. foreign aid
We continue to rely on the concept of small, again for this accolade. I shall remember program in that country.
Intimate teaching units even though each this crown of glory carries with it the thorns
grade may consist of 40 or more individuals, of great responsibility and shall always do Upon my return I filed a report with
The school, as you know, can take a boy my utmost to further all our dreams for the Senate Committee on Government
from kindergarten to college, has 563 stu- Hawken. Your presence here tonight touches Operations in which I made certain ob-
dents and a faculty of over 65. Hawken is me deeply. I consider it a great tribute, not servations with respect to -happenings
the largest independent school in the area so much to myself, but to Hawken School. in the Middle East that are as pertinent
and even so the clamor to join the student I shall count on your help as we urge the today as they were when the report was
body has led to a current study reevaluating young generation of today along the road filed on October 1, 1963. The report ru a-
the upper school program as dictated by our of life and toward the ultimate destiny of
curriculum and finally to the ultimate size man. ning to 472 printed pages has been pub-
of that body. Perhaps too much emphasis lished as a Senate document.
is put on admission to college by the pres- I pointed out that it was Colonel Nas-
sures of the times and not enough on the U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST? ser, in 1956, who gave the Russian Com-
development of the student's capacity to its A TRAGIC FAILURE muists their first foothold in the Middle
fullest. We are constantly striving to bring
more order in all our study programs so that Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, in East?the fulfillment of a dream that -
today's students, tomorrow's leaders for the Washington Post for April 20, 1965, went back to the czars. I warned that
whom we are presently responsible, will not there appeared a news story datelined the police state being built by President
regret in their mature years that these Cairo to the effect that President Nasser Nasser was modeled after that built in
studies could have been broader, more in- of Egypt had sent President Johnson a Communist Russia, socially, economi-
tense, and more conclusive. We hope we are personal message through Assistant Sec- cally, and politically, making it easy for
succeeding in our efforts today as we con- retary of State Phillips Talbot. Report- a Communist takeover. But most MI-
tinue to use our reference point I call Hawk-
en's triangulum major; but what of to- edly the message asked for an additional portantly, I noted with alarm that "mill-
/W/7'0W. $500 million in U.S. economic aid. tarily Egypt is completely dependent on
The curriculum and program used at the If this report is true, this request rep- Soviet bloc countries. Colonel Nasser
Lyndhurst campus has resulted in the adop_ resents colossal gall on the part of Presi-
has maneuvered himself into a position
tion of a master building plan. I venture dent Nasser. of being completely dependent on Corn-
to say this will gradually be completed. This Through June 30, 1964, our economic munist Russia for a continued flow of
plan envisions the centralization of the ath- aid to Nasser's Egypt has totaled $888.9 arms and parts. Should that flow be
letic areas and isolation of the quieter areas, million in loans, grants, and food, cut off, Egypt is militarily unarmed."
It will lead to an expansion of the campus In the last 21/2 years, Nasser's Egypt And no one knows this better than Presi-
acreage and the prompt completion of the dent Nasser of Egypt.
Edward Godfrey swimming pool and build- has wasted over $2 billion in fighting an
lug. To the west of that new building a gym- aggressive war in Yemen. Both before and after my report U.S.
nasiuna will be built utilizing the southwest Congress has written into law a pro- foreign policy in the Middle East hits
wing of classrooms as new locker and shower vision re-QuestinLthe President to cut off been hinged on the continued appease-
rooms. This in turn will free up the gym in foreign aid to any country found to be an ment of President Nasser with the result
the old building for use as a fine library and aggressor?which Egypt clearly is. that he has become bolder and bolder
in addition as a lecture hall. The present
locker rooms will be reconverted to class-
rooms while the commons room will once Repeatly over the world, Nasser has in- and his demands greater and greater.
terfered to thwart U.S. foreign policy. When Israel proclaimed its indepene -
more be used as originally planned. No in- Congress has written into law a re- ence and its birth as a nation on May 11,
crease in boy population dictates these quirement that the final $27.5 million 1948, President Harry Truman, to h.s
changes. The plan is one of refinement worth of food under the Egyptian agree- everlasting credit and over the opposi-
based on a continuum of the belief that all merit expiring in June not be shipped tion of his Secretary of State and many
- Approved For Release 2003/10/14-: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 7991
of the advisers in the Department of The State Department's alleging that the very thought that Israel is being
State, recognized the new State of Is- its policy of appeasing President Nasser
rael the very same day. is based on the fact that he has now be-
If we judge by outward appearances, come "soft on Israel" does not jibe with
the State Department advisers then and the facts.
thereafter reluctantly went along with President Nasser called the first Arab
President Truman's decision, unity summit meeting in Cairo a year
When Colonel Nasser came to power in ago to take steps to resist Israel's moves
1952, the advisers in the State Depart- to withdraw water from Lake Tiberias.
ment seized upon him as the strong man The Arab countries, assembled at Presi-
dent Nasser's call, agreed on a united
front and set up a unified army com-
mand. They also established a Pales-
tinian political body, headquartered in
Jerusalem, with the objective of carrying
the case to the United Nations for recog-
nition as a government-in-exile. But
more importantly, the conference agreed
to divert the headwaters of the Jordan
in Lebanon and Syria. Work on this
project has begun. It is not a project?
as admitted by Egypt and its allies?hav-
ing a worthy irrigation objective. The
Arab nations could have achieved such an
objective by adhering to the Johnston
plan. The Johnston plan was evolved by
the late Eric Johnston at the request of
President Eisenhower and provides for
the equitable distribution of the waters of
the Jordan River between Israel and the
Arab nations. The problem is basically
simple. The Jordan River contains only
a limited amount of water. In that area
of the world, water is vital. There simply
is not enough water for all the nations
that need it. The Johnston plan simply
provided for dividing the available waters
of the Jordan River among the nations
equitably and on the basis of their needs.
But the Arab nations have announced
that they will not adhere to the Johnston
plan. What they want to do is keep the
Jordan's water from irrigating Israeli
soil. This is truly a "dog-in-the-
manger" attitude.
With President Nasser taking a lead-
ing part in each and every one of these
moves against Israel?all designed to de-
stroy that country?it is difficult to fol-
low the Department of State's estimation
of the situation that President Nasser has
put the Israel issue "on ice."
Another reason advanced by the De-
partment of State in justification of its
policy of appeasing President Nasser is:
Nasser personally kept a strict silence a
few months ago when it became known that
the United States was going to sell Hawk
is an agent serving the interests of America missiles to Israel to help that country defend
and Belgium in the Congo. itself. In former years, this would have
Another reason advanced in the early
been the occasion for a major anti-U.S. part of 1963 by the State Department in campaign.
justification of its polity of appeasing Recent events have again proven how
President Nasser was: wrong the State Department has again
Nasser has played down his country's Arab been.
holy war with Israel, proposed to his col- For some time now, it has been cam-
leagues a while back that the issue be put in mon knowledge that Israel was being
in the Middle East and by catering to his
whims sought to build on-that image.
The appeasement of Colonel Nasser
has continued from that date to this.
At about the time I was in Egypt, in
February 1963, the State Department's
justification for its policy of appease-
ment was based on the following points,
quoting from material set forth in my
report:
Nasser now is trying to reestablish the
United Arab links with the West, particu-
larly in Europe.
His recent wooing of East Germany, his
permitting the burning of the Kennedy
Memorial Library in Cairo last Novem-
ber, his shooting down of an unarmed
Texas Oil plane over Alexandria, with
the deaths of the American pilot and co-
pilot?to mention but a few incidents?
hardly seems like "trying to reestablish
links with the West."
Another justification given by the
State Department for its appeasement of
President Nasser was:
He and his country have done a complete
turnabout in the Congo?from being one of
the chief supporters of the late Patrice Lu-
mumba and his leftist successor, Antoine
Grizenga, to joining ranks behind the United
Nations in its current efforts for Congo unity.
But who is now supplying the Congo
rebels with Russian arms? President
Nasser of Egypt?the dictator supported
to the tune of hundreds of millions of
dollars in U.S. foreign assistance while
he denounces us as he did, for example,
in a speech made at Port Said as recently
as December 23, 1964, in the following
words:
Can we possibly recognize Tshombe as the
representative of the Congolese people?
Tshombe is a murderer. If America and Bel-
guim had installed Tshombe as a premier, he
is then a premier in the pay of America and
Belgium, and we cannot under any circum-
stances recognize him as a premier repre-
senting the Congolese people ? * ? Tshombe
given arms by West Germany, conven-
iently forgetting the vast amounts of aid
Egypt has been receiving from the same
source, both in money and technical as-
sistance, including German scientists of
the Nazi stripe busily perfecting missiles
for President Nasser's Egypt. President
Nasser, in his outrage, also conveniently
overlooked the tremendous quantity of
Communist arms received by him over
the years?arms which were the very
reason why Israel, for its own defense,
had to make arms arrangements with
West Germany.
As part of his blackmail plot, President
Nasser invited Ulbricht, of East Ger-
many, to visit Cairo. West Germany, in
a reaction entirely unbefitting a sophis-
ticated world power, panicked and
stopped further arms aid to Israel.
The whole sorry story is set forth in
a factual editorial in the Washington
Daily News for March 17, 1965, entitled
"Who Won." One sentence from the edi-
torial should be quoted at this point:
United States: Gained bad case of jitters
for fear Egypt-Israel-German triangle might
lead to Arab-Israel war with desert water as
the excuse.
In great haste, the United States sent
our roving Ambassador, Mr. Harriman,
to Israel for secret and urgent talks with
the heads of that government.
I am not privy to the purposes and
objectives of Ambassador Harriman's trip
or to what was discussed or what was
agreed to by both sides. But some of
the rumors and reports coming back
from Tel Aviv are most disturbing.
According to the London Times for
March 3, 1965:
The divergence of views was principally
over an American demand that the Eshkol
government renounce the use or the threat
of military action.
However, the New York Times for
March 4 reported:
Mr. Harriman, however was said not to
have laid down any condition of noninter-
vention for Israel's obtaining American mili-
tary assistance. The Israel officials, in turn,
were said to have made it clear that they
viewed the arms race and the Jordan River
problem as separate issues.
I hope the New York Times article is
correct and that we?the United States?
did not try to use Nasser's blackmail
against West Germany as the occasion to
Pressure Israel to give up its right of
self-defense. That, no country can give
up. That, no country should be asked to
give up.
After all, there was an agreement be-
tween West Germany and Israel?an
agreement to which the United States
the icebox, and, for his pains has been ac- supplied by West Germany with U.S. apparently had acceded?for scipplying a
cused by Sirria of "subversion." arms. I shall return at a later point in certain quantity of arms to Israel. These
This again is but another example of my remarks to the ,unhappy and arms are needed by Israel because of the
how the Department of State has time dangerous arms race in the Middle East. quantity of arms received by Egypt from
and time again made an incorrect assess- At this point, I wish to dwell upon Pres- the Communist bloc.
inent of the situation in the Middle East ident Nasser's recent actions with respect For the United States to attempt to
and of President Nasser's intentions in to the arms received by Israel from West appease Egypt again by agreeing to
that part of the world. Germany. Egypt's blackmail would indeed be in-
Nasser and his Arab allies have re- Using his tried and true blackmail tolerable.
peatedly announced it to be their policy? techniques?techniques which have been The key to the situation in the Middle
despite the state Department's "head in perfected through constant use during East is the safety and independence of
the sand attitude"?to drive Israel "into the past years?President Nasser chose the State of Israel. U.S. vital interests
the sea." the time and place to become outraged at in that area of the world are inextricably
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE April 22, 1965
bound up with the continued safety of
that nation.
Consider the State of Israel.
Born in strife and turmoil, nurtured in
adversity, Israel, in the relatively few
years of its freedom, has been capable
of phenomenal economic growth in a
climate of democracy unique in that dic-
tatorship-ridden area of unstable govern-
ments, even though it has been sur-
rounded at its land borders by hostile
nations sworn to destroy it.
Even though those nations have been
having an on-again, off-again romance
with Communist nations?with Nasser's
romance as constant and persistent as
it could be?Israel has steadfastly aimed
itself with the West.
If the Arab nations in the Middle East
had not, through all these long years,
been consumed by hatred?fanned in
good measure by President Nasser of
Egypt, but had instead taken Israel as
a Model of a democratic government in-
terested in the economic and social ad-
vancement of its people and had followed
in Israel's footsteps, the Middle East
would have been today a far more stable
and ebnomically advanced region.
The American people have given with-
out stint of their tax dollars for the eco-
nomic development of that area. At the
conclusion of my remarks I shall set
forth a table showing just how many
millions have been poured into that
region. However, what galls the Amer-
ican people particularly is when Presi-
dent Nasser uses those American tax
dollars to wage a bitter, bloody war of
aggression in Yemen, which to date has
cost him over $2 billion; to pressure
Libya to force the United States to re-
move its Wheelus Air Base from that
country; to foment strife in Algeria, Cy-
prus, the Congo, and wherever else Presi-
dent Nasser sees an opportunity to
thwart the policies of the United
States and its Western allies.
The time is long since past for the
United States to change its policies in
the Middle East, to stop aiding Nasser
wage war in that area, and to take posi-
tive measures to bring abiding peace to
that long-troubled region.
The Congress is well ahead of the De-
partment of State in urging that these
Positive steps to curb aggression in the
Middle East be taken.
In 1963 there was added to the For-
eign Assistance Act an amendment pro-
posed by me which provided:
No assistance shall be provided under this
or any other act, and no sales shall be made
under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, to any country
which the President determines is engaging
in or preparing for aggressive military efforts
directed against?
(1) The United States,
(2) any country receiving assistance un-
der this or any other act, or
(8) any country tO which sales are made
under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 3954, until the Presi-
dent determines that such military efforts
or preparations have ceased and he reports
to the Congress that he has received assur-
ances satisfactory to him that such military
efforts or preparations will not be renewed.
This restriction may not be waived pursuant
to any authority contained in this act.
That amendment was adopted in this
body by a vote of 65 to 13?indicating
clearly the sentiments of this body.
That it was clearly aimed at Egypt?
as well as Indonesia?was made per-
fectly clear during the floor debate at
the time.
The then majority whip and now Vice
President HIIMPITREY interpreted the
language of the amendment as follows:
There appears to be little doubt that Nas-
ser was responsible for the attack on Yemen,
and I favor cutting off our aid to Egypt.
Prom the available evidence it would appear
that Nasser is guilty, and let us say that he
is. We know perfectly well what he [Nasser]
has been doing in Yemen and in Algeria and
we know perfectly well about his constant
meddling in the Middle East governments in
many, many instances which include Iraq
and Syria; and we could name many more
of them.
Despite this clear directive from the
Congress?and my amendment is still
the law of the land--no finding has been
made by the President of the United
States that President Nasser is waging
an aggressive war in Yemen or preparing
for aggression against Israel or aiding
aggression in Cyprus, as was disclosed
just recently that Communist missiles
were being furnished the Greek Cypriots
by President Nasser. Still our foreign
aid to Egypt continues.
Eerlier this year the Congress, feeling
that some further action should be tak-
en, amended the Supplemental Appro-
priation Act to provide that no further
Public Law 480 shipments should be
made to Egypt unless the President found
that doing so would be in the interest
of the United States. So far I have not
been informed that the President has
made such a finding. It is difficult to see
how, if there should be any reliance upon
the facts, the President can make such
a finding.
How can the President find the follow-
ing actions by the dictator of Egypt to be
in the interest of the United States:
Pressure on Libya to force the United
States to close our air base there;
Provision of Communist arms to the
Congolese rebels, even while they were
slaughtering innocent whites and Negroes
and indulging in cannabalism;
Waging war in Yemen with 50,000
troops for 21/2 years at a cost of over $2
billion to date;
Hurling constant anti-Western propa-
ganda into the Aden area;
Constant undermining of our prestige
in Africa;
Supplying Communist missiles to the
Greek Cypriots;
Continuing a barrage of anti-Ameri-
can propaganda in the Egyptian-con-
trolled press and on the Egyptian-con-
trolled radio;
Recognizing East Germany and pres-
suring the other Arab nations to do like-
wise;
Taking the leadership in seeking to di-
vert the headwaters of the Jordan from
peaceful uses.
These are but random samplings of
Nasser's anti-American actions in re-
cent times. The intensification of these
anti-American actions is ominous. Hav-
ing "gotten away with it" in the past,
with the United States continuing to
supply his vital food needs despite re-
peated abuse, President Nasser has got-
ten bolder and bolder.
But worse than that?his "getting
away with it" emboldens other nations?
friendly to the United States?to at-
tempt the same tactics.
Jordan is a typical example of a na-
tion which has become colder to ;the
United States and more closely aligned
with Egypt as it sees enmity rewarded.
Our hasty recognition of the Egyptian
puppet government in Yemen and our
continued support of Egypt in its aggres-
sions there proved for all the world to
see that for a nation to thumb its nose
at the United States was profitable.
The old method of securing more and
more foreign assistance was to make
overtures first to the East and then to the
West?playing one against the other.
Something new has been added. Burn
an American library, storm the Ameri-
can Embassy?American taxpayers dol-
lars will still continue to flow.
One of the most disturbing and critical
situations in the Middle East is the
threatened diversion of the waters of the
Jordan. Water is the lifeblood of the
desert parched state of Israel. Diver-
sion of the headwaters of the Jordan will
be as much an act of aggressive warfare
against Israel, even though accomplished
on Lebanese and Syrian soil, as though
Arab troops physically invaded the land
of Israel. It is an attempt to make ::s-
mel take the first militant move while
the Arabs claim they are not militarily
engaged, and to make Israel appear the
aggressor.
The time to prevent this disastrous
event is now?not when the waters are
so close to being diverted that Israel
must take military steps to prevent the
diversion.
Let us not mistake the times. History
is repeating itself. The fateful days and
events of 1956 are with us again.
Then?but I hope not now?we waited
until it was too late?we waited until tile
border raids onto Israli soil became in-
tolerable, until the seizure of the Suez
Canal cut the lifeline of France, Britain,
and Israel, and until their armies
marched to hold further depredations.
This time not only are we failing to act,
we are actually furnishing Nasser with
the wherewithal to continue his aggres-
sive attacks.
Self-defense is an inherent right of
national sovereignty. During its entire
history, the United States has asserted
and defended this right, exercising it
even though its own territory was not
Invaded. Hit and run raids on defense-
less villages, the intensification of the
economic boycott, and now, the diversicn
of water vitally needed for irrigation, can
rightfully be treated as acts of aggressicn
warranting forceful retaliation. This
the United States should recognize ar d
take adequate and forceful steps to pre-
vent.
Unfortunately?as in 1956?the Middle
East advisers in the Department of State
still seem to believe that, with respect to
Nasser, we should appease his aggressions
while telling the aggrieved party?ti e
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDF'671300446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 7993
State of Israel?to turn the other cheek.
Such a bankrupt policy can, as it has, but
lead to further aggression on the part of
other nations.
The time to slow down the quickened
arms race in the Middle East is now, not
when all the countries have squandered
the wealth so sorely needed for their eco-
nomic development on ever more sophis-
ticated weapons of destruction.
We have contributed as much to the
arms race in that area of the world as
any other nation. We have a moral
obligation to stop it.
The facts are simple. In 1956 Nasser
turned to Russia for weapons. Lacking
sufficient foreign exchange to pay the
Russians for the weapons he desired, he
offered to trade the Russians cotton for
weapons. That left Nasser short of for-
eign exchange to buy food to feed the
people of Egypt. Nasser turned to the
United States, which sold him the needed
food in exchange for Egyptian pounds,
the expenditure of which in Egypt Nasser
controls.
With his weapons obtained by barter?
weapons which have become better and
better?Nasser, with his continued
threats to drive Israel into the sea, be-
c_aine more and more of a menace to
Israel and to the peace of the Middle
East. Israel, therefore, had to divert
foreign exchange sorely needed for its
own economic development to the pur-
chase of arms to match the ones traded
to Nasser by Communist Russia.
These are the simple elements of the
arms race in the Middle East?an arms
race made possible in great measure be-
Cause of U.S. foreign aid.
There are three steps which the United
States can and should take immediately
to lessen tensions in the Middle East.
First, the President of the United
States should offer his good offices to end
the declared war in the Middle East.
The fact remains that the Arab States
declared war against Israel at that na-
tion's birth. That declaration of war is
still in existence. It is a running sore in
that area, the cause of much bitterness
and the cause of much friction. Israel
is not at war with the Arab States. How-
ever, the Arab States continue to remain
In a state of war with respect to Israel.
I do not urge the diplomatic recognition
by the Arab States of the State of Israel,
but only a rescission of the declaration
of war.
Second, the United States should im-
mediately enter into a mutual defense
Pact with Israel, along the lines of the
mutual defense pact the United States
maintains with Taiwan and the Philip-
pines. This move alone would lessen the
need of Israel forever-increased expendi-
tures for costlier and costlier weapons.
Third, if the United States accedes to
Libya's request and removes the Wheelus
Air Force Base from Lybia?it should re-
locate the bose in Israel with Israel's
assent, as an indication of its firm re-
solve to back up instantly the pledge
given in its Mutual defense treaty with
It should go without saying that I pre-
suppose that as a condition precedent
there will be the immediate enforcement
of the antiaggressor amendment of the
Foreign Assistance Act against Egypt
and those joining Egypt in these contin-
ued preparations for aggression.
Since Nasser came to power almost 13
years ago, many in this body have proph-
esied that firm action in dealing with
Nasser's aggressive intentions were
needed if the peace was to be kept.
On June 4, 1956, the Senator who was
known as the conscience of the Senate,
the late, great Senator Herbert H. Leh-
man, speaking on this floor at the time
our government was very foolishly ship-
ing tanks to Saudi Arabia, said:
Peace will not come (to the Middle East)
as long as there is on one side blind hate and
a will to kill and destroy. Peace must be
baSed on security and respect for legitimate
hopes and ideals of a noble democratic
nation.
I subscribe to those sentiments. They
are as valid today as they were the day
they were uttered?a few short months
before Israel, France, and England
marched their troops into Egypt to keep
open the Suez Canal and to stop the hit
and run raids across Israel's borders.
We must act now to assure "security
and respect for the legitimate hopes and
ideals of a noble democratic state." To-
morrow may be too late.
I ask unanimous consent that there be
printed in the RECORD at the conclusion
of my remarks the editorial "Who Won"
from the Washington Daily News of
March 17, 1965, the articles from the
London Times March 3, 1965, and the
New York Times for March 4, 1965, and
a table I have had prepared showing the
amount of U.S. foreign assistance given
or loaned to the nations in the Middle
East.
There being no objection, the editorial,
articles and table were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington Daily News, Mar. 17,
1965]
WHO Wow?
The Mideast game isn't over yet, but let's
take a look at the score:
-West Germany: Lost face around the world
when she let Egypt's Dictator Nasser stam-
pede her into cutting off arms shipments to
Israel. Regained some face by cutting off
$250 million economic aid to Nasser?but
German industries engaged in Egypt under
that aid program will suffer. Gained back
more face when she hit at Nasser by offer-
ing diplomatic recognition to Israel. But
stands to lose diplomatic relations with Egypt
and a half dozen other Arab States. Arabs
also expected to recognize Communist East
Germany in retaliation. This means West
Germany must junk the Milstein Doctrine,
which sought to isolate Communist East
Germany from rest of world. And Germany
has jeopardized the safety of hundreds of
West Germans working in Egypt.
Egypt: Gained $100 million in economic
aid from East Germany, but lost $250 mil-
lion aid from West Germany. Lost face when
several Arab States failed to follow Nasser's
demand that all Arab States break off with
West Germany. Humiliation of Israel-West
Germany diplomatic exchange may mean
some weakening of Nasser's personal domi-
nance in Arab world.
'Israel: Gained diplomatic recognition from
West Germany, which she has always wanted.
Lost out on delivery of $16 million in arms?
but she may get this anyway, when the Mid-
east pot simmers down a bit.
United States: Gained bad case of jitters
for fear Egypt-Israel-German triangle might
lead to Arab-Israel war with desert water
as the excuse. Breathing a bit easier now
but still keeping oxygen tent handy.
East Germany: The real winner. For a
measly $100 million in credits to Egypt, East
Germany is on verge of breaking out of her
-isolation and getting recognition of half
dozen Arab States; other nations may follow
suit in recognizing Moscow puppet regime.
[From the London Times, Mar. 3, 1965]
ISRAEL REFUSES TO RENOUNCE USE OE' ARMED
FORCE?NO AGREEMENT IN TALKS WITH
UNITED STATES
Talks between the United States and Israel
here have ended disappointingly, and all that
Mr. Averell Harriman, President Johnson's
special envoy, could say this morning as he
flew to Kabul was: "The Government of Israel
Is fully aware of the views of the U.S. Govern-
ment, and I am now able to report to the
President on the view of the Government of
Israel."
The divergence of views was principally
over an American demand that the Eshkol
government renounce the use or the threat
of military action to deter the Arabs from
diverting the sources of the Jordan River ris-
ing in Lebanon and Syria before they reach
the intake of the Israel national water car-
rier. The Americans claim they cannot meet
Israel's demands for direct and overt military
supplies in an atmosphere inflamed by Is-
rael's implied threats of war.
Mr. Harriman's nebulous statement and the
failure of an expected joint statement to ma-
terialize demonstrated that the 5 days of
talks ended without agreement. Negotiations
are being continued by diplomatic channels.
SUGGESTION DERIDED
The Americans are inclined to concede that
if West Germany indeed reneges on her un-
dertakings to deliver American-made tanks,
and if Soviet arms shipments to Egypt upset
the arms balance, circumstances will have
been created which permit the United States
to become Israel's supplier of defensive weap-
ons. However, they attach requirements, in-
cluding assurances that American arms
should not jeopardize the security of her pro-
Western Arab neighbors, Jordan and Leba-
non. The United States is also arming Jor-
dan and Saudi Arabia and wants Israel to
show understanding of her position.
The American argument that the Arab
river diversions may be for local irrigation
purposes within the framework of the Amer-
ican-sponsored regional plan for the division
of the waters is derided here and Mr. Eshkol
is reported to have firmly rejected the sug-
gestion that Israel undertake not to react
until the Arab diversions exceed their al-
lotted quotas.
The U.S. advice to Israel to rely less on her
own might, bluff, and bluster and more on
American diplomatic assurances has also been
poorly received; American diplomatic support
of Israel's case has not ended the Egyptian
blockade of Israel shipping by -the Suez
Canal. Nor is the proposal that the Security
Council adjudicate considered practical here
in view of the systematic veto of any pro-
Israel resolution by the Soviet Union.
NEW WEAPONS
The Syrians have begun work near Banias
Springs at a slow pace and the Lebanese have
not started at all. Opinion here is that the
Arabs may be dragging their feet in order to
adjust the timing of the completion of the
project to coincide with the completion of
military preparations, including the return of
Egyptian troops now pinned down in Yemen,
the strengthening of the Jordan and Leba-
nese armies and Egypt's absorption of new
weapons, including ground;to-Around rock-
ets.
Accordingly, some Israelis have said the
timing of a probable military showdown
should not be left to the Arabs. In fact the
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 1965
leveling of the canal route to Syria is at pres-
ent only half a mile from the Israel border
and could be easily disrupted by a few com-
petent snipers. Some influential Israelis ad-
vocate action now while Israel has military
advantages.
The Americans have been appalled by talk
of preventive action. Officials said the Is-
raelis had been asking too ranch, expecting
military aid to enable them to take care of
themselves, commitments by the United
States to support them in case of an attack,
together with freedom for unhampered mili-
tary action when they see fit.
[From the New York Times, Mar. 4, 1965]
UNITED STATES To WEIGH SALE OF ARMS TO
ISRAEL?HIGH-LEVEL TALKS EXPECTED
SOON?WASHFNGTON POLICY IS APPARENTLY
Slum:NG
(By John W. Finney)
WASHINGTON, March 3.--The United States,
seemingly modifying its Middle East arms
policy, has agreed to discuss with Israel the
possibility of supplying American weapons
to offset Soviet arms shipments to Arab
States.
High-ranking Israeli officials including pos-
sibly Foreign Minister Golda Meer, are ex-
pected here shortly, according to diplomatic
souroee to discuss the purchase of American
RIMS.
The discussions will be an Outgrowth of
talks that Ambassador at Large W. Averell
Harriman had during the last week with Is-
raeli officials in Tel Aviv. Since Mr. Hard-
man's departure from Israel on Monday, some
State Department and White House advisers
have remained behind in Tel Aviv to continue
the talks, which will lay the basis for the
higher level discussions here within the next
few weeks.
A TACTT ACCEPTANCE
Ostensibly the Harriman mission was
prompted by the diplomatic and military
confusion brought about by West Germany's
termination of its $80 million arms deal with
Israel. But the talks went far beyond the
Immediate problems created by Bonn's action
and included the more coanplicated issue of
how to provide Israel with an assured supply
of modern arms in the coming years.
According to diplomatic sources, there was
at least a tacit acceptance by Mr. Harriman
of a contention by Israel that the cutoff of
the West German arms shipments pointed
up Israel's need to find new sources of weap-
ons to maintain a military balance with the
Arab States.
Mr. Harriman was reported to have ex-
pressed concern about possible Israel mili-
tary intervention if some of the Arab States
went ahead with plans for diverting the
headwaters of the Jordan River.
Mr. Harriman, however, was said not to
have laid down any condition of noninter-
vention as a prerequisite for Israel's obtain-
ing American military assistance. The Is-
rael officials, in turn, were said to have
made it clear that they viewed the arms race
and the Jordan River problem as separate
issues.
The problem to be discussed in the forth-
coming talks transcends immediate Israel
demands for the arms undelivered by West
Germany. Bonn responding to threats by the
United Arab Republic to recognize East Ger-
many, terminated the arms shipments when
80 percent completed. Among the weapons
undelivered were some American-made 11-48
tanks that West Germany was shipping to
Israel with the U.S. approval and encourage-
ment. '
ASSURED SUPPLY SOUGHT
While the Israelis made it clear that they
wanted the undelivered arms, they also em-
phasized that a more important considera-
tion was finding an assured source of weap-
ons over the next sevei.al years to counter
continuing Soviet arms shipments to the
United Arab Republic and other Arab States.
This is raising for the Johnson administra-
tion the difficult question whether the United
States is willing to modify or abandon its
policy of not being a direct supplier of arms
to Israel.
The United States has provided limited
amounts of arms to certain Arab States, such
as tanks to Jordan and jet fighters to Saudi
Arabia. The State Department confirmed
today that the United States was discussing
with Jordan a "general request" for arms
but refused to comment on the details.
Largely because of a desire not to alienate
the Arab nations, the United States has con-
sistently refused to supply arms to Israel.
The lone exception occurred 2 years ago
when the United States agreed to sell Israel
some Hawk antiaircraft missiles on the
ground they were purely defensive weapons.
The administration's position has been
that Israel should look to Western European
sources for her arms, and at times, as in the
West German deal. Washington has coop-
erated behind the scenes in obtaining Euro-
pean weapons for Israel. With the diplo-
matic difficulties encountered by West Ger-
many in its arms deal, Israel obviously is go-
ing to have increasing difficulty in obtaining
arms in Europe and therefore is turning to
the United States.
The State Department was maintaining
strict secrecy about the overtures from Israel.
llut the fact that the administration was
willing to discuss arms purchases with Israel
officials was an indication that the United
States was moving away from its past policy.
While refusing to comment on the Israel
situation in particular, a Department spokes-
man said the administration's policy in gen-
eral in the Middle East was in "seeing a bal-
ance is maintained" in armaments. -
The general appraisal of American officials
Is that Israel currently has a military balance
with, if not superiority over, her Arab neigh-
bors. The contention being advanced by
Israel and generally accepted by American
officials, however, is that this balance is likely
to be upset in the next few years by con-
tinuing Soviet arms shipments to Arab na-
tions, especially the United Arab Republic.
Total U.S. aid received through June 30, 1964
[In millions of U.S. dollars]
Algeria $149.3
Iran 798.4
Iraq 46.3
Israel 996.8
Jordan 431.5
Lebanon 78.9
Morocco 451.0
Saudi Arabia 46.6
Sudan 81.4
Syria 81.9
Tunisia 391.0
United Arab Republic (Egypt) 943. 1
Yemen 34. 6
Total 4, 536. 8
Source: "U.S. Oversea Loans and Grants,
Obligations and Loan Authorizations, July 1,
1945-June 30, 1964," special report prepared
for the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"MAN AND FOOD"?ADDRESS BY
VICE PRESIDENT HUMPHREY
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, Vice
President HusraT HUMPHREY recently
Presented to the National Farmers Un-
ion Convention an address entitled "Man
and Food." In the course of that ad-
dress, the distinguished Vice President
delivered one of the most comprehensive
and commendable statements on Amer-
ican farm policy made by the present ad-
ministration.
The Vice President is not content to
extol the blessings which have provided
America with the greatest agricultural
ability and abundance in the history of
mankind, nor is he content to extol the
virtue of our extension of the hand that
helps the less developed nations of the
world where hunger is a constant com-
panion and the dry wellspring of hope
"Man and Food" is a brilliant statement,
not alone of where American agriculture
has been, but of where it is going; not
alone of the contributions which agricul-
ture has made to our own and to several
nations of the world, but of the unlimited
horizon looming before agriculture in a
world of burgeoning population, increas-
ing urbanization, and rapid mechaniza-
tion.
"Man and Food" promises, above al.
else, hope to the man who has given so
much to the hopeless and hungry of the
world?the small farmer. "Man and
Food" declares in unmistakable terms
this administration's determination to
lift the haze of impending economic dis-
aster which has begun to hang heavily
and ominously over the rural commu-
nity.
I welcome "Man and Food" as one of
the finest farm statements of recent
Years. I commend it to the attention of
my distinguished colleagues, and re-
quest unanimous consent that it be
printed at this point in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MAN AND FOOD
(Speech by Vice President HOSERT H.
HUMPHREY at the National Farmers Union
Convention, Mar. 15, 1965)
I have looked forward to this meeting for
some time. It is an opportunity for me to
renew old friendships, to relive old and happy
experiences, and to learn from the men and
women of America's farms.
I also want to pay tribute to you who are
providing leadership in the creation of an
efficient and productive agriculture. This is
basic to the security and strength of this
Nation?and to the free world.
This land is blessed among all others, and
you help to make it so.
Here there has been developed the most
efficient agricultural plant in all history, and
you help to make it so.
Our great agricultural capabilities have
abolished for us the twin fears of hunger and
famine, and you help to make it so.
The day when the soil was mined, water
taken for granted, and the forests were
despoiled, is past. Exploitation of the soil
has yielded to conservation. The people now
know how to take care of nature's bounty,
and you help to make it so.
The American consumer now is enjoying
food at the lowest cost of any people in the
world in terms of human effort expendec.,
and you help to make it so.
The miracle of American agricultural
efficiency is leaving its imprint in every area
of the world, and you help to make it so.
We now are exporting at a $6 billion annual
rate and you help to make it so.
Agriculture is our greatest dollar earner ti
foreign trade today, and you help to make it
SO.
Food is power. Abundance?and the
ability to produce abundance?is one of our
most valuable assets of strength in the world
today.
Without that asset, our entire economy
would be crippled. Without that asset, we
could not have moved tremendous quantities
of food and fiber under the food for peace
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 7997
"I'm Joe so-and-so with such-and-such
a company; who are you?" the lobbyist said
ode day to a youthful-looking house mem-
ber.
"I'm Bob Traxler, Democratic floor leader
in the house," replied Representative J. Rob-
ert Traxler, 33, of Bay City. "Where the
devil have you been the last 2 years?"
The preponderance of freshmen in a set-
ting where votes spell power has a few times
inspired words of rebellion against party
leaders, especially after sundown and a few
draughts of heady cheer.
It's anybody's guess whether a weighty
or emotional issue?perhaps an income tax,
mental health spending, Romney's politick-
ing, or some touchy minor issue?might sucl-
lenly fan smoldering coals into flames of
Insurrection.
Nobody is betting now that this will hap-
pen. And if revolt broke out, it likely would
Se short lived.
One significant alteration already well be-
gun would have met stern resistance from
3stablished order a few years ago.
This was the decision of the new house
Lpeaker, Representative Joseph Kowalski, of
Detroit, and other Democratic leaders to re-
Lhape the legislature's Operation with Con-
gress as a model.
First, this means rejection of the "public
ounge" aspect of the legislation as a kind of
wersized two-room schoolhouse on parents'
In this setting, lawmakers were arranged
nueh of the time in neat rows, making con-
renient targets for hovering lobbyists and
Ether pressure-generators, with only a few
:ommittee rooms and lavatories as handy
daces of refuge.
The new regime set wheels turning to give
ach senate and house member a respectable
:if-the-floor operating base and some pre-
enso to privacy.
Each soon will have his own desk, tele-
>hone, flung cabinet and reasonable access to
tenographic service--and in tasteful and
:heery surroundings.
This meant a flushing out of bureaucrats
rom cluttered and usually dingy quarters on
Lhree floors of the capitol. It required
oughly a quarter-million dollars in painting,
:arpeting, wiring, new furnishings and car-
>entry.
Legislative officers and Lt. Gov. William G.
vlilliken got private suites. Romney likewise
vas emancipated from cramped quarters that
save shackled Governors since the adminis-
ration 40 years ago of Alex Groesbeck, who
n less complicated times got along with a
taff of five.
Since mid-March Romney's 29 aids and
ilerical helpers have enjoyed just about
louble the square footage formerly occu-
Aed?excluding windowless balcony space
irst used by Governor Williams and some-
Limes called "the black hole."
The new capitol layout, unsurprising to
nost visitors, has evoked gasps from some
xlegislators who were accustomed to getting
iostage stamps doled out a few at a time and
vaiting days to have a few letters typed.
Legislators' new off-the-floor hide-outs also
cake it tougher for the 200-odd registered
obbyists to track them down.
Strict new rules barring lobbyists from the
Louse and senate chambers for considerable
eriods have relieved lawmakers of some of
he gauntlet-running ordeal they used to face
adjoining corridors.
To stop a bill in committee is no longer
ae shooting-fish-in-the-barrel exercise it
as said to be for certain of the capitol's
Lost seasoned and talented lobbyists.
In other moves that reflect patterns in
>ngress, the house majority has set up a
alley committee, beefed up the house staff
v about 50 percent (92 employees compared
ith 60 a few years ago) and sought to
No. 71 8
strengthen research, analysis, public rela-
tions, bill drafting, and other services.
Don Hoenshell, a veteran Detroit and
Lansing newsman, Nvas hired at $17,500 a
year to energize this operation through a
greatly enlarged and revitalized legislative
service bureau.
Under the new constitution, the legisla-
ture now directs a legislative auditing unit.
This new watchdog agency in time might
function like the General Accounting Office
of Congress.
There is evidence that lawmakers more and,
more think of carving out legislative careers
comparable to those of veterans in congress.
A surprising sign of the time, and a prob-
able herald of the future, is the description
of 19 house members as professional legis-
lators in biographies submitted to the house
clerk. It was almost unheard of before.
The phenomenon assuredly reflects the
higher pay and richer pension prospects.
But likely even more, it represents a provi-
sion in the 1963 constitution that prevents
State legislators from clinging to jobs they
formerly doubled at in township, county, or
city governments.
Legislative internes, young college grad-
uates paid 50 percent by Ford Foundation
grants and assigned to assist house and sen-
ate leaders, are another fresh element in the
legislative scene. ?
As for the infusion of youth in lawmaker
ranks, the key factor is the $12,500 salary and
expense allowance. A young man' on the
way up?lawyers, particularly?now can af-
ford the valuable experience of legislative
service without crippling financial penalty.
The average age in the senate is down to
43.6 years from the 55 average of 1959-60,
with 15 of the 37 senators in their thirties,
12 more in their forties, and only 4 beyond
60. Five years ago 5 of the then 34 senators
were past 70 and 11 others beyond GO. Only
were under 40.
Fred I. Chase, who retired recently after
more than four decades as senate secretary,
recalled that "in the old days serving in the
legislature was mostly an honorary position."
"We had bank presidents, retired judges
and others with substantial incomes," he
said. "I can recall seeing senators match
quarters for each other's paychecks. The
$3-a-day salary then didn't amount to a spit
in your eye for those fellows."
After the composition of the legislature
began to change materially in the 1950's, the
money-grind exacted a painful price of
many lawmakers, especially those from the
faraway Upper Peninsula,
Many a veteran remembers the stringencies
of the deadlocked 1959 legislature that met
from January until nearly Christmas. That
was when the overall pay was at $5,000.
"I had to borrow $2,000 to make ends meet
that year," said Representative F. Charles
Raap, Democrat, of Muskegon, a machine
operator at Continental Motors Corp. with
three children. "It took me 2 years to pay it
back."
"We voted a pay increase (to $6,250 a year)
at the end of the session and I was defeated
for reelection," Raap said. "Considering my
debts then, it probably was a blessing in
disguise."
At the higher pay level, Raap expects to
devote full time to legislative work, concen-
trating on mental health as chairman of
the House Mental Health Committee.
Many other legislators see their office as
becoming a year-round job.
Representative Russell H. Strange, Repub-
lican, of Mount Pleasant, said interest in
Lansing activities was more and more a full-
time * * * on the upswing among his con-
stituents. He said he was getting more mail
than ever in his 9 years in the House, more
calls at home and more invitations to speak
in his district.
"Part of it," he said, "is because State gov-
ernment is entering into peoples' lives more
than ever before."
Traxler, among others, foresees lengthen-
ing sessions from the 4-to-5 months meet-
ings of the past attuned to the seasonal
rhythms of the farm.
"I think we'll be for practical purposes
a year-round legislature before long," he
said. "Eight months, rather than 5, will be
the usual thing."
THE UNITED STATES AND A LATIN
AMERICAN COMMON MARKET
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, a few
days ago the presidents of all Latin
American nations received a 30-page re-
port proposing the establishment of a
Latin American Common Market. The
report was prepared by Dr. Carlos Santa-
maria, Chairman of the Inter-American
Committee for the Alliance for Progress;
Dr. Felipe Herrera, President of the
Inter-American Development Bank;
Jose Mayobre, Executive Director of the
United Nations Economic Commission
for Latin America; and Raul Prebisch,
Secretary General of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development.
The fact that this proposal has been
made by four distinguished leaders of
Inter-American thought is highly signifi-
cant, but the support of public opinion
and political support at the highest levels
in Latin America are greatly needed.
I strongly urge the political leaders of
the hemisphere to translate this idea of a
"Latin American Common Market into
the reality of a mass market of some 220
million people, with a combined gross
national product of between $70 and $80
billion.
It is also appropriate, however, to re-
mind all those working toward this in-
estimable goal that hemispheric unity is
vital to its success, and that provisions
must be made for the eventual inclusion
in such a market of the United States
and Canada, the largest markets of all.
There is no place in the Americas for any
exclusive concept of the economic unifi-
cation of the hemisphere. Without North
America, success of such a venture is
dubious, at best. But there is no need to
court failure, as public opinion in North
America is very sympathetic to these
ideas.
To those of our neighbors in Latin
America who see their course as being
economic unification of Latin America
alone, which would then do business with
Europe and North America as potential
competitors, one with the other, it should
be pointed out that this arrangement will
not provide the best opportunity for suc-
cess for any of the parties involved. The
economic unity of the Americas is the
logical course; and it should be broad-
ened to include Canada, bringing it into
full association with Latin America, to
assure that the experience of the Euro-
pean Common Market is paralleled, so
as to give the greatest strength eco-
nomically to all the Americas, and make
it as greatly an improved trading part-
ner for Europe as the EEC has proved
to be to itself and the rest of the world.
Accordingly, the Latin American Com-
mon Market proposed in today's report
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 11)
should be the first step toward the ulti-
mate objective of a Western Hemisphere
free trade area, aiding the growth of the
private sector in the constitutional Re-
publics of the Americas, and maintaining
a place for Cuba, when that nation again
becomes free and democratic.
I ask Unanimous consent that an edi-
torial published in today's New York
Times which deals with the same point
be printed in the RECORD at the conclu-
sion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the New York Times, Apr, 22, 19651
LATIN COMMON MARKET?
Latin America is being urged to give im-
mediate consideration to a bold concept?a
continental common market. An integra-
tion plan has been drawn up by four of Latin
America's most distinguished economists.
They ask each government to approve estab-
lishment of a Latin American parliaraent and
of an "institutional mechanism" for an eco-
nomic union.
Their proposals go far beyond the vague
desire for a common market expressed in
the charter of the Alliance for Progress.
They have revived in new and realistic form
the old dream of unifying the continent
that had possessed Simon Bolivar. Latin
America's four "wise men" have drawn up a
program that includes a timetable for lower-
ing tariffs and plans for industrial coopera-
tion and for a payments union.
This program is based on the plan adopted
and carried out with such success by the Eu-
ropean Economic Community. Its authors
are under no illusion that a Latin American
Common Market can proceed at anything like
the same pace or produce as significant re-
sults; but they are confident that it is possi-
ble to find workable solutions and that the
Important thing is to make a start.
At this stage the planners are seeking the
participation of neither the United States
nor other industrial nations. They think it
essential that Latin America take the first
Steps on its own, recognizing that it will
require spirit and enthusiasm as well as
sound policies to surmount the obstacles of
integration. Indeed, progress toward eco-
nomic union depends on first overcoming
the inertia and the opposition of vested in-
terests that have kept the countries of Latin
America in watertight compartments.
While the United States is not directly
involved, it can still make a contribution by
encouraging the efforts of the planners.
They need Washington's support?material
and moral?in helping make their dream
come true.
Nri4
RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMMIT-
MENT'S IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I invite
the attention of Senators to two editori-
als, one from the Nashville Tennessean
and the other from the Philadelphia In-
quirer. I believe that these editorials are
very much worth bringing to the atten-
tion of a wider circle of those interested
In our responsibilities and commitments
in southeast Asia.
There being no objection, the edito-
rials were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[From the Nashville Tennessean,
Apr. 13, 19651
PRESIDENT'S ASIA PLAN May BRING RESULTS
Mgr
North Vietnam, in abnormally bitter lan-
guage, has rejected President Johnson's offer
to enter into unconditional discussions to
end the fighting in South Vietnam.
The Communist regime's official newspa-
per in Hanoi reacted to the President's pro-
posal with one of the most abusive attacks
against Mr. Johnson and this country that
have yet come out of the Communist propa-
ganda mill.
The intensity of the attack suggests that
the President's proposal for a development
program for southeast Asia might have re-
ceived a more favorable response in that
region than the Communists care to admit.
Any proposal that raises the hope of peace
and more abundant living in an area that
has been torn by war for many years is
bound to attract some wishful attention,
even among the weary Vietcong.
Thus it is not surprising that Mr. John-
son's proposal should be met by a Com-
munist propaganda attack of unprecedented
bitterness. Only by a twisted verbal assault
can the Communist leaders in South Viet-
nam sell Mr. Johnson's peace proposal as
insincere and as a toast to peace that
"smells of poison gas." Only by misrepre-
senting what the President said can the Reds
make a genuine aid program, "bait" offered
by "stupid pirates."
There are dangers for the United States in
Vietnam. But the reaction to the President's
speech?violent in tone, as it was?isn't nec-
essarily dangerous. It makes it clear that
Mr. Johnson's ideas and alternatives to war
carried some appeal for southeast Asia.
That is why the Communist response was
so severe.
Hanoi's rejection statement should not be
taken as all bluff. The tenseness of the
situation in southeast Asia has not dimin-
ished. But neither does the tough state-
ment rule out any possibility of future peace
talks on terms acceptable to this country.
The State Department, while declaring
that President Johnson's offer of peace talks
will be kept "on the table," pointedly noted
that Hanoi's statement, although harshly
worked, was not a rejection Of anything.
It may be significant that Hanoi has not
yet responded to an appeal by 17 nonalined
nations for a start on peace talks without
preconditions.
If and when Hanoi is ready to talk about
peace in Vietnam, the Communist leaders
obviously would prefer that the negotiations
grew out of the 17-nation proposal, in-
stead of appearing to result directly from any
move on the part of the United States, or
any suggestion by President Johnson.
For the present the United States is on the
initiative. President Johnson has offered to
talk peace. At the same time bombing at-
tacks continue in the North. The principal
problem that remains is whether Hanoi is
really desirous of peace. For the present it
seems that only increasing pressure by Amer-
ican planes and South Vietnamese fighters
can determine that.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer,
Apr. 19, 1965]
OUTRAGE OVER VIETNAM
President Johnson's Easter reiteration of
America's willingness to start Vietnamese
peace talks at once and without preconditions i
was remarkable n many respects. It was a
moving and thoughtful summation of the
tragic situation.
But one aspect of the statement seemed to
us of special significance under the circum-
stances?a weekend that saw Moscow threat-
ening (again) to send "volunteers" and
thousands of U.S. students milling around
the vacant White House, probably well in-
tentioned but offering their country no more
useful advice than to turntail and run,
leaving millions of Vietnamese to merciless
exploitation by communism.
The President said:
"I understand the feelings of those
regret that we must undertake air attack;
share those feelings.
"But the compassion of this country,
the world, must go out to the men and
men and children who are killed and cript
by the Vietcong every day in South Vista
"The outrage of this country, and
world, must be visited on those who explc
their bombs in cities and villages, rip'
the bodies of the helpless * * *"
It is probably worth noting that the in
Moscow declaration was elaborately 'lei:
with conditions. Those "volunteers" in
be sent "if" the U.S. "aggression" inteisi
"if" it proved a "necessity," and "if" an
peal from North Vietnam were received.
Soviets do not appear to be anxious to sp
the conflagration, and there is alanni
reason. They know what an all-out wa
their own soil is like. They had one, pe
trated by Adolf Hitler.
And if, even in Moscow, the Presidi
calm and rational approach to the Viet
Impasse is having some effect, it can at
be hoped that it also is reducing thc t
for conquest in Hanoi and Peiping.
For it is plain enough, to those whi
not delude themselves, that this "dirty I
war" of terror by night in the rice par
is one started by Communists and w
must be stopped by Communists. The P
dent is doing everything possible from
side, unhelped by thousands of misle'i j
nile underminers who, in another age rr
have "done business with Hitler," and hi
serves America's gratitude and support
A redirection of loudly vocal "ontr
over Vietnam to the proper object, the bl
pajama mob in the jungle, led and lo
by the Communists, would be a proper
step.
BARNS AND SKYSCRAPERS--i
SEPARABLE
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, MI
B. Camp, one of California's most
spected agricultural leaders, rece
made a speech to the Santa Ana Ch
ber of Commerce. His remarks are a
nificant analysis of our Nation's agri
tural economy; and I ask unanin
consent that his remarks be printe,
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sp4
was ordered to be printed in the Rsc
as follows:
BARNS AND SKYSCRAPERS?INSEIARABL1
(Talk by W. B. Camp, farmer, Bakizirs;
Calif., at the quarterly general member
meeting of the Santa Ana Charribe
Commerce, Santa Ana, Calif.)
Recently I read a statement attribute
an enterprising produce man who said: '
can't do today's job with yesterday's ni
ods and be in business tomorrow."
In other words: "There is nothing so
stant as change." This is particularly tri
American agriculture. The story is tie
whether
whether it be north, south, east or west
are in the middle of an agricultural re,
tion all over America.
Today, less than 8 percent of our p
live in the country. Less than half Df
depend upon farm income for a liven
for themselves and their families.
This shrinking farm population has
a sign of strength, rather than wes.kr
the inevitable consequence of rapidl-
pending agricultural efficiency.
In spite of this dwindling farm pc
tion, farming remains our biggest i ad
About 40 percent of all workerg in An
are employed directly or indirectly by
culture. Investment in farming was
$214 billion in 1962. That's about
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 8003
separately functioning, independently oper-
ated judicial organization.
In 1958, the board of supervisors in Im-
perial County, at the request of Judge Elmer
W. Heald, supported by the bar and civic
organizations, appropriated sufficient funds
to employ a marriage counselor and a cleri-
cal staff. The counselor came to Los An-
geles and studied our procedures for several
weeks before actually commencing the con-
ciliation court operations.
The program immediately proved success-
ful. In fact, so successful that the board
of supervisors had a bill introduced at the
1959 session of the legislature to make the
conciliation court permanent.
Since 1958 seven counties in California
have established conciliation courts?Imper-
ial, San Mateo, San Bernardino, Sacramento,
San Diego, Alameda, and most recently, San
Luis Obispo. Three Western States?Arizo-
na, Montana, and Oregon?have passed con-
ciliation court acts modeled on the Cali-
fornia act, and all have successfully operat-
ing conciliation courts in major cities. The
counselors for these new courts have spent
several weeks in an indoctrination course in
Los Angeles in order that procedures are
uniform. An annual conference of concilia-
tion courts, attended by judges and mar-
riage counselors, was first held in 1963 and
has become an annual event.
I know there are those synical souls who
will deprecate the court engaging in such
activities and will brush off the importance
of reconciling couples with the customary
defeatist expression, "So what?"; but the
18,000 children in Los Angeles County who
have been restored to their parents in a
united home during the past 7 years bear
eloquent witness to the importance of the
court of conciliation.
Today the legal profession and the ju-
diciary have expressed the belief, through
their official organizations, that the cus-
tomary adversary nature and proceedings of
the ordinary civil law suit be reduced to a
minimum in domestic relations matters.
Conciliation court proceedings are by nature
non-adversary, and every reconciled couple
is an enthusiastic booster for the Court and
the legal profession. Even couples who are
not reconciled are appreciative of the con-
ciliation court's contributions toward amica-
bly solving controversial questions of cus-
? tody visitation rights, and even in settling
property rights which are incorporated in a
property settlement agreement.
It is an interesting commentary that dur-
ing the past 7 years it has been the legal
profession in other California counties and
States that has spearheaded the movement
to create a conciliation court.
However, what is most gratifying, reward-
ing, and indicative of the real success of
conciliation court proceedings is exempli-
fied in the thousands of letters we receive
from reconciled couples who report to us 1
year after their reconciliation. Let me con-
clude by reading you' a typical letter taken
from our files:
"We are happy to report on this first anni-
versary of our visit to your conciliation court
that we are happily together with our three
children. Each of us has done his best to
keep the promises we made in the wonder-
ful reconciliation agreement we both signed.
"We shudder to think of what untold un-
happiness would have befallen each of us
and our lovely children had we followed the
line of least resistance with a Judge eventu-
ally uttering the fateful words, 'Divorce
granted.'"
THE MESS IN&i Ir X
Mr. GRUENING. Went, it is
becoming increasingly evident that, with
respect to the undeclared war in Viet-
nam, the war himlis advising the Pres-
ident are desperately seeking not only
? to change the future course of history to
one of unbelievable carnage and destruc-
tion but are also seeking to rewrite the
immutable facts of the historical past.
In a totalitarian nation such as the
Soviet Union it is fairly easy?at least
within the confines of its own borders?
to play at "make as though it never was"
by chiseling off the names of former
leaders from public edifices, b'y obliterat-
ing the tombs of those leaders, and by
rewriting history books so that it appears
as though those leaders never existed.
In a democracy such as ours, which
zealously guards its hard-won freedoms
of speech and press, that same game
cannot be played as easily or as success-
fully.
But it can be tried.
And, with respect to the facts on our
involvement in Vietnam, it has been and
is being tried.
This was cogently pointed out by the
noted columnist, Mr. Walter Lippmann,
in his column in the Washington Post on
April 20, 1965, entitled "Unbuttoned
Diplomacy." Said Mr. Lippmann, in
part:
A cardinal weakness of our diplomatic
position today is the President's statement at
Baltimore that "the first reality is that North
Vietnam has attacked the independent na-
tion of South Vietnam." This was not our
original position. It has been called the
first reality only in the most recent phase
of the war, the phase which began in Febru-
ary. Our present position is contrary to the
indubitable essentials of the Geneva Agree-
ments of 1954, that North and South Viet-
nam are not two nations but two zones of
one nation.
This attempt to rewrite history was
also pointed out vividly by Hans J.
Morganthau, Michelson Distinguished
Service professor of political science and
modern historS7 at the University of
Chicago, in a brilliant article in the New
York Times on April 18, 1965, entitled
"We Are Deluding Ourselves in Viet-
nam." Professor Morgenthau, who also
serves as consultant to the State and
Defense Departments, states in part:
Until the end of last February, the Gov-
ernment of the United States started from
the assumption that the war in South Viet-
nam was a civil war, aided and abetted?but
not created?from abroad, and spokesmen
for the Government have made time and
again the point that the key to winning
the war was political and not military and
was to be found in South Vietnam itself.
It was supposed to lie in transforming the
indifference or hostility of the great mass of
the South Vietnamese people into positive
loyalty to the government * * *.
The United States has recognized that it is
failing in South Vietnam. But it has drawn
from this recognition of failure a most
astounding conclusion.
The United States has decided to change
the character of the war by unilateral decla-
ration from a South Vietnamese civil war to
a war of foreign aggression. Aggression from
the north: "The Record of North Vietnam's
Campaign To Conquer South Vietnam" is the
title of a white paper published by the De-
partment of State on the last day of February
1965. While normally foreign and military
policy is based upon intelligence?that is, the
objective assessment of facts?the process is
here reversed: A new policy has been decided
upon, and intelligence must provide the facts
to justify it.
The United States, stymied in South Viet-
nam and on the verge of defeat, decided to
carry the war to North Vietnam not so
much in order to retrieve the fortunes of
war as to lay the groundwork for "negotia-
tions from strength." In order to justify the
new policy, it was necessary to prove that
North Vietnam is the real enemy. It is the
white paper's purpose to present that proof.
My able and distinguished colleague
from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], in a penetrat-
ing article in the Saturday Evening Post
for April 24, 1965, entitled "We Should
Negotiate a Settlement in Vietnam" also
commented on the "double think" proc-
ess of the war hawks in attempting to
change the character of our involvement
in Vietnam by characterizing events in a
manner contrary to the facts: Senator
CHURCH states ? in part:
We only deceive ourselves when we pre-
tend that the struggle in Vietnam is not a
civil war. The two parts of Vietnam don't
represent two different peoples, with separate
identities. Vietnam is a partitioned country
in the grip of a continuing revolution. That
the Government of North Vietnam has deeply
involved itself in support, or even direction,
of the rebellion the South doesn't make the
war any less a civil war. The fighting is still
between Vietnamese. The issue is still that
of determining what groups of Vietnamese
shall govern the country.
Given freedom of speech and press, the
true facts will ultimately reach the peo-
ple.
Two excellent books, recently pub-
lished, by two Pulitzer Prize winning au-
thors seek to set the record straight on
the events in Vietnam which have led
the United States to the dangerous crisis
It now confronts.
The first book, by Malcolmn M.
Browne, is entitled "The New Face of
War" and is published by Bobbs-Merrill.
The second book, by David Halber-
stram, is entitled "The Making of a
Quagmire" is published by Random
House.
Both books should be required reading
for all those who wish to acquire the
requisite background to understand the
fast-moving events in Vietnam.
The noted writer, I. F. Stone, writing
in the New York Review for April 22,
1965, reviewed both these books in an
article showing his clear grasp of events
in southeast Asia. As part of his review,
Mr. Stone stated:
What makes these books so timely, their
message so urgent, is that they show the
Vietnamese war in that aspect which is most
fundamental for our own people?as a chal-
lenge to freedom of information and there-
fore freedom of decision. They appear at a
time when all the errors on which they throw
light are being intensified. Instead of cor-
recting policy in the light of the record, the
light itself is being shut down. Access to
news sources in Vietnam and in Washington
is being limited, censorship in the field is
becoming more severe. Diem is dead but
what might be termed Diemism has become
the basic policy of the American Govern-
ment, For years our best advisers, military
and civilian, tried desperately to make him
understand that the war was a political
problem which could only be solved in South
Vietnam.
More and more people in the United
States are beginning to be aware that
the facts of history are immutable and
cannot be changed to suit the purposes
of any nation?big or small.
In a splendid editorial in this morn-
ing's New York Times the case is made
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
8004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22,,j 965
for the "Descalation" of the war in Viet-
nam.
Just as our able and distinguished ma-
jority leader [Mr. MANSFIELD] yesterday
stated that the time had come for "some
blunt words on Vietnam," the New York
Times calls upon the people of the United
States to face the true facts. The edi-
torial states in part:
Nothing is more important for Americans
today than to face these hard truths before
It is too late. And it is vital that the chan-
nels of communication, of opinion, and of
dissent be kept open?on the floor of Con-
gress, in the press, in the country at large--
in the face of a growing tendency to ridicule
or to denounce the opposition and to demand
unswerving support of further escalation in
the name of patriotism.
Bitterness and emotionalism are increas-
ingly entering the discussions on Vietnam in
the United States. This is a deplorable de-
velOprnent, and so is the polarization of
opinion in every country and between blocs
of countries, It is as if the battlelines were
being drawn all over the world?but for a
major war that need not and must not take
place.
In the same vein, Mr. Arthur Krock in
today's New York Times stated that "the
Senate today responsibly fulfilled the role
assigned to it by the Constitution to 'ad-
vise' the President on foreign affairs."
That discussion on the U.S. dilemma in
Vietnam must continue not only on the
floor of the Senate but throughout the
country.
That dilemma was underscored by
Walter Lippmann in his column in this
morning's Washington Post when he
said:
In my view the President is in grave
trouble. He is in grave trouble because he
haw not taken to heart the historic fact that
the-role of the Western white man as a ruler
in Asia was ended forever in the Second
World War. Against the Japanese the
Western white powers were unable to defend
their colonies and protectorates in Asia.
That put an end to the white man's domi-
nation in Asia which had begun in the 15th
century.
Mr. Lippmann then proceeded to de-
molish the Secretary of State Dulles' SO-
called domino theory by pointing out
that escalation of the war in Vietnam
has brought about a falling of the domi-
noes?but a falling away of the dominoes
from support of the U.S. position.
/t is time for the war hawks advising
thr President to change their ostrichlike
heads in the sand postures and face the
facts as they really are, rather than what
they would like them to be or to have
been.
I ask unanimous consent that the ar-
ticle by Walter Lippmann appearing in
the Washington Post of Tuesday, April
20, 1965, entitled "Unbuttoned Diplo-
macy," the article in the New York Times
,of Sunday, April 18, 1965, by Hans J.
Morganthau, entitled "We Are Deluding
Ourselves in Vietnam," the article by
Senator PRANK CHURCH appearing in the
Saturday Evening Post of April 24, 1965,
entitled "We Should Negotiate a Settle-
ment in Vietnam," the article by I. F.
Stone appearing in the New York Review
of Thursday, April 22, 1965, entitled
"Vietnam: An Exercise in Self-Delusion,"
the editorial from the New York Times
of Thursday, April 22, 1965, entitled
"Descalation Needed," the article ap-
pearing in the NeW York Times of April
22, 1965, by Arthur Krock entitled "In
the Nation: The Senate on Vietnam,"
and the article appearing in the Wash-
ington Post of Thursday, April 22, 1965,
by Walter Lippmann, entitled "The Fall-
ing Dominoes," be inserted in the RECORD
at this point.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Apr. 20,
1965]
IhnurrroNED Drerossamr
(By Walter Lippmann)
In the wake of President Johnson's Bal-
timore speech of April 7 and of the appeal
of the 17 unalined countries, which pre-
ceded it by about a week, discussions look-
ing toward an eventually negotiated settle-
ment have actually been underway. Some
of the discussion has been public and has
consisted of exchanges of statements by
Washington and Hanoi; some of the dis-
cussion is private through the various inter-
mediaries who are concerned to prevent the
spread of the war.
A curious, yet important, fact about the
public discussion is that Washington and
Hanoi start from the same legal basis. The
President on March 25 declared that "we
seek no more than a return to the essentials
of the (Geneva) agreements of 1954." On
April 13 Premier Pham Van Dong of North
Vietnam made a policy declaration which
said that Hanoi's fundamental war aim is the
carrying out of the Geneva Agreements of
1954.
If both sides were in fact prepared to abide
by and to enforce the Geneva agreements, a
strong legal basis for a settlement would
exist. But the fact is that neither we nor
they are willing to settle for the Geneva
agreements.
These agreements stipulate that North and
South Vietnam are not two separate nations
but two temporary zones of the same nation,
and that 2 years after the armistice which
demarcated the two zones, "the settlement
of political problems, effected on the basis
of respect for the principles of independence,
unity, and territorial integrity, shall permit
the Vietnamese people to enjoy the funda-
mental freedoms guaranteed by democratic
institutions established as a result of free
general elections by secret ballot." As Hanoi
has never held anything resembling a free
election in North Vietnam, there is little rea-
son to believe that it is prepared to have free
elections in both zones of Vietnam. As for
the United States, while our Government en-
dorsed the Geneva agreements, and espec-
ially the provision for free elections, It op-
posed free elections when it realized that Ho
Chi Minh would win them. General Eisen-
hower states this frankly in his memoirs.
Since that time we have insisted that South
Vietnam is an independent nation.
And so, in spite of the apparent agreement
on the "essentials of the agreements of 1954,"
neither side has as yet adopted a credible
and genuine negotiating position. This
country, at least, should do so. Our policy
since February has been to attack, to make
war upon, North Vietnam in order to compel
it to negotiate a settlement that we approve.
Therefore, it matters a great deal that we
adopt a negotiating position which we are
able to defend clearly and openly.
A cardinal weakness of our diplomatic
position today is the President's statement at
Baltimore that "the first reality is that Norh
Vietnam has attacked the independent na-
tion of South Vietnam." This was not our
original position. It has been called the first
reality only in the most recent phase of the
war, the phase which began in February.
Our present position is contrary to indubi-
table "essentials" of the Geneva agreements
of 1954, that North and South Vietnam are
not two nations but two zones of one nation.
It is argued by some, though not yet by the
State Department explicitly, that the 1954
agreements have been overtaken by history
and that de facto, as things have actually
been for 10 years, there are now two sepa-
rate and independent nations. But if this
is our official position, how then does the
State Department explain why we ignore the
charter of the United Nations, especially
articles 39 and 51. and declared on our own
say-so that North Vietnam was the aggress-Dr
against an independent state? Had we gone
to the Security Council for such a determi-
nation, we would, of course, have collided
with a Soviet veto. But we would at least
have proved that we believed what we were
saying and perhaps we might have gotten a
few votes to support us.
As a matter of fact, the argument that we
are now using, that the two Vietnams are
independent because they have been sepa-
rated for 10 years, is a very embarrassing
principle for the State Department to rely
on. It would mean, for example, that these
are two independent German states because
Germany has been partitioned for 10 years.
I am well aware that to be concerned
about our legal and moral position is regarded
by the new school of superrealists as un-
worthy of a proud and tough nation. But I
think we have something to be very much
concerned about when we look about us -and
see how we are drifting into an icy isolation.
On the continent of Asia there are besides
Red China four major Asian powers, the
Soviet Union and Japan in the north, Pakis-
tan and India in the south. With the pos-
sible, though only apparent, exception of
Japan, we are embroiled with all the powers
of Asia. The bitter truth of the matter is
that we can search the globe and look in
vain for true and active supporters of our
policy.
That is how successfully the State Depars-
ment has planned our diplomatic policy ar d
has argued. the American case.
[From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Apr. 13,
1965]
WE ARE DELUDING OURSELVES IN VIETNAM:
(By Hans J. Morgenthau)
(Nors.--We have let ourselves become en-
gaged in a war we find we cannot win, says
one expert, who declares there is only or e
way out?"Out.")
The address which President Johnson, de-
livered on April 7 at Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity is important for two reasons. On the
one hand, the President has shown for the
first time a way out of the impasse in which
we find ourselves in Vietnam. By agreeing
to negotiations without preconditions he luis
opened the door to negotiations which these
preconditions had made impossible from the
outset.
By proposing a project for the economic
development of southeast Asia?with North
Vietnam a beneficiary and the Soviet Union
a supporter?he has implicity recognized the
variety of national interests in the Cow -
mtmist world and the need for varied Amer-
ican. responses tailored to those interests.
By asking "that the people of South Vietnam
be allowed to guide their own country in
their own way," he has left all possibilities
open for the future evolution of relations
between North and South Vietnam.
On the other hand, the President reiter-
ated the intellectual assumptions and policy
proposals which brought us to an impasse
and which make it impossible to extricate
ourselves. The President has linked our in-
volvement in Vietnam with our war of in-
dependence and has proclaimed the freetiors
of all nations as the goal of our foreign
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150022-9
April 22, .196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE 8005
policy. He has started from the assumption
that there are two Vietnamese nations, one
Of which has attacked the other, and he sees
that attack as an integral part of the un-
limited Chinese aggression. Consistent with
this assumption, the President is willing to
negotiate with China and North Vietnam
but not with the Vietcong.
Yet we cannot have it both ways. We
Cannot at the same time embrace these false
assumptions and pursue new sound policies.
Thus we are faced with a real dilemma.
This dilemma is by no means of the Presi-
dent's making.
We are militarily engaged in Vietnam by
virtue of a basic principle of our foreign
policy that was implicit in the Truman doc-
trine of 1947 and was put into practice by
John Foster L/ulles from 1954 onward. This
principle is the military containment of
communism. Containment had its origins
in Europe; Dulles applied it to the Middle
East and Asia through_.a series of bilateral
and multilateral alliances. Yet what was
an outstanding success in Europe turned out
to be a dismal failure elsewhere. The rea-
sons for that failure are twofold.
First, the threat that faced the nations
of Western Europe in the aftermath of the
Second World War was primarily military.
? It was the threat of the Red Army march-
ing westward. Behind the line of military
demarcation of 1945 which the policy of con-
tainment declared to be the westernmost
limit of the Soviet Empire, there was an
ancient civilization, only temporarily weak
and able to maintain it,,self against the threat
of Communist subversion.
The situation is different in the Middle
East and Asia. The threat there is not pri-
rnarily military but political in nature.
Weak governments and societies provide op-
portunities for Communist subversion. Mili-
tary containment IS irrelevant to that threat
and may even be counterproductive. Thus
the Baghdad Pact did not protect Egypt from
Soviet influence and SEATO has had no
bearing on Chinese influence in Indonesia
and Pakistan.
Second, and mere important, even if China
Were threatening her neighbors primarily by
Military means, it would be impossible to
contain her by erecting a military wall at
the periphery of her empire. For China is,
even in her present underdeveloped state,
the dominent power in Asia. She is this by
virtue of the quality and quantity of her
population, her geographic position, her
civilization, her past power remembered, and
her future power anticipated. Anybody who
has traveled in Asia with his eyes and ears
open Must have been impressed by the enor-
inbus impact which the resurgence of China
has made upon all manner of men, regard-
less of class and political conviction, from
Japan to Pakistan.
The issue China poses is political and cul-
tural predominance. The United States can
no more contain Chinese influence in Asia
by arming South Vietnam and Thailand than
China could contain American influence in
the Western Hemisphere by arming, say,
Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
If we are convinced that we cannot live
with a China predominant on the mainland
of Asia, then we rau4st strike at the heart of
Chinese power?that is, rather than try to
cdntain the power of China, we must try to
destroy that power itself, Thus there is logic
on the side of that small group of Americans
who are convinced that war between the
United States and China is inevitable and
that the earlier that war comes, the better
will be the chances for the United States to
will it. _
Yet, while logic is on their side, practical
judgment is against them. For while China
Is obviously no match for the United States
in overall power, China is largely immune to
No. 71-9
the specific types of power in which the
superiority of the United States consists?
that is, nuclear, air, and naval power. Cer-
tainly, the United States has the power to
destroy the nuclear installations and the
major industrial and population centers of
China, but this destruction would not defeat
China; it would only set her development
back. To be defeated, China has to be con-
quered.
Physical conquest would require the de-
ployment of millions of American soldiers on
the mainland of Asia. No American military
leader has ever advocated a course of a.-_,-tion
so fraught with incalculable risks, so un-
certain of outcome, requiring sacrifices so
out of proportion to the interests at stake
and the benefits to be expected. President
Eisenhower declared on February 10, 1954,
that he "could conceive of no greater tragedy
than for the United States to become involved
in an all-out war in Indochina." General
MacArthur, in the congressional hearings
concerning his dismissal and in personal con-
versation with President Kennedy, emphatic-
ally warned against sending American foot
soldiers to the Asian mainland to fight China.
If we do not want to set ourselves goals
which cannot be attained with the means
we are willing to employ, we must learn to
accommodate ourselves to the predominance
of China on the Asian mainland. It is
,in-
structive to note that those Asian nations
which have done so?such as Burma and
Cambodia?live peacefully in the shadow of
the Chinese giant.
This modus vivendi, composed of legal in-
dependence and various degrees of actual
dependence, has indeed been for more than a
millennium the persistent pattern of Chinese
predominance on the mainland of Asia. The
military conquest of Tibet is the sole excep-
tion to that pattern. The military opera-
tions at the Indian border do not diverge
from it, since their purpose was the estab-
lishment of a frontier disputed by both sides.
On the other hand, those Asian nations
Which have allowed themselves to be trans-
formed into outposts of American military
power?such as Laos a few years ago, South
Vietnam and Thailand?have become the
actual or prospective victims of Communist
aggression and subversion. Thus it appears
that peripheral military containment is
counterproductive. Challenged at its periph-
ery by American military power at its
weakest?that is, by the proxy of client-
states?China or its proxies respond with
locally superior military at political power.
In specific terms, accommodation means
four things: (1) recognition of the political
and cultural predominance of China on the
mainland of Asia as a fact of life; (2) liqui-
dation of the peripheral military contain-
ment of China; (3) strengthening of the
uncommitted nations of Asia by nonmilitary
means; (4) assessment of Communist gov-
ernments in Asia in terms not of Commu-
nist doctrine but of their relation to the
interests and power of the United States.
In the light of these principles, the alter-
native to our present policies in Vietnam
would be this: a face-saving agreement which
would allow us to disengage ourselves mili-
tarily in stages spaced in time; restoration of
the status quo of the Geneva Agreement of
1964, with special emphasis upon all-Viet-
namese elections, cooperation with the Soviet
Union in support of a Titoist all-Vietnamese
Government, which would be likely to
emerge from such elections.
This last point is crucial, for our present
policies not only drive Hanoi'into the wait-
ing arms of Peiping, but also make it very
difficult for Moscow to pursue an independ-
ent policy. Our interests in southeast Asia
are identical with those of the Soviet Union:
to prevent the expansion of the military
power of China. But while our present pol-
.
idles invite that expansion, so do they make
it impossible for the Soviet Union to join us
in preventing it. If we were to reconcile
ourselves to the establishment of a Titoist
government in all of Vietnam, the Soviet
Union could successfully compete with China
in claiming credit for it and surrepitiously
cooperate with us in maintaining it.
Testing the President's proposals by these
standards, one realizes how far they go in
meeting them. These proposals do not pre-
clude a return to the Geneva Agreement and
even assume the existence of a Titoist gov-
ernment in North Vietnam. Nor do they
preclude the establishment of a Titoist gov-
ernment for all of Vietnam, provided the
people of South Vietnam have freely agreed '
to it. They also envision the active par-
ticipation of the Soviet Union in establish-
ing and maintaining a new balance of power
in southeast Asia. On the other hand, the
President has flatly rejected a withdrawal
"under the cloak of a meaningless agree-
ment." The controlling word is obviously
"meaningless," and only the future can tell
Whether we shall consider any face-saving
agreement as "meaningless" regardless of its
political context.
However, we are under a psychological
compulsion to continue our military presence
in South Vietnam as part of the peripheral
military containment of China. We have
been emboldened in this course of action by
the identification of the enemy as "Com-
munist," seeing in every Communist party
and regime an extension of hostile Russian
or Chinese power. This identification was
justified 20 or 15 years ago when communism
still had a monolithic character. Here, as
elsewhere, our modes of thought and action
have been rendered obsolete by new devel-
opments.
It is ironic that this simple juxtaposition
of "communism" and "free world" was
erected by John Foster Dulles's crusading
moralism into the guiding principle of
American foreign policy at a time when the
national communism of Yugoslavia, the
neutralism of the third world and the in-
cipient split between the Soviet Union and
China were rendering that juxtaposition in-
valid.
Today, it .is belaboring the obvious to say
that we are faced not with one monolithic
communism whose uniform hostility must be
countered with equally uniform hostility,
but with a number of different communisms
whose hostilities, determined by different
national interests, vary. In fact, the United
States encounters today less hostility from ?
Tito, who is a Communist, than from De
Gaulle, who is not.
We can today distinguish four different
types of communism in view of the kind
and degree of hostility to the United States
they represent: a communism identified with
the Soviet Union?e.g., Poland; a commu-
nism identified with China?e.g., Albania; a'
communism that straddles the fence be-
tween the Soviet Union and China?e.g., Ru-
mania, and independent communism?e.g.,
Yugoslavia. Each of these communisms
must be dealt with in terms of the bearing
its foreign policy has upon the interests of
the United States in a concrete instance.
It would, of course, be absurd to suggest
that the officials responsible for the conduct
of American foreign policy are unaware of
these distinctions and of the demands they
make for discriminating subtlety. Yet it is
an obvious fact of experience that these of-
ficials are incapable of living up to these
demands when they deal with Vietnam.
Thus they maneuver themselves into a
position which is antirevolutionary per se
and which requires military opposition to
revolution wherever it is found in Asia, re-
gardless of how it affects the interests?and
how susceptible it is to the power?of the
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
8006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 4965
United States. There is a historic precedent not created?from abroad, and spokesmen for Vietnam is the real enemy. It is the whit.
for this kind of policy: Metternich's military the Government have made time and again paper's purpose to present that proof.
opposition to liberalism after the Napoleonic the point that the key to winning the war Let it be said right away that the while
Wars, which collapsed in 1848. For better was political and not military and was to be paper is a dismal failure. The discrepancy
or for worse, we live again in an age of found in South Vietnam itself. It was sup- between its assertions and the factual evi-
revolution. It is the task of statesmanship posed to lie in transforming the indifference dence adduced to support them borders on
not to oppose what cannot be opposed with or hostility of the great mass of the South the grotesque. It does nothing to disprove,
a chance of success, but to bend it to one's Vietnamese people into positive loyalty to the and tends even to confirm, what until tee
own interests. This is what the President Government. end of February had been official American
is trying to do with his proposal for the To that end, a new theory of warfare doctrine: that the main body of the Viel -
economic development of southeast Asia. called "counter insurgency" was put into cong is composed of South Vietnamese and
Why do we support the Saigon government practice. Strategic hamlets were established, that 80 to 90 percent of their weapons are
in the civil war against the Vietcong? Be- massive propaganda campaigns were em- of American origin.
cause the Saigon government is free and barked upon, social and economic measures This document is most disturbing in that
the Vietcong are Communist. By contain- were at least sporadically taken. But all was it provides a particularly glaring instance
ing Vietnamese communism we assume that to no avail. The mass of the population of the tendency to conduct foreign and mill-
we are really containing the communism of remained indifferent, if not hostile, and tary policy not on their own merits, but as
China, large units of the army ran away or went exercises in public relations. The Govern-
Yet this assumption is at odds with the over to the enemy. ment fashions an imaginary world that
historic experience of a millennium and is The reasons for this failure are of general pleases it, and then comes-to believe in the
unsupported by contemporary evidence, significance, for they stem from a deeply in- reality of that world and acts as though
China is the hereditary enemy of Vietnam, grained habit of the American mind. We like it were real.
and Ho Chi Minh will become the leader of to think of social problems as technically It is for this reason that public officials
a Chinese satellite only if the U.S. forces him self-sufficient and susceptable of simple, are so resentful of the reporters assigned
to become one, clear-cut solutions. We tend to think of to Vietnam and have tried to shut them off
Furthermore, Ho Chi Minh, like Tito and foreign aid as a kind of self-sufficient, tech- from the sources of news and even to sileme
unlike the Communist governments of the nical economic enterprise subject to the laws them. They resent the confrontation of their
other states of Eastern Europe, came to of economics and divorced from politics, and policies with the facts. Yet the facts are
power not by courtesy of another Communist of war as a similarly self-sufficient, technical what they are, and they take terrible ye 1-
nation's victorious army but at the head of enterprise, to be won as quickly, as cheaply, geance on those who disregard them,
a victorious army of his own. He is, then, as thoroughly as possible and divorced from However, the white paper is but the latest
a natural candidate to become an Asian Tito, the foreign policy that preceded and is to instance of a delusionary tendency which
and the question we must answer is: How ad- follow it. Thus our military theoreticians has led American policy in Vietnam astray
versely would a Titoist Ho Chi Minh, govern- and practitioners conceive of counterinsur- in other respects. We call the American
ing all of Vietnam, affect the interests of gency as though it were just another branch troops in Vietnam advisers and have assigned
the United States? The answer can only be: of warfare like artillery or chemical warfare, them by and large to advisory functions, and
not at all. One can even maintain the prop- to be taught in special schools and applied we have limited the activities of the marines
osition that, far from affecting adversely the with technical proficiency wherever the oc- who have now landed in Vietnam to guarding
interests of the United States, it would be in casion arises. American installations. We have done this
the interest of the United States if the west- This view derives of course from a corn- for reasons of public relations, in order to
ern periphery of China were ringed by a plate misconception of the nature of civil spare ourselves the odium of open belliger-
chain of independent states, though they war. People fight and die in civil wars ency.
would, of course, in their policies take due because they have a faith which appears to There is an ominous similarity between
-account of the predominance of their power- them worth fighting and dying for, and this technique and that applied to the ex-
ful neighbor. they can be opposed with a chance of pedition in the Bay of Pigs. We wanted to
The roots of the Vietnamese civil war go success only by people who have at least as overthrow Castro, but for reasons of public
back to the very beginning of South Vietnam strong a faith. relations we did not want to do it ourselves.
as an independent state. When President Magsaysay could subdue the Huk rebellion. So it was not done at all, and our prest ge
Ngo Dinh Diem took office in 1954, he pre- in the Philippines because his charisma, was damaged far beyond what it would h,ve
sided not over a state but over one-half of proven in action aroused a faith superior to suffered had we worked openly and single-
a country arbitrarily and, in the intentions that of his opponents. In South Vietnam mindedly for the goal we had set ourselves.
of all concerned, temporarily severed from there is nothing to oppose the faith of the Our very presence in Vietnam is in a sense
the other half. He was generally regarded Vietcong and, in consequence, the Saigon dictated by considerations of public re la-
as a caretaker who would establish the rtidi- Government and we are losing the civil war tions; we are afraid lest our prestige would
ments of an administration 'Until the country A guerrilla war cannot be won without the suffer were we to retreat from an untena ale
was united by nationwide elections to be held active support of the indigenous population, position.
in 1956 in accordance with the Geneva an- short of the physical extermination of that One may ask whether we have gained
population. Germany was at least consist- prestige by being involved in a civil war on
Diem was confronted at home with a num- ent when, during the Second World War, the mainland of Asia and by being unable
whichbar of private armies were politically,faced with unmanageable guerrilla warfare to win it. Would we gain more by be.ng
religiously or criminally oriented. To the throughout occupied Europe, she tried to unable to extricate ourselves from it, and
general surprise, he subdued one after an- master the situation through a deliberate by expanding it unilaterally into an inter-
other and created what looked like a viable policy of extermination. The French tried national war? Is French prestige lower today
government. Yet in the process of creating "counterinsurgency" in Algeria and failed; than it was 11 years ago when France was
it, he also laid the foundations for the 400,000 French troops fought the guerrillas fighting in Indochina, or 5 years ago when
present civil war. He ruthlessly suppressed in Indochina for nine years and failed. she was fighting in Algeria? Does not a great
all opposition, established concentration The United States has recognized that it is power gain prestige by mustering the wisdom
camps, organized a brutal secret police, 'failing in South Vietnam. But it has drawn and courage necessary to liquidate a losing
closed newspapers and rigged elections, from this recognition of failure a most enterprise? In other words, is it not the mark
These policies inevitably led to a polariza- astounding conclusion, of greatness, in circumstances such as these,
tion of the politics of South Vietnam?on The United States has decided to change to be able to afford to be indifferent to one's
one side, Diem's family surrounded by a the character of the war by unilateral decla- prestige?
praetorian guard; on the other, the Vietna- ration from la South Vietnamese civil war to The peripheral military containment of
mese people, backed by the Communists, de- a war of "foreign aggression." "Aggression China, the indiscriminate crusade against
claring themselves liberators from foreign from the North; The Record of North Viet- communism, counterinsurgency as a tech-
domination and internal oppression. nam's campaign to conquer South Vietnam" nically self-sufficient new branch of warfare,
Thus, the possibility of civil war was in- is the title of a white paper published by the the conception of foreign and military policy
herent in the very nature of the Diem re- Department of State on the last day of Feb-, as a branch of public relations?they are all
gime. It became inevitable after Diem re- ruary 1965. While normally foreign and mil- misconceptions that conjure up terrible dan-
fused to agree to all-Vietnamese elections itary policy is based upon intelligence?that gers for those who base their policies on
and, in the face of mounting popular aliens- is, the objective assessment of facts?the them.
tion, accentuated the tyrannical aspects of process is here reversed: A new policy has One can only hope and pray that the
his regime. The South Vietnamese who been decided upon, and intelligence must vaunted pragmatism and commonsense of
cherished freedom could not help but oppose provide the facts to justify it. the American mind--of which the President's
him. Threatened by the secret police, they The United States, stymied in South Viet- new proposals may well be a manifestation--
went either abroad or underground where nam and on the verge of defeat, decided to will act as a corrective upon those miscon-
the Communists were waiting for them, carry the war to North Vietnam not so much ceptions before they lead us from the b .ind
Until the end of last February, the Gov- in order to retrieve the fortunes of war as to alley in which we find ourselves today to the
ernment of the United States started from lay the groundwork for "negotiations from rim of the abyss. Beyond the present crisis,
the assumption that the war in South Viet- strength." In order to justify that new pol- however, one must hope that the confron-
nam was a civil war, aided and abetted?but icy, it was necessary to prove that North tation between these misconceptions and
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
'April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
reality will teach us a long-overdue lesson?
to rid ourselves of these misconceptions al-
together.
[From the Saturday Evening Post, Apr. 24,
4265J
WE SHOULD NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN
VIETNAM
? (By Senator FRANK CHURCH )
-
Our struggle in South Vietnam has reached
a point where neither side can achieve a con-
clusive military decision, and the only visible
prospect for a solution is to be found at the
conference table. But there is sq much
Washington talk about steping up the war
that it threatens to engulf all rational dis-
cussion of the crisis we face?almost as if
peace were something to be avoided.
The war hawks are putting on the heat.
Anyone who disagrees with them is accused
of "running up a white flag:" Debate is dis-
couraged; dissent is condemned as endanger-
ing the country. Any talk of a negotiated
settlement in Vietnam is equated with
Munich; any prospect of an eventual Amer-
ican withdrawal is likened to Dunkirk.
Yet everyone senses that peace in Vietnam
can only be restored through a political set-
tlement, and that the United States neither
wishes nor expects to keep a foothold in
southeast Asia. Accordingly, I believe we
should try to break 'the diplomatic deadlock
(First you withdraw, then we will talk)
that finds both sides, in effect, demanding
the surrender of the other as the price for
negotiations. I disagree with the prevailing
doctrine that now is, not the,tirne,to parley.
The longer we wait, the harder it will become
to achieve a, satisfactory solution.
Opposing any negotiations, the war hawks
contend that we Americans must first have
it out with the Communists in Vietnam.
They see the struggle there, which has thus
far been mostly confined to the, Vietnamese,
as one of suddenly portentous importance.
Hanson Baldwin, military editor for the New
York Times? declares that we should ready
Ourselves to send a million Americans into
- battle. He writes: "We must fight a war to
prevent an irreparable defeat. * * Viet-
nam is a nasty place to fight. tint' * *
there is no 'good' place to die. And it is far
better to fight in Vietnam?on China's door-
step?than fight some years hence in Hawaii,
on our own frontiera."
Such trumpetings substitute sound for
sanity. We may have invested prestige in
Vietnam, but by no stretch of imagination
does this struggle threaten the life of our
country.
We conquered the' Pacific in the Second
World War. It is our moat, the broadest on
earth, from the Golden Gate to the' very
shores of China. With unchallenged naval
and aerial supremacy, we dominate it, patrol
it and defend it. There is no way for the
landlocked forces of: Asia to drive ug from
the Pacific. The elephant cannot drive the
whale from the sea, nor the eagle from the
sky. Our presence in the Far East is not
anchored to Vietnam,
I believe that the containment of a hostile
China is a proper goal for American policy.
To avoid Chinese conquest of her neighbors,
we fought in Korea, and we have solemnly
pledged ourselves to defend Taiwan. The
Weakness a the Chinese-expansion argu-
ment, as it relates to Vietnam, is that China
has thus far displayed no wish to invade
southeast ASia. To date, Chinese troops have
not been fighting in Vietnam. Moreover,
China hasn't yet moved a cadre of "advisers"
into North Vietnam that begins to compare,
in numbers of men or in the amount of aid
given, to the American presence in the South.
The best way to keep China out of Vietnam
is to settle e war ,:here. escalation of
the war northward, e it continues unabated,
Is the Most likely way to draw Chinese armies
down, thus creating, the very calamity Our
policy should be designed to avert.
However, a new definitiqn of containment
has emerged to justify the deepening in-
volvement of the United States in the fight-
ling in southeast Asia. Our presence there, it
is said, is not to furnish a shield against an
anticipated Chinese invasion, but rather to
'counteract the spread of Chinese influence.
If this is our purpose, it is a vain one indeed.
China is the giant of Asia, unshackled and
determined to reclaim her prerogatives as the
dominant power of the mainland. In the
natural course of events, we can no more ex-
pect to deny China her influence in southeast
Asia, the region immediately beneath her,
than China could expect to deny the United
States our influence in Central America.
No outpost bristling with bayonets?least
of all one held in South Vietnam by Ameri-
can occupation forces?is going to stem the
Spread of Chinese influence in Asia. If we
cannot live in a world where the Chinese
exert influence in Indochina, then we had
better forget Vietnam and commence now
to destroy and dismember China, something
no other nation in history has ever managed
to do.
But since the conquest of China is not an
American ambition, we should stop fooling
ourselves with talk that our involvement in
Vietnam can somehow bring an end to the
spread of Chinese influence in Asia. In fact,
the evidence is just the other way around.
,Because of the extent of our intervention in
South Vietnam, the Peiping government is
able to pose as the champion of Asia for the
Asians, defying the United States in the
name of resisting the return of Western im-
,perialism. Chou En-lai had reason to rub
his hands with glee when he said recently to
a foreign visitor: "Once we worried about
southeast Asia. We don't anymore. The
Americans are rapidly solving our problems
for us."
Although we cannot immunize southeast
Asia from Chinese influence, the restoration
of peace to this war weary region offers the
little countries of Indochina their best hope
for remaining independent. They would, of
necessity, establish friendly ties with China,
staying scrupulously neutral and unalined,
but they need not become the vassal states
that a spreading war, drawing Chinese armies
in, would surely make them. This even ap-
plies to North Vietnam, where nationalist
feeling against China is deep, and where Ho
IVIinh does not yet take his orders from
Peiping. Clearly, if we seek to restrict Chi-
nese hegemony in southeast Asia, a settle-
ment in Vietnam is essential.
Those who urge the contrary course?a
Korean-type war in Indochina?often argue
that South Vietnam has become the testing
ground of a new and vicious form of Com-
munist aggression, the guerrilla war. They
Contend that the Vietcong rebels, though per-
haps not the pawns of Peiping, are at least
the agents of Hanoi; that indirect aggression
by infiltration is being practiced by the
, North against the South; and that we Ameri-
cans must see to it that the guerrillas are
driven out, or such wars of subversion will
,spread.
I grant this seems a compelling argument,
but it won't stand up under close analysis.
communist guerrilla wars didn't begin in
Vietnam and won't end there, regardless of
the outcome of this particular struggle.
,
American muscle, sufficiently used, may hold
the 17th parallel against infiltrators from the
north, but our bayonets .will not stop?they
could , even spread?Communist agitation
within other Asian countries government
. .
may he checked by force,, but not an idea.
There is no way to fence off an ideology.
Indeed, Communist-inspired guerrilla wars
have always jumped over boundary lines.
They have erupted in scattered, far-flung
places around the globe, wherever adverse
sonclitions within ..a given country permit
Communist suhversion ,to take root.. The
threatened governments put down such guer-
rilla uprisings in the Philippines, Malaya,
8007
Burma, and Greece. The decision for, Saigon
hangs in the balance.
This is a time Of ferment. Some of these
guerrilla revolts_ Will succeed; others will
fail. The outcome, in each case, will depend
upon the character of the government chal-
lenged, and the Willingness of the ,people to
rally behind' it. That Some governments
won't prove equal -CO the test is no reason for
us to panic. The other governments in
southeast Asia are not so many dominoes in
a row. They differ, one from another, in
popular support and in capacity to resist
Communist subversion. We all hope Saigon
will prevail, but the argument that "as goes
South Vietnam, so goes all of southeast
Asia," is predicated more upon fear than fact.
Communism isn't going to take over the
world; it is much too poor a system for that.
Whether Saigon can meet the test remains
to be seen. Until now, it has been losing its
war, not for lack of arms; but for lack of
internal cohesion. The Vietcong grow
stronger, not because they are better supplied
but because they are united in their will to
fight. This spirit cannot be imported from
without. The weakness in South Vietnam
emanates from Saigon itself, where we, as
foreigners, are powerless to pacify the spoil-
ing factions. Only the Vietnamese can fur-
nish a solution.
This brings us back to the central ques-
tion: Why did' we intervene in South Viet-
nam? President Eisenhower, who committed
us there, expressed the reason, and his suc-
cessors, Kennedy and Johnson, have faith-
fully repeated it. We went in, upon the
invitation of Saigon (10 governments ago),
to give aid and advice to the Vietnamese who
were fighting the Vietcong rebels. We can
give arms, money, food, training and equip-
ment, which is all we committed ourselves
to do, but we cannot, as a foreign nation,
win the war. TJltimately, a civil war has to
be decided by the people of the country con-
cerned.
We only deceive ourselves when we pre-
tend that the struggle in Vietnam is not a
civil war. The two parts of Vietnam don't
represent two different peoples, with separate
identities. Vietnam is a partitioned country
in the grip of a continuing revolution. That
the government of North Vietnam has deeply
involved itself in support, or even direction,
of the rebellion in the south doesn't make
the war any less a civil war. The fighting is
still between Vietnamese. The issue is still
that of determining what groups of Vietnam-
ese shall govern the country.
It is true, of course, that foreign powers
are intereated in the outcome of this
struggle, China favoring Hanoi, the United
States backing Saigon. But, again, the in-
volvement of outside countries, even when it
takes the forth of limited intervention,
doesn't change the essential character of the
war.
With the war in Vietnam at a point where
neither side can achieve a conclusive mili-
tary decision, some kind of political settle-
ment has to be worked out. I cannot, fur-
nish a precise blueprint for a peaceful settle-
ment. No one can at this point. But I can
indicate, in general terms, a form of settle-
ment that lies in that middle ground that
both sides must seek out if a negotiated
settlement is to be reached. The timing
of any settlement must, of course, be left to
the President. He alone can know whether
or when Hanoi appears willing to bargain.
As for the United States, we can always
deal at the conference table from a strength
that rests not upon the softness of Saigon
but upon our own possession of the sea and
air. Therefore I believe we must demon-
strate that we cannot be driven out of Indo-
china, and that we won't bow to a Commu-
nist-dictated peace. Our recent bombings
sbonld Make it clear to Hanoi that we will
not .quit under fire, or withdraw, or submit
to coercion.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
8008 CONGIttSSIOSAL' ilECUIS SEA TE April
At the same time we should make it
equally clear that we are prepared to nego-
tiate on honorable terms. The judiciotis use
of both the arrows and the relive branch,
clutched by the American eagle in the Pres-
idential seal, represents our best hope for
avoiding a Korean-type war on the Asian
mainland. We should indicate, our willing-
ness to interpose a neutral buffer zone in
Indochina, consisting of Laos, Cambodia,
and South Vietnam. Such a zone need not
create a power vactiurn for Chinese armies
to fill. This is a more likely result, in the
absence of such an agreement, of an ex-
panded war. The integrity of the neu-
tralized region against invasion from without
could be guaranteed by the signatories to the
agreement. Thus the military might of the
United States would remain a deterrent to
Chinese encroachment from the north, which
is?or ought to be?our primary purpose in
southeast Asia anyway. During its transi-
tional phase such an agreement could be
policed by special forces of an international
commission, set up to preside over a cease-
fire while political arrangements are worked
out by the people of each country.
Admittedly, this involves the unavoidable
risk that pro-Communist elements may come
to prevail, but the war itself--which sees
Western forces increasingly pitted against
Asians?has become the breeding ground of
steadily' growing political support for the
Communist cause. As Prince Sihanouk,
Cambodia's royalist ruler, has pointed out,
the risk of Communist ascendancy after a
settlement grows larger every day the war is
prolonged. If this estimate is correct, and
there is mounting evidence to support it,
then the time to negotiate is now, while the
anti-Communist elements in Indochina still
possess authority.
Now is the time, while the jungles and rice
field e still belong to the Vietnamese, to strive
for an end to the war. Hanoi has reason to
bargain, for she covets her independence and
has Cause. to. fear China. The same holds
teuelor Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam.
Even the Soviet Union has inceptive to work
for a settlement that will foreclese a Chinese
occupation of southeast Asia. These propi-
tious eonditions, all of which" work in PUT
favor, are likely to be the first casualties of
a widening war.
(From the New York Review, Apr. 22, 19051
VIETNAM: AN EXERCISE IN SELF-DELUSION
"The New Face of War," by Malcolm W.
Browne; Bobbs-Merrill, 284 pages, $5.
?the Making of a Quagmire," by David
Halberstam; Random House, 312 pages, $4.95.
(By T. F. Stone)
The morning I sat down to write this re-
view,: the Washington Post (March 25) car-
ried the news that Malcolm W. Browne had
been arrested and held for 2 hours by South
Vietnamese Air Force officers at the big U.S.
air and missile base at Da Nang. The inci-
dent es syinhol and symptom of the steady
degeneration in the conduct of the Viet-
namese war. These two books by two news-
papermen who won Pulitzer Prizes last year
for their coverage of the war, Browne for
the ,Associated Press, David Halberstane for
the New York Times, record the agony of
trying to report the war truthfully against
the opposition of the laigherups, military
and civilian. The books appear just as the
war is entering a new stage when honest re-
porting is more essential than ever, but now
restriction and censorship are applied to
black it out. Da Nang, the main base from
which", the war, is being escalated to the
North, was officially declared "off limits" the
day before Browne's arrest and newsmen were
told they could not enter without a pass
obtainable only in Saigon, 385 miles to the
south. "Newsmen," the dispatch on
Browne's arrest, "doubted such a pass ex-
isted." The incident occurred only a few
days after the highest information officer at
the Pentagon claimed that its policy on cov-
erage of the war was "complete candor."
What makes these books so timely, their
message so urgent, is that they show the
Vietnamese war in that aspect which is most
fundamental for our own people?as a chal-
lenge to freedom of information and there-
fore freedom of decision. They appear at a
time when all' the errors on which they
throw light are being intensified. Instead of
correcting policy in the light of the record,
the light itself is being shut down. Access
to news sources in Vietnam and in Washing-
ton is being limited, censorship in the field
is becoming more severe. Diem is dead but
what might be termed Diernism has become
the basic policy of the American Govern-
ment. For years our best advisers, military
and civilian, tried desperately tei make him
understand that the war was a political prob-
lem which could only be solved In South
Vietnam. Three years ago the head of the
U.S. mission spoke of the war as a battle
for the "hearts and minds" of the people,
and primarily the villagers, whose disaffec-
tion had made the rebellion possible against
superior forces and equipment. To win that
battle it was then proposed to spend $200
million to bolster the Vietnamese economy
and raise living standards. Though much
of this money seems to have been frittered
away, it was at least recognized that the
military effort was only one aspect of the
problem. Now we have adopted Diem's sim-
ple-minded theory that the war is merely
a Product of Communist conspiracy, that it
is purely an invasion and not a rebellion or
a civil war, and that all would be well?in
Secretary Rusk's fatuous phrase?if only the
North let its neighbors alone. This is the
theory of the white paper and this is the
excuse for bombing North Vietnam.
While the war expands, the theory on
which it proceeds has narrowed. Washing-
ton's "party line" on the war has been shrunk
to rid it of those annoying complexities im-
posed by contact with reality. The change
becomes evident if one compares the white
paper of 1965 with the Blue Book of 1961.
The Blue Book was issued by the Kennedy
administration to explain its decision to step
up the scale of our aid and the number of
our "miltairy advisers" in South Vietnam.
The white paper wag issued by the Johnson
administration to prepare the public mind
to accept its decision to bomb the North and
risk a wider war. The change of policy re-
quired that rewriting of history we find so
amusing when we watch it being done on
the other side.
Four years ago the Blue Book told us that
the basic pattern of Vietcong activity was
"not new, of course." It said this followed
the tactics applied and the theories worked
out by Mao Tse-tung in China. It said much
the same methods were used "in Malaya, in
Greece, in the Philippines, in Cuba, and in
Laos." If there is "anything peculiar to the
Vietnam situation," the Blue Book said, "it
is 'that the country is divided and one-half
provides a safe sanctuary from Which sub-
version in the other half is supported with
both personnel and materiel." This im-
plied a conflict which was doubly a civil
war, first between the two halves Of a divided
country and then between the government
and Communist-led guerrillas in one-half of
that country.
The white paper disagrees. It abandons
complexity to make possible simple-minded
slogans and policy. It declares the conflict
"a new kind of war * * * a totally new
brand of aggression * * * not another Greece
* * * not another Malaya * * * not an-
other Philippines * * * Above all * * * not
a spontaneous and local rebellion against
the established government." 'The funda-
mental difference," the white paper says, is
that in Vietnam "a Communist government
has set out deliberately to conquer a soy-
22, i"65
ereign people in a neighboring state." This
implies that there is no popular discontent
in the south to be allayed, no need to nego-
tiate with the rebels. The war is merely a
case of international aggression and the,,ag-
gressor is to be punished by bombardment
until he agrees to call off the invasion. The
rebellion can be shut off, all this implies, as
if by spigot from Hanoi. The truth about
the war has been tailored to suit the Air
Force faith in "victory by airpower." This
was Goldwater's theory and this has become
Johnson's policy.
Browne's book sheds some sharp light on
the white paper's thesis. The white paper
says the war is "inspired, directed, supplied
and controlled" by Hanoi. But Browne re-
ports that "intelligence experts feel less than
10 percent and probably more like 2 percent
of the Vietcong's stock of modern weapons
is Communist made." He also reports that
"only a small part of Vietcong increase in
strength has resulted from infiltration of
North Vietnamese Communist troops into
South Vietnam." An astringent examina-
tion of the white paper and its supporting
appendixes will show that it really proves
little more than this, despite the sweeping
headline impressions it was intended to gen-
erate. Browne also tells us that "Western
intelligence experts believe the proportion
of Communists (in the National Liberation
Front) is probably extremely small." He de-
scribes it as "a true 'front' organization ap-
pealing for the support of every social class."
Browne declares the Front a "creature" of
the Vietnamese Communist Party and says
it has "strong but subtle ties" to the Hanoi
regime. For many Vietnamese, neverthe-
less "the Front is exactly what it purports
to be?the people's struggle for independ-
ence." This is what our best advisers tried
to tell Diem. This is what our bureaucracy
now refuses to see rather than admit past
error and defeat, preferring to gamble on a
wider war.
The really terrible message in these books
Is not that the bureaucrats have tried to de-
ceive the public but that they have insisted
on deceiving themselves. The Vietnamese
war has been an exercise in self-delusion.
David Halberstam tells us in "The Making
of a Quagmire," that when the first Buddhist
burned himself to death, Ngo Dinh Diem was
convinced that this act had been staged by
an American television team. The Buddhist
crisis, as Halberstam describes it, "was to
encompass all the problems of the govern-
ment: its inability to rule its own people;
the failure of the American mission to influ-
ence Diem * * Observing the government,
during those 4 months was like watching a
government trying to commit suicide." The
stubborn insistence of the South Vietnamese
dictator on insulating himself from reality
spread into our own Government. The most
important revelation these two books make
is the unwillingness of the higher-ups in
Saigon and Washington to hear the truth
from their subordinates in the field.
South Vietnam swarmed with spies, but,
apparently they were only listened to when
they reported what their paymasters wanted
to hear. Halberstam says that at one time
Diem had 13 different secret police organi-
zations. Browne provides a vivid picture,
of how our own intelligence agencies pro-
liferated. The CIA, Special Forces, the Air
mission, the Army, the Provost Marshal, the
Navy, and the U.S. Embassy each had ite
own operatives. But they were not, in
Browne's words, "one big happy family." Or
the contrary they "very often closely con-
cealed" their findings from other agencie:
"because of the danger that the competitor:
may pirate the material and report it to
headquarters first, getting the credit."
All of this fierce application of free enter.
prise to the collection of information seem:
to have been of little use because of a top
level political decision. "Ever since Viet-
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Apjl 22, /965APProved
ForrnikmfedgB/M4AEMBP17WWW000300150022-9
C009
narnese independence" (i.e., 1954), Browne
reveals, "American intelligence officials had
relied on the Vietnamese intelligence system
for most of their infOrmation." This was
"because of Dlem's touchiness about Ameri-
can spooks wandering around on their own."
In the interest of preserving 'harmony, "some-
how the intelligence reports always had it
that the 'War was going well." We circulated
faithfully in orbit around our own satellite.
Diem's men told him what he wanted to hear,
and ours passed on what he wanted us to be-
lieve. Halberstam confirms this. In those
final months before Diem's overthrow, "CIA
agents were telling me that their superiors in
Vietnam were still so optimistic that they
were not taking the turmoil and unrest very
seriously." John Richardson, then CIA chief
in Vietnam, displayed a kind of infatuation
with Diem's brother Nhu and his wife. Hal-
berstam describes a lunch with RichardSon
in 1962, shortly after the New York Times
sent him to Saigon, in which the CIA chief
dismissed Nhu.'s notorious anti-Arnerican re-
marks as simply those of "a proud Asian."
As for the tigerish Mme. Nhu, Richardson
thought her "sometimes a little emotional,
but that was typical of women who entered
politics?look at Mrs. Roosevelt."
A persistent Panglossianism marked our
entire bureaucracy up to and including the
White House. General Harkins, our mil-
itary commander in South Vietnam, said "/
am an optimist and I am not going to allow
My staff to be pessimistic." Halberstam de-
scribes a briefing at his command post after
the battle of Ap Bac in January 1963, the
kind of setpiece battle for which our mil-
itary had long hoped and which they first
described as a victory though it turned out
to be a disastrous defeat. With "the gov-
ernment troops so completely disorganized
that they would not even carry out their
own dead," -a province chief shelling his
own men" and the enemy long gone," Gen-
eral Harkins told the press a trap was about
to be sprung on the enemy.
The enemy was the press. When the facts
about Ap Bac could no longer be concealed,
headquarters became angry "not with the
system" that brought defeat, Halberstam
writes, nor with the Vietnamese commanders
responsible for it "but with the American
reporters who wrote about it." Admiral
Harry Felt, commander of all U.S. forces in
the Pacific, gave classic expression to the
-bureaucratic attitude toward the press when
he was angered by a question from Browne.
"Why don't you get on the team?" the ad-
miral demanded.
When lialberstarn, Browne, and Neil Shee-
han,1 then with the UPI, visiSed the Mekong
Delta in the summer of 1963 and sem./ for
themselves the deterioration of the war,
their reward for reporting it was a campaign
of denigration. Rusk criticized Halberstam
at a press conference. President Kennedy
suggested to the publisher of the New York
Times that Halberstam be transferred to
some other assignment, a suggestion Mr. Ar-
thur Hays Sulzberger, to his credit, rejected.
The bureaucracy counterattacked through
Joe Alsop, who insidiously compared the re-
porters on the scene to those who a genera-
tion earlier had called the Chinese Commu-
nists agrarian reformers. The New York
Journal-American wrote that Halberstam
wee soft on communism. A friend in the
-State Department told Halberstam, "It's a
damn good thing you never belonged to any
leftwing groups or anything like that be-
cause they were really looking for stuff like
that." Victor, KrUlalt, the Pentagon's top
specialist on guerrilla warfare, was vehe-
ment in his criticism of the press: "Richard
Tregaskis and Maggie Higgins had found
that the war was being won, but a bunch
1 See the vivid account in his preface to
Jules ROy's agonized and eloquent "The
Battle of Dienbienphu," Harper, $6.95.
of young cubs who kept writing about the
political side were defeatists." The official
attitude was epitomized by Lyndon Johnson,
then Vice President, on his way back from
Saigon in 1961. He had laid the flattery on
with a shovel, calling Diem the Churchill
of Asia. Halberstam reports that when a
reporter on the plane tried to tell Johnson
something of Diem's faults, Johnson re-
sponded, "Don't tell me about Diem. He's
all we've got out there." A brink is a dan-
gerous place on which to prefer not to see
where you're going.
The hostile attitude toward honest report-
ing is made the more shocking because re-
porters like Halberstam and Browne, as their
conclusions reveal, were critics not of the war
itself but only of the ineffective way in which
it was conducted. The force for which they
spoke, the sources on Which they depended,
were not dissident Vietnamese but junior
American officers. Their books disclose little
contact with the Vietnamese. The battle
between the press and the bureaucracy arose
because the newspapermen refused to report
that the war was being won, but there was
not too much reporting of why it was being
lost.
For Halberstam the war was a lark, a won-
derful assignment for a young reporter; his
pages reflect his zest and are full of graphic
reportage, though also marked by some
egregious errors, such as locating Dienbien-
phu in Laos and attributing the origin of
the agrovilles to the French whereas they
really sprang from Nhu's mystical author-
itarianism. For Browne the war was less ro-
mantic. The life of a wire service reporter
on call 24 hours a day in so tense a situa-
tion is no picnic. His book is written in flat
agency prose. Both men acquitted them-
selves honorably, in the best tradition of
American journalism, which is always to be
skeptical of any official statement. But
both books are marked by that characteristic
intentness on the moment; the idea that the
past may help explain the present appears
only rarely. There is no time for study,
and American editors do not encourage that
type of journalism in depth which distin-
guishes Le Monde or the Neue Ziiricher
Zeitung.
This defect is most damaging in reporting
on the origins of the revolt against Diem.
The average American newspaper reader got
the impression that this was brought about
by esoteric and long-distance means, by
Communist plotters activated from Hanoi to
engage in that mysterious process referred
to in our press as "subversion." This is the
closest modern equivalent to witchcraft.
Halberstam's account ofthe origins is better
than Browne's, but the real roots of discon-
tent are touched on only peripherally. We
get a glimpse of them in Halberstam's report
that General Taylor after his first mission
in 1960 recommended "broadening the base
of the government, taking non-Ngo anti-
Communist elements into the Government;
making the National Assembly more than a
rubber stamp; easing some of the tight re-
strictions on the local press." The prescrip-
tion was for a little of that democracy we
were supposed to be defending, but Diem
would not take the medicine. The accumu-
lation of grievances, the establishment of
concentration camps for political opponents
of all kinds, the exploitation and abuse of
the villages, the oppression of the intellec-
tuals, the appeal of the 18 notables in 1960,
and the attempted military coup that year,
"the long standing abuses" which finally led
to the revolt, are not spelled out as they
should be 2 and would be if U.S. reporters
had more contact with the Vietnamese. In
a flash of insight Halberstam writes:
w The best aeeOunt is by the French his-
torian, Philippe Devillers in "North Vietnam
Today" (Praeger, 1962), edited by P. J.
Honey.
Also, though we 'knew more about Vietnam
and the aspirations of the Vietnamese than
most official Americans, we were to some de-
gree lb-tined by our nationality. We were
there, after all, to cover the war; this was
our primary focus and inevitably we judged
events through the war's progress or lack of
it. We entered the pagodas only after the
Buddhist crisis had broken out; we wrote
of Nguyen Tuong Tam, the country's most
distinguished writer and novelist, only after
he had committed suicide?and then only
because his death had political connotations;
we were aware of the aspirations of the pea-
sants because they were the barometer of
the Government's failure and the war's prog-
ress, not because we were on the side of the
population and against their rulers.
This accounts for how poorly these report-
ers understood the central problem of land
reform, how few realized that from the stand-
point of the peasants, particularly in the
Delta, Diem's land reform policy like his
hated agrovilles and our equally unpopu-
lar strategic hamlets seemed to be mecha-
nisms for reinstating the rights of the land-
lords who had fled during the long war
against the French. Diem's downfall, and
the rebellion's success, were largely due to
the fact that he tried to do what even the
Bourbons in France after the Revolution
were too wise to attempt. He tried to turn
back the clock of the revolutionary land
seizures in the name of land reform many
peasants found themselves being asked to pay
rent or compensation for land they had long
considered their own.
This lack of contact with the Vietnamese
people, and this fellow feeling for the junior
officers who were sure they could win the war
if only HQ were different, also accounts for
the weak way both books fizzle out when the
authors try to supply some conclusions.
Both oppose negotiation and neutralization.
.naiberstam is indignant with the indiffer-
ence to Vietnam he encountered on his re-
turn home. He believes Vietnam "a legiti-
mate part" of "our global commitment." He
feels "we cannot abandon our efforts to help
these people no matter how ungrateful they
may seem." For the "ungrateful" majority,
the American presence had only succeeded in
polarizing the politics of the country be-
tween authoritarian Communists and au-
thoritarian anti-Communists; the former at
least have the virtue of being supported by
native forces. The anti-Communist minority
was grateful, of course, and feared that
with American withdrawal they would be
treated as mercilessly by the National Libera-
tion Front as Diem had treated veterans of
Vietnam after 1954, although a specific
provision of the Geneva agreement forbade
persecution of those who had fought against
the French. The files of the International
Control Commission from 1955 onward were
full of complaints that ex-Vietminh had
been thrown into concentration camps or
executed without charge or trial. In any
eventual settlement in Vietnam, the future
of minorities must certainly be a matter for
concern, but the notion that we have a man-
date from heaven to impose on an unwilling
people what we think is good for them will
strike few Asians or Africans as an object
lesson in democracy. Browne's feeble end-
ing is even worse. "Perhaps in the end,"
he writes, echoing the cliches of the counter-
insurgency experts at Fort Bragg, "America
will find it can put Marx, Lenin, Mao, and
Giap to work for it, without embracing com-
munism itself."
This was the delusion of French military
men like Colonel Lacheroy and Colonel Trin-
quier, who returned from Indochina 'Chink-
ing they could apply Communist ideas in
reverse to the "pacification" of Algeria.
When frustrated, they tried to turn ?their
borrowed techniques of conspiracy and' assas-
sination against De Gaulle and the French
Republic. To apply Communist methods in
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
8010 CONGRESSIONAL 1tECO1W -- SENATE April 22, 1.965
reeeese, the favorite:formula of our "counter-
insurgency" experts, does not make them any
lees unpalatable or dangerous to a free so-
ciety. The basic tactic oonffises the effect
with the cause. To see 'wars of liberation,"
the Pentagon's dominant nightmare, simply
as a reflection of conspiracy, to overlook the
social and economic roots which make them
possible, to prescribe counterconspiracy as
the cure, is not, only likely to insure failure
but it tends to shut off debate on peaceful
alternatives. Here the growing tendency of
the Johnson administration to make it seem
disloyal to question the omniconwetence of
the Presidency is reinforced by the nattual
tendency Of the Pentagon to see doubts about
resort to force as unpatriotic. There is the
danger here of a new McCarthyism as the
administration and the military move toward
wider war rather than admit earlier mistakes.
[From the New York Times, Apr. 22, 1965]
"DESCALATION" NEEDED
The war in Vietnam is to be "stepped up,"
Washington now says. In other words, the
U.S. Government is going to continue to
bomb, send in more Antericans, spend more
and commit more lives, Money, destructive-
ness and power?and take more risk. In
return, the hope is that Hanoi will act to
curb the Vietcong guerrillas in South Viet-
learn, if it can, and will refrain from sending
in more men and arms and orders to the
south. The hope also is that Peiping and
Moscow will hold off from their own par-
ticular methods of escalation.
Those who have all along feared that the
course the war has been taking since early
February would force the United States into
an ever greater commitment, leading to ever
greater danger to Asia and to the world, are
unhappily being proved true prophets. Once
a war begins, forces take over which seem
beyend control. In Vietnam, on both sides,
one step is leading?as if inexorably?to
another and then another. Continuance of
the present process by the opposing forces
could lead to catastrophe.
Nothing is more important for Americans
today than to face these hard truths before it
Is too late. And it is vital that the channels
of communication, of opinion and of dissent
be kept open?on the floor of Congress, in
the press, in the country at large?in the
face of a growing tendency to ridicule or to
denounce the opposition and to demand un-
swerving support of further escalation in the
name of patriotism.
Bitterness and emotionalism are increas-
ingly entering the discusions on Vietnam in
the United States. This is a deplorable de-
velopment, and so is the polarization of opin-
ion in every country and between blocs of
countries. It is as if the battle lines were
being drawn all over the world?but for a
major war that need not and must not take
place,
President Johnson's offer of "unconditional
discussions" was Et splendid move on the
diplomatic-political front, in the effort to
achieve a peaceful solution of the quarrel.
While it deserved a far better response from
the other side than it has yet received, it did
mark, as we heve previously noted, a begin-
ning to an interchange among the combat-
ants?Subtle and indirect, but nevertheless a
beginning.
But the continued bombing of North Viet-
nam makes progress toward a peaceful set-
tlement?however far off it must necessarily
be?more difficult rather than less, harder
rather than easier. We think that as a fol-
lowelp to the President's fine declaration in
Baltimore, a "descalation" of the war is
needed, rather than the escalation that we
now see imminent.
It is at least worth the effort to see whether
a sealing down of the bombing might not
evOke a Corresponding scaling down of Neirth
Vietnamese aggression in South 'Vietnam.
The North Vietnamese incidents in the south
are easily measurable; if a diminution of
American bombing of the north should lead
to a diminution in the rate of incidents in
the south, a major step would thereby be sig-
naled toward the "unconditional discus-
sions" offered by the President.
Of course there might be no such re-
sponse at all; and if there were not, the
bombing would be resumed. But at least a
"descalation" such as we suggest would af-
ford the opportunity to the other side of
making a gesture toward peace without los-
ing face. It might lead, ultimately, to a
cease-fire and a truce.
President Johnson launched a very tenta-
tive but real peace offensive at Johns Hop-
kins. He has not yet given this policy
enough time but the continued bombing has
tended to cast some doubt on the sincerity
the United States desire for negotiations.
This is clearly a moment of crisis?for
Vietnam, for the United States, and for the
world. Less bombing, not more, offers some
hope of peace?without any weakness of
American resolution. By taking such an at-
titude the United States would show
strength as well as wisdom.
[From the New York (N.Y.) Times,
Apr. 22, 1965]
IN THE NATION: THE SENATE ON VIETNAM
(By Arthur Krock)
WASHINGTON, April '21.?On the initiative
of its majority leader, MIKE MANSFIELD, the
Senate today responsibly fulfilled the role
assigned to it by the Constitution to advise
the President on foreign affairs.
Senator Fenesiumee who, in his official ca-
pacity as chairman of the committee on
which the Senate relies for guidance on
these questions, has been subjected to un-
warranted abuse for stating as a mere hy-
pothesis that "the prospects for discussions"
looking to peace in southeast Asia "might be
enhanced by a temporary cessation" by the
United States of the military actions it is
steadily escalating in the Vietnams. But,
except for specific endorsement of what Fun-
BRIGHT plainly identified as only a specula-
tion, all the Senate speeches today were di-
rected at the same objective, which MANS-
FLELD expressed as follows:
APPLYING GENEVA PRINCIPLE
It is of the utmoet importance that the
question of how to apply the principle of
the Geneva agreement of 1954 be faced as
soon as possible. * * * The longer this con-
frontation is put off, the more the people
of North and South Vietnam pay for the
delay, and the more the likelihood that the
present limited conflict will spread into a
general war in Asia.
His reference was to a proposal that the
Geneva Conference be reconvened on the
limited basis of producing an international
guarantee of the neutrality of Vietnam's
neighbor, Cambodia. "The need for a con-
frontation," he said,'"on [this] situation in
which none [the United States, Communist
China and the two Vietnams] is involved
so directly may indeed be a preliminary to
a separate and second confrontation on Viet-
nam in whieh the involvement of all is
direct." And though MANSFIELD extolled the
President as one who has "grasped the prob-
lem fully," citing his call for "unconditional
discussions with the object of restoring a
decent and honorable peace," it was evident
from remarks by Senators who praised MANS-
FIELD'S observations that they detected in
these their own doubts of the wisdom of
escalating U.S. military attacks on North
Vietnam while there is the slightest pos-
sibility of progress in the secret negotiations
for reconvening a Geneva Conference on
Cambodia.
"While the talk goes on," said MANSFIELD,
"the bloodshed also goes on. And the bleed-
ing is not being done in the capitals of the
world. It is being done in the rice fields and
the jungles of Vietnam" whose "peasants, it.
all probability, want peace and a minimum o :
contact with distant Saigon and distant.
Hanoi?not to speak of places of which they
have scarcely heard about?Peiping, Moscow.
or Washington. This called attention to the
officially inconvenient fact that the conflict
is in part a civil war.
CONFLICTING VIEWS
Taking this from the majority leader tu;
his cue, Senator AIKEN protested that "ii it,
gdadiffloccutlht) whatto see (except as an act of brag.
U.S. military leaders are try-
ing to accomplish when they send 200 planee
to destroy one little bridge. But on the
same day that the Senate was voicing it.
disturbance over the policy of military escala-
tion, Secretary of Defense McNamara ,k-af;
announcing its wide expansion, as agreed or.
at the Honolulu conference this week. The;
conflict of attitudes is the inevitable product
of the involvement into which the U.S. Gov-
ernment has drifted in Vietnam.
The Senate today reflected its alarmed con-.
viction that the time is overdue for endine
the war in southeast Asia, hopefully througl.
the back door of guaranteed neutrality tee
Cambodia. But it has no magic formula for
reconvening a Geneva conference, now thee;
the U.S.S.R., which proposed this, has see
preconditions it is aware the United State.;
cannot possibly accept. And the close Presie
dential relations of some of the sources of the
hysterical attacks on Senator FULDRIGHT for
speculating that a temporary halt of U.S.
military actions against North Vietnam
might be the best way to discover whether
the aggressors are open to a reasonable and
honorable settlement, suggest that this idea
has no future in the administration.
TO RESTORE PEACE
President Johnson has more information
than the Senate can possibly have for the
alarm which MANSFIELD and others expressed
on the floor. But the sole meaning to be
read into Secretary McNamara's announce
ment on the same day is that continued es
calation of the Vietnam war on a steadily
rising scale is our only policy for the restore -
tion of peace in southeast Asia.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Apr. 22,
1965]
THE FALLING DOMINOES
(By Walter Lippmann)
Why is it, it is time to ask, that our posi -
tion in Asia has declined so sharply though
we are widening and intensifying the wa
in Vietnam?
According to the so-called domino theory,
the United States would lose the respect and
support of the peoples of Asia if, in confront-
ing Chinese communism, it showed itself
to be a paper tiger, and refrained from mili-
tary action. For three months, since Febru-
ary, we have applied this theory ever more
vigorously. And what are the results? Quite
contrary to what was predicted: today the
United States is not only isolated, but in-
creasingly opposed, by every major power in
Asia.
With the exception of Japan, which has
government but not a people who support
our policy, all the Asian powers are against
us on this issue, not only China and Indo-
nesia, but the Soviet Union, India, and Pak-
istan. The crucial fact is that although the
Asian powers are by no means at peace witn
one another, what they do have in comma.).
Is an increasingly vociferous opposition t3
the escalated war we have been waging since
February. India and Pakistan, India ani
China, China and the Soviet Union are
quarrelling to the point of war with one an-
other. But they are united in condemning
our February war.
The administration should put this fact
in its pipe and smoke it. It should ponder
the fact that there exists such general Asian
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 ;_CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Apyil 22, 196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 8011
opposition to our war in Asia. The Presi-
dent's advisers can take some comfort, but
mighty little, from thefact that aimed with
us is the Thailand government in Bang-
kok, which is independent though weak, the
government in Seoul, which we subsidize,
the government in Taipei, which we protect,
the government in Saigon, which governs
something less than half of South Vietnam.
Pondering the matter, we must, alas, put
into the other scale the ominous, rising anti-
Americanism in the Philippines.
The dominoes are indeed falling, and they
are falling away from us.
What is the root of all this swelling anti-
Americanism among the Asians? It is that
they regard our war in Vietnam as a war by
a rich, powerful, white, Western nation
against a weak and poor Asian nation, a war
by white men from the West against non-
white men in Asia. We can talk until the
cows come home about how we are fighting
for the freedom of the South Vietnamese.
But to the Asian peoples it is obviously and
primarily an American war against an Asian
people.
- In my view the President is in grave trou-
ble, He is in grave trouble because he has
not taken to heart the historic fact that the
role of the Western white man as a ruler
in Asia was ended forever in the Second
World War. Against the Japanese the West-
ern white powers were unable to defend
their colonies and protectorates in Asia.
That put an end to the white man's domi-
nation in Asia which had begun in the 15th
century.
Since then, despite our ultimate victory
over the a apanese Empire, the paramount
rule has been that Asians will have have to
be ruled by Asians, and that the Western
white powers can never work out a new rela-
tionship with the Asian peoples except as
they find a basis of political equality and
nonintervention on which economic and cul-
tural exchanges can develop.
This great historic fact is an exceedingly
difficult one for many westerners to digest
and accept. It is as hard for them to accept
this new relationship with Asia as it is for
many a southerner in this country to accept
the desegregation of schools and public ac- _
conumxlations. The Asia hands who still
Instinctively think of Asia in prewar terms
are haunted by Rudyard Kipling and the
white man's burden and the assumption that
East of Suez are the lesser breeds without
the law.
Until we purge ourselves of, these old pre-
conceptions and prejudices, we shall not be
able to deal with Asian problems, and we
shall find ourselves as we are today in Viet-
nam, in what the German poet described as
the unending pursuit of the ever-fleeting ob-
ject of deSire. We shall find ourselves widely
rejected by the very people we are professing
to save.
Until this purge takes place, we shall go
on drifting into trouble. For us the prob-
lem in Asia is primarily a problem in our
understanding_ of historic reality. In our
view of Asia there will have to be a funda-
mental change akin to the illumination,
which has come so recently here at home,
that the American Negro must become a full,
not a second class, citizen.
The day will come when the same kind of
illumination of the facts of life is granted to
the makers of our policy in Asia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is there
further morning business? If not,
morning business is closed.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
Mr, MANSFIELD. Mr, President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Chair
lay before the Senate the unfinished
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair lays before the Senate the unfin-
ished business, which is S. 1564.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 1564) to enforce the 15th
amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
WILLIAMS] numbered 82, to the commit-
tee substitute.
Under the precedents of the Senate,
in such a case, the substitute, for the
purpose of amendment, is regarded as
original text. Any amendment proposed
thereto is therefore in the first degree,
and any amendment to such amendment
Is in the second degree, and not open to
amendment.
Any amendment to the original text
of the bill, or any amendment to such
an amendment, would have precedence
over the committee substitute or any
amendment thereto.
In the event the committee amendment
is agreed to, no further amendment is
in order.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I can
see the Continental Congress in session
199 years ago. It was June. It was
considering a resolution by Richard
Henry Lee, of Virginia. The purport of
the resolution was that the Colonies are
and of right should be free and inde-
pendent States. That resolution was re-
ferred to a committee consisting of Jef-
ferson, Adams, Franklin, Roger Sher-
man, and Robert Livingston. Jefferson
undertook the task of formulating a dec-
laration to carry out the sense of that
resolution. What he wrote and what was
approved was the Declaration of Inde-
pendence.
How significant it is as a world docu-
ment and how highly it is esteemed in
the American tradition can be noted
from the care that has been lavished
upon its preservation. First, it was
kept in the archives of the State Depart-
ment. When the British invaded our
Capital in 1812, it was removed to Vir-
ginia. When it was returned to Wash-
ington, it was kept in the Patent Office.
Later it was placed in the Library of
Congress. Today, it reposes in the Na-
tional Archives in a glass case, bound in
bronze and sealed in helium that light,
dampness, or insects will not mar it.
One especial sentiment in that docu-
ment is appropriate to this occasion.
After asserting that man is endowed with
certain inalienable, God-given rights,
-Jefferson then wrote:
Governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed.
What a strange, amazing concept in a
world of kings, czars, and emperors who
had fastened upon mankind the belief
that they rule by divine mandate. Was
this a whimsy from the pen of the great
Virginian? Was it a mockery or did it
have purpose. How well we know that
it did have purpose for it became the very
foundation of the system of government
which the Constitution makers promul-
gated in Philadelphia 11 years later. In
his own way, Abraham Lincoln reaf-
firmed it at Gettysburg fourscore and 7
years later when he expressed the prayer-
ful hope that government of the people,
for the people, and by the people would
not perish from the earth.
How then shall there be government by
the people if some of the people cannot
speak? How obtain the consent of the
governed when a segment of those gov-
erned cannot express themselves?
How strange that nearly two centuries
after Thomas Jefferson wrote those words
into the Declaration of Independence, as-
suring to the governed a reasonable
chance to consent or dissent, the prob-
lem still vexes the National Government.
Can there be any doubt that this is the
problem before us?
Men are taxed but not permitted to
pass upon those who impose such taxes.
Can this be the consent of the governed?
Men are compelled to render military
service but not permitted to pass upon
those who decree such service. Is that
the consent of the governed?
Men are fined and imprisoned under
laws dealing with crime and social in-
fractions but not permitted to pass upon
the authors of such laws. Is this the
consent of the governed?
Men are compelled to send their chil-
dren to schools which are supported with
their taxes but not permitted to pass
upon those who make the laws and issue
the regulations under which their chil-
dren are educated. Is this the consent
of the governed?
Men pay for a variety of services such
as gas, electricity, telephone service, rail-
road fares, airplane fares, the rates for
which are predicated upon laws enacted
by men whom they are not permitted to
select. Is this the consent of the gov-
erned?
Bloody strife and a century of history
have brought no solution to the problem.
The final fulfillment of the basic concept
set forth in the Declaration of Independ-
ence has not been achieved. And now,
100 years to the month after civil strife
came to an end, we seek a solution which
overrides emotion and sentimentality,
prejudice, and politics and which will
provide a fair and equitable solution.
This is the fourth civil rights measure
to come before Congress in the last 8
years. The act of 1957 provided the right
to go to court and to secure the aid of the
Attorney General in providing injunc-
tive relief where voting rights were de-
nied. It also created the Civil Rights
Commission with subpena power to make
investigations in this field and repolt to
the Congress. The act of 1960 enlarged
the powers of the Attorney General to
investigate and find a pattern or prac-
tice under which voting rights were de-
Wed gnd then file snit so that a court
could issue an ,order showing that the
plaintiff in the suit was qualified to vote.
_Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
8012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE April 22, 19,65
Then came the Civil Rights Act of 1964
under which three-judge courts could
deal with voting rights actions. But dis-
crimination in the matter of voting rights
has continued and the data and infor-
mation collected by the Civil Rights Com-
mission and the Department of Justice
makes it quite clear that additional legis-
lation is needed if the unequivocal man-
date in the 15th amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States is to be
enforced and made effective and if the
Declaration of Independence is to be
made truly meaningful.
Mr. President, that is a preliminary
statement. / It does not undertake to
deal with any analysis of the bill that
is before the Senate. That will Come
later. But I believe that it is necessary
to lay down a philosophical predicate
that is the inspiration for the endeavor
that is before us at the present time.
The story could be multiplied ad infin-
itum. One could deliver a long disserta-
tion, going back to an unsolved problem
in the Constitution. The framers of the
Constitution picked the year 1808 in
which to continue the importation of
persons. Parenthetically, the Consti-
tution does not use the word "slaves" or
the word "slavery," but it speaks about
the continued importation of persons
until 1808, and provides that such im-
portation shall not be denied until that
time. The only limitation on that trade
was that there could be imposed a $10
capitation tax. So importation con-
tinued.
At long last, after 50 years and a
bloody strife, that institution came to an
end, and those people were here. The
question was how to deal with them re-
alistically and recognize the fact that
they were human beings. They were
people with souls, and they were entitled
to equality if the Declaration of Inde-
pendence and the Constitution meant
anything whatsoever.
After that strife came the 13th amend-
ment abolishing the hideous institution
that had grown up in our country.
Then in 1868 came the 14th amend-
ment, with a further expansion of rights,
privileges, and immunities.
Then came the 15th amendment in
1870. That amendment dealt very spe-
cially with citizens of the United States.
That is what we are concerned with at
the present time. The amendment
stated that the right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be
abridged or denied by the United States
or any State on account of race or color.
That is as short, as explicit, and as clear
as the English language could make it.
The authors of the amendment went
further. They said that the Congress
shall have power by appropriate legisla-
tion to enforce the amendment.
It is on the basis of that authority that
we proceed with the measure that is now
before the Senate.
Mr. President, this has been no easy
chore. It has been one of the most diffi-
cult, Intricate, and abstruse subjects with
which / have contact in all of my legis-
lative career. I am not insensible of
those requirements by way of the quali-
fication for electors that appears in
article I of the Constitution. But I am
not insensible either to the mandate in
the 15th amendment and how it shall be
consummated and made effective.
It has taken a long time, under the
peculiar procedure that has inhibited
some of our action, even to file a docu-
ment, which I presume I cannot call a
"report." It is entitled "Joint Statement
of Individual Views of Mr. DODD, Mr.
HART, Mr. LONG Of Missouri, Mr. KENNEDY
of Massachusetts, Mr. Balm, Mr. BUR-
DICK, Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. DIRESEN, Mr.
HRIJSKA, Mr. FONG, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr.
Javrrs of the Committee on the Judiciary,
supporting the adoption of Senate 1564,
the Voting Rights Act of 1965."
I wish to pay testimony not only to
the members of my staff, who are gracing
the Senate Chamber today, but also to
the staff of the majority leader and the
staff of the Attorney General, because
they worked until the hour of 11:58 last
night, 2 minutes before the deadline that
was set for the filing of this report. It is
an excellent piece of work. Perhaps in
the interest of acctirracy I had better
strike that word "report" and say "the
filing of this document." It is an ex-
cellent piece of work. Some time later
I intend to read a good deal of the docu-
ment into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
because many hours and weeks of en-
deavor have gone into the document; and
it deserves wider currency than a, report
or a document usually receives.
So at that point, I shall yield the floor.
At a subsequent period, I shall begin to
deal with an analysis of the bill and how
we expect to remedy the difficulty that
confronts us.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield for questions?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield for questions.
Mr. .b.HVIN. The bill contains a pro-
vision which condemns without judicial
trial the States of Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and
Virginia, and 34 counties in North Caro-
lina,; does it not?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; if the Senator
will modify his language.
First. I do not believe it condemns the
States. It takes account of a condition
that has existed in those States.
Second. I do not for a moment admit
that the bill is punitive. Surely I do not
admit that it is a bill of attainder, a
point that was made before the full
committee.
Mr. ERVIN. I presume that the Sena-
tor from Illinois will admit that the
States that I have designated and the
34 counties of North Carolina are
brought within the provisions of the bill
without being given any judicial trial to
determine whether they are violating the
Provisions of the 15th amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. We are seeking by the
bill to remedy a condition that exists in
those States, or that we believe exists
with respect to citizens of the United
States. It is not a question of providing
a judicial trial for various States where
that condition exists. We go to the heart
of the problem and seek to supply a rem-
edy that we think is constitutional and
Is nonpunitive.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I do not believe we
should allow the RECORD to stand with
the statenient of the Senator from North
Carolina that the bill condemns the
States without a judicial trial. The fact
is that the States can go into court in
the District of Columbia. The bill so
provides and establishes procedures by
which they must take themselves out
from under the provisions of the law.
Therefore, there is a legal avenue
through which they can act. The Sena-
tor from North Carolina has consistently
reiterated that there is no opportunity
for the States to go into court. I cannot
agree with him. The fact is that the
States must motivate, rather than that
the United States must motivate, which
has been the cause of the breakdown
under the present law.
Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator from
Illinois if he does not know that under
section 4 of the bill those States and
counties cannot go into a court in the
District of Columbia and rebut the pre-
sumption arising against them by show-
ing that they are not engaged in viola-
tion of the 15th amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. The bill provides the
method for the 'States to cleanse them-
selves of any taint, if they believe that
the finger of taint has been placed upon
them.
Mr. ERVIN. I ask the Senator from
Illinois if the bill does not shut every
courthouse door in America against the
States I have enumerated and the 34
counties of North Carolina, except the
U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia?
Mr. DIRKSEN. My distinguished
friend has used the expression "shut
every courthouse door" in the land ex-
cept the U.S. District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia. The device of the
court of the District of Columbia has
been used in a great many other statutes.
It is neither a restraint nor an infamous
device that we resort to in connection
with the bill to give a State an oppor-
tunity to make a test case in court.
Mr. ERVIN. The Senator from Illinois
seems to be reluctant to give a direct an-
swer to a direct question. I asked if un-
der the bill the sovereign States of Loui-
siana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia,
South Carolina, and Virginia, and 34
counties of North Carolina are denied
the right to go into any court, anywhere
on the face of the earth, to defend them-
selves against the assumption or pre-
sumption, except the court of the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
Mr. DIRKSEN. It is true up to that
limited point, but no further.
Mr. ERVIN. If they go into the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colwn-
bia, they cannot escape the consequences
of the act by showing that they are not
engaged in denying any person the right
to vote on account of race or color in
violation of the 15th amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I shall take up that
matter a little later. I do not wish to
become involved in a prolonged discus-
sion of that point with the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina. We shall
get around to it later for a fuller analy-
sis.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965
ApprovecftiMpfderMofiii-RDINNEKR000300150022-9 A1935
613 for a.4-month period, with all the addi-
tional policemen on foot patrol. By the end
of the test period, felonies were down 5.5
percent; robberies down 70 percent.; burgla-
ries down 65 percent; street "muggings"
down 90 percent, At the same time, case
clearance improved by 75 percent. The heat
went on, and the bottom fell out of the
crime rate.
The big trump card of the progun debat-
ors is that the second amendment to the
- Constitution flatly states, "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed," At least 35 State constitutions
have similar guarantees.
Actually, our rights predate the Constitu-
tion. Ancient common law holds that a
man may arm himself and fight to defend
his castle and its inhabitants and contents.
Students of human rights insist that there
Is another, still more important, right in-
volved. It is the "right to revolution." Be-
fore you flinch at that harsh term, remember
that every democratic government on earth
was born of armed revolution after tyranny.
Revolution is the la,st resort of an oppressed
people, and firearms are primary tools of rev-
olution. If our Government turned tyran-
nical tomorrow, armed Americans would
surely try to do something about it. But not
if they had no guns because a registration
systern had permitted the tyrant to find and
confiscate them. Every modern dictator has
disarmed his subjects that way.
This fear of confiscation, and the knowl-
edge that a bureaucrat with the power to
Issue a permit will also have the power to
deny one, are the big progun arguments
against permits and registration, and legiti-
mate ones. (It is ironic that, in the absence
of a national registration system, a hypothet-
ical tyrant?or invader?would probably use
the membership files of the organizations
most opposed to gun registration.)
Should we have a_strong Federal law con-
trolling the sale and registration of all fire-
arms?
J. Edgar Hoover, though a leader in the
fight to reduce availability of firearms, espe-
cially handguns, says no. He flatly asserts:
"The numerous ramifications of gun control
are so varied and complex that regulatory
measures must be at State and local levels."
But Mr. Hoover goes on to say that "the
public has a right to expect that the distribu-
tor and the purchaser of weapons, so deadly
and easily concealed as handguns, meet cer-
tain regulations and qualifications."
So the argument finally boils down to one
of handgun control. Few, if any, of the re-
sponsible antigun people have any intention
of taking away your deer rifle or duck gun,
or of making you register it. Even New York
has no restrictions on shoulder guns, which
Is why the Sullivan law has withstood hun-
dreds of attacks on constitutional grounds.
Unfortunately, not all of the antigun peo-
ple are either responsible or well informed.
One well-meaning sociologist proposed that
all guns should be kept in a public reposi-
tory, and checked out like library books for
specific purposes and periods. He also sug-
gests that the gun owner be required to wear
some distinctive article of clothing while
going armed.
Some subversives work quietly with the
antigun people toward their ideal?a dis-
armed or disarmable population unable to
oppose their kind of revolution. They are
most dangerous in that they are unidenti-
fied infiltrators in more well-meaning groups.
A few protectionists have taken the anti-
gun side in the hope that closer gun control
will reduce the hunting that they do not
believe in. However, most informed protec-
tionists are beginning to understand that
legal, controlled hunting is not only desir-
able, but necessary, to the management of
our Wildlife COnununity today.
Finally, this milk be said: It is doubtful
that a single one of the 300 new bills for gun
control could have prevented the assassina-
tion of President Kennedy, Secret Service
agents agree privately, and reluctantly, that
there is no sure way to stop a killer who will
use a long gun or who is willing to trade his
life for the life of his victim. The only way
to keep the President safe would be to keep
him constantly in a bulletproof, bombproof
shelter. President Kennedy would have
scoffe,d at such a suggestion, and President
Johnson already has. Mental defectives, of
course, should be given treatment, kept
under surveillance, and denied firearms of
any kind. But again, it is a case of regulat-
ing the person, not the gun.
Out of all these arguments on firearms
problems and rights, these truths appear to
us, and are our policy:
We believe laws should prohibit sale of
firearms to felons, drug addicts, habitual
drunkards, juveniles, and mental incompe-,
tents. We believe laws should invoke strict
penalties against the possession of firearms
by criminals and irresponsible persons. We
believe laws should permit responsible, law-
abiding adults to own and use firearms for
legal purposes. We believe laws should not
require law-abiding adult citizens to register
shotguns and rifles (Federal statutes already
require manufacturers and dealers to keep
records on the sale of handguns, rifles, and
shotguns) We believe laws should not grant
authority to any jurisdiction, police or oth-
erwise, at any government level, to prohibit
the purchase or ownership of firearms by
law-abiding and responsible citizens.
Statement by Meany
Policy
EXTENSION OF R 'RKS
OF
HON. WILLIAM G. BRAY
OF INDIANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 13, 1965
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Speaker, the follow-
ing statement by George Meany, which
appeared in the AFL-CIO News of April
17, 1965, reiterates organized labor's firm
stand in opposition to aggression and ef-
fectively refutes those who call for peace
at any price:
STATEMENT BY MEANT ON VIETNAM POLICY
In his address of April 7, President John-
son offered to open the door to unconditional
discussions on the crisis in Vietnam. Those
who have been urging our Government to
appease the Communist aggressors against
the Vietnamese people have seized upon the
word "unconditional" to conclude that our
country's policy toward the conflict in Viet-
nam is now being basically changed. They
would interpret the President's address to
mean that we are now ready to appease the
aggressors.
Organized labor in our country has stead-
fastly opposed appeasement of all aggres-
sors?Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung,
and Khrushchev alike. In continuation of
this policy we have time and again supported
President Johnson's firm rejection of all pro-
posals to appease the aggressors against the
people of South Vietnam.
Fortunately, the course outlined by the
President, the national aims spelled out in
his address, his determination to help the
South Vietnam people maintain their inde-
pendenbe?all these clearly add up to any-
thing but appeasement, anything but waver-
ing or weakening in America's commitment
to freedom for South Vietnam.
Those who strive ahd struggle for peace
will bp greatly encouraged by President
Johnson once again making it clear to all
Communist aggressors that "we will not be
defeated. We will not grow tired. We will
not withdraw, either openly or under the
cloak of meaningless agreement."
American labor welcomes President John-
son's reaffirmation of America's determina-
tion to achieve through diplomatic and ec-
onomic as well as military measures "an
Independent South Vietnam securely guar-
anteed and able to shape its own relationship
to all others, free from outside interference."
This forceful reiteration of the basic aim
of our Nation's policy in southeast Asia
should eliminate all doubts as to American
military action having any other objective
than to provide a firm foundation for the
peace, freedom, and economic development
of this war-torn region.
We are confident that the people of North
Vietnam, if permitted, would gladly accept
President Johnson's proposal that they join
with their neighbors in a great effort to im-
prove their conditions of life and work rather
than continue to suffer and sacrifice in a ter-
rible military conflict which can never be of
any advantage to them. Any rejection of
this generous American offer can only ag-
gravate their misery and suffering. This is
the cruel fate which befell the people of the
captive nations of Europe when their masters
in Moscow prevented their benefiting from
the Marshall plan aid.
The people of South Vietnam, Berlin, and
every other area in the shadow or terror of
Communist aggression can draw encourage-
ment and strength from the President's timS-
ly assurance that the United States " will
always oppose the effort of one nation to
conquer another nation." We share the
President's realization that this course must
be pursued "because our own security is at
stake."
We also welcome the President's emphasiz-
ing that "the central lesson of our time is
that the appetite of aggression is never satis-
fied" and that, in Vietnam or in any other
part of the world where our country bears
an international responsibility," we fight be-
cause we must fight, if we are to live in
a world where every country can shape its
own destiny. And only in such a world will
our own freedom be finally secure."
Wisconsin Senate Passed Resolution on
Western District Judgeship
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. MELVIN R. LAIRD
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 15, 1965
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, under
unanimous consent, I include Wisconsin
Senate Resolution 18, relating to the
vacancy in the Federal judgeship for the
western district of Wisconsin, in the ap-
pendix of the RECORD at this point:
SENATE RESOLUTION 18
Resolution relating to the vacancy in the
Federal judgeship for the western district
of Wisconsin
Whereas except for a brief interim ap-
pointment, the Federal court for the west-
ern district of Wisconsin has been without
a judge since January 13, 1963; and
Whereas this unreasonable delay deprives
the citizens of the western district of Wis-
consin of due process of law in the Federal
courts; and
Whereas there are any number of qualified
candidates for the position: Now, therefore,
belt
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
A1936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX April 2,2, 1965
Resolved by the senate, That President
Lyndon B. Johnson is hereby advised of the
concern of the citizens of Wisconsin over
the vacancy in the western district of Wis-
consin; and, be it further
Resolved, That the citizens of Wisconsin
speaking through their elected representa-
tives, the Wisconsin State Senate, urge
President Johnson to fill the vacancy with-
out further delay.
PATRICK CILL,Y,
President of the Senate.
Vnurszvc r. NUGENT,
Chief Clerk of the Senate.
Historic School Bill
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
.HON. WIWAM S. MOORHEAD
istEleattvilitrA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPOSENTATIVES
Monday, April 1, 1965
Mr. 140011:HEAD. Mr. Speaker, ,the
historic Elementary and Secondary Edu-
cation Act of 1.965 will benefit all Anieri-
cans. It will also benefit our children
and our children's children. I call to
the attention of Members of the House
the following editorial on this landmark
legislation from a reCept issue of the
Fittsburgh Past-Gazette:
HISTORIC SCHOOL BILL
Of all the legislation that has been enacted
by Congress since Lyndon Johnson became
President?and there has been a considerable
body of its?none more plainly bears his per-
sonal imprint than the Federal aid-to-edu-
cation bill which cleared the final legislative
hurdle in the Senate last Friday.
As the first successful product of nearly
20 yearS Of effort in Congress to provide
broad Federal support for public schools, the
new measure is a testimonial to the remark-
able political generalship of Mr. Johnson.
While passage of the bill was undoubtedly
aided by the heavy Democratic majorities in
both Houses, skilled leadership from the
White House was clearly helpful in enabling
the measure to weather souse floor debate
With only a minor revision' and Senate floor
debate with not a comma changed.
This demonstration of political virtuosity
does not mean, however, that the legislation
is without fault. Its various provisions for
public aid to parochial school students raise
important questions among sincere people
as to whether the constitutional bather be-
tween church and state is being breaohed.
And the bill contains no clearcut method of
getting these questions squarely before the
Supreme Court. In order-to avoid a para-
lyzing battle among proponents of various
views, the language of the measure was in-
tentionally made fuzzy?a technique which
may give rise to additional problems, al-
though the hope is that these may be met
hq amendments next year:
- Whatever its shortcomings, the aid to edu-
cation measure is of momentous social sig-
nificance. Though it is aimed primarily at
upgrading the education of children of-law-
n:mine families, funds from the act will he
channeled into- an estimated 94 percent of
the Nation's 26,000 school districts, Though
the first year's $1.3 billion authorization
for'building construction,iteacher ssdaries; in-
strilcticaial materials, special education,. and
other projects, will amount to a fairly small
fraction Of the total annual outlay forpub-
lic education, futnre Federal allocations are
expected to rise, reaching $2.4 billion a year
by 1968. This infusion of Federal support
can hardly fail to have an uplifting effect
on overcrowded and underequipped public
educational facilities, not only directly rais-
ing their quality but hopefully also gen-
erating new support at local and State levels,
from which the bulk of financing will still
have to come.
Some inferences as to the role of Federal
aid in Pennsylvania may be drawn by com-
paring the anticipated allocations under the
new statute with present State and local
school expenditures. Total public spend-
f or elementary and secondary education in
Pennsylvania now runs to more than $900
million a year. About $62 million in Fed-
eral aid statewide will be added to this. The
Pittsburgh school district's annual budget is
some $40 million. Pittsburgh's share of Fed-
eral aid will be a roughly estimated $3 mil-
lion.
Since regulations for the distribution of
funds under the new law have not yet been
drawn, no one can yet say whether Federal
dollars for schools in poverty-stricken areas
will enable the Pittsburgh School District
and others to readjust their budgets so as
to spend more for other needs. But Pitts-
burgh Superintendent Sidney P. Marland
hopes there will be an across-the-board gain
for education. Pittsburgh schools need
whatever help they can get to achieve their
long-term objectives of (1) building 20 new
schools under a 5-year $50 million construc-
tion program, (2) hiring 600 new teachers to
help reduce class sizes eventually to a de-
sirable 26 or 27 pupils, (3) Improving voca-
tional and counseling services,
To the extent that the historic Federal
aid statute can help Pittsburgh and other
hard-pressed districts to achieve such goals,
it will indeed be contributing to what Presi-
dent Johnson has visualized as the Great
Society.
Opinion in the Capital
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Or
HON. EDNA F. KELLY
or NEW "YORK
IN THE rtotrst OF REPRESENTATIVE'S
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the night
of Sunday, March 26, 1965, was a most
noteworthy occasion.
On that night, the Honorable MARGARET
CHASE SMITH gave a dinner party to a
dear friend and colleague, Congress-
Woman FRANCES BOLTON.
I was so protid to have been included
in this intimate group of family and
friends. FRANCES is a most remarkable
Person and a valiant woman and I am
happy to be privileged to insert in the
RECORD the transcript of an interview be-
tween these two great public servants.
The interview follows:
OPINION IN THE CAPITAL
(Produced by Florence Lowe)
(A Metropolitan Television Broadcasting
Production (WTTG, Washington, D.C.)
Mareh 28, 1965)
GUesis: Senator MARGARET CHASE SMITH,
Republican, of Maine, and Representative
Fiances Boirost, Republicari, of Ohio.
Reporter: Mark Evans, vice president in
charge 'a public affairs for Metromedia, Inc.
This program will also be broadcast on:
TV: WNEW, New York, N.Y.; WTVP, De-
catur, Ill.; WTV11, Peoria, Ill.; WTTG,
Washington, D.C.; KTTV, Los Angeles, Calif.;
?KMBC, Kansas City, Mo.; Eastern Educa-
tional Network (13 stations).
Radio: WIP, Philadelphia, Pa.; WILK,
Cleveland, Ohio; EMBO, Kansas City, Mo.;
WNEW, New York, N.Y.; Armed Forces Ric.clio
Network.
Mr. EVANS. In the 87th Congress, there
were 20 women, 2 in the Senate and 18 in
the House of Representatives. Now, in the
89th Congress, there are still 2 lady Sena-
tors, but only 10 women in the Hotta of
Representatives. Representative BOLTON,
how do you account for this?
lVfrs. Bor.:rms. Oh, the men.
Mr. EVANS. What's your opinion, Senator
MARGARET CHASE SMITH?
Mrs. SMITH. Oh, I think one reason is, that
there aren't enough qualified women who
run for office.
Mr. EVANS Metromedia's "Opinion in the
Capital" is honoring Representative PRANCES
BOLTON on her silver anniversary in the Con-
gress of the United States. Senator MARGA-
RET CHASE SMITH is our special guest to pay
tribute to her long-time friend.
Representative Boraces', I detected a little
bit of sarcasm in there when you said the
men are responsible for the lack of women.
Mrs. BOLTON. Well, you see what the linen
did. They gerrymandered various districts
on the Democratic side. They didn't do that
on our side.
Mr. EVANS. Did they gerrymander women
out?
Mrs. BOLTON. They gerrymandered women
out, which I thought was too bad * * * they
were fine women.
Mrs. Slums. But, where were the women
while they were doing this?
Mrs. BOLTON. Well, they were only Demo-'
crats mind you, I wouldn't know just wbere
they were.
Mr. EVANS. I think there should be a very
fine distinction drawn here. There is a very
great difference between politicians who are
women and women in politics.
Mrs. BOLTON. Oh, that's interesting.
Mr. EVANS. I certainly think you are both
women in politics. You're women first but
I wonder why neither of you have ever mar-
ried again.
Mrs. BOLTON. I thought one marriage was
enough.
Mr. EVANS. Well, you had a very good one
then?
Mrs. BOLTON. I had a very good one.
Mr. EVANS. Margaret, have you ever
thought of this?
Mrs. SMITH. Yes, indeed, I thought cf it
very seriously, back along?I haven't lately,
I've been too busy. .I haven't had rr any
offers.
Mr. EvAars. Well, I'm sure this may pro-
voke some. Are there problems in this?
Being in politics and leading this kind of
life that would lead to another math ige?
MTS. SMITH, I don't think there are too
many problems. I don't know any reason
why a woman couldn't be married and serve
In public office as well as a than in public
office being married. I think 'men and wo-
men work together, whichever way it is.
Mr. EVANS. Both of you can In, and this
iS probably a very cruel thing to say, but
you both came in the back door of poli-
tics, Your husbands were in politics and
you inherited the kingdom and have held
them admirably since.
Mrs. BOLTON. But remember, we had to
be elected to it.
Mr. EVANS. I know that, subsequently. -
Mrs. 13ovroN. That's not just inheriting it.
Mr. EVANS. No, I agree, but originally you
inherited it.
Mrs. Illoorost, Yes. No, oh no. We had
to be elected.
Mr. EVANS. I thought you had to be ap-
pointed.
Mrs. BOI.TOIV. No, no. No appointments
in Ohio.
Mrs. SMITH. The Senate vacancies are filled
by appointments in some States. But, the
House is always by election, and we were
both elected. I must say I think PRANCES
had a tough election and campaign the first
Mine. I'm sure that I did.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7962 Approved ForlkAraiW20tiaPio1114/ikWikilinigAWT6rR00030015002411frii 22, 1965
of scarcity the existing Uses of Colonel? River
water in Arizona and in California to the ex-
tent of 4.4 million acre-feet would be given
priority. Some people in California urged
that my amendment terminate after 25 years.
Their theory Wait that Congrees would provide
California with additional water within such
a period of time, But that Is a hail theory.
Anyway, if Congress were to do so, no herrn
would result from my amendment Contra-
wise, If Congress failed to de so, only one
State would suffer. if the waters iii the river
diminished. Our water agenciee objected to
a 25-year guarantee. So did I. I suggested
that it was like eating a man a life insur-
ance policy which provided that the policy
would lapse if the Insured individual were
to die.
The truth is that it is becoming increas-
ing difficult to enact giant water projects.
And I must frankly say that there are peo-
ple In Washington. in and out of Congress,
who are somewhat averse to passing any
legisletion helpful to our State. They lire
blind to the fact that our Slate's popula-
tion increases 000,000 a year. They pooh-
pooh the free that tens of thelismets of rair
school tint:alma attend ta:11001 coly Mai days
because of a lack of fecilitee.
At any rate, there is a groeeng danger of
shortage in the river. borne day, and not
too far in the future. the Pacific B.outhwest.
is going to require the ineportetion of Sup-
plemental water from some surplus northern
source in, order to unshackle our otherwise
Inevitable future growth. Arid lt.la going
to take the beat exertions of all the Stetee
involved, and not just California, to enact
the necesaary Federal statutes. All 'his Col-
orado River State:, share tile problem in
varying degrees. And It will be far baster,
and the chances of legislative SUCCeSS le?
far greater, If the States work together ef-
fectively rather than be ready to pounce at,
eaeh other's throats.
Where there Is a riek, common to two
Stated or more, should not the risk It
mitared? If there is clanger to two people.
or to two States, why should one alone face
it. Should they not stand together to repel
It? That is the position of your southern,
California water agencies, a potetion %Alien
I wholeheartedly accepted from the begin-
ning.
Several weeks ago in Washington, Secre-
tary of the Interior Udall called a meeting
attended by Governor Brown, of California.
Governor Goddard, of Arizona, Senators
HAYDEN and FANNIN, of Arizona; and myself
My California colleague, Senator idnaenly,
was ussavoidably absent but Ids views mad
mine are the same, and I spoke for both of
its. We discussed the obvious need for ad-
ditional water supply to both our Settee.
am glad to say it was agreed that, at long
last, Arizona and California should loin
forces as good Comrades and friends, oral
that we should together seek the means by
which to avoid a shortage of water in the
river In the years and generations abeed.
We generally recognized that existing uses
of Colorado River water in both Arizona arid
California ought to receive protection over
new Uses which would come Into existeacia
when, for example, the $1 billions central
Arizona project would be built, as we krinw
it, must and should be built.
As a result of that meeting, legal repre-
sentatives of those in attendance and of our
water agencies met to draft a bill.
Here (I with to pay tribute to a great water
lawyer, Northeutt Ely, whose experience,
whose skill, and who Indefatigable energy
have been of enormous benefit to our cause.
He has performed valiant service to our
State. He was the leader in drafting the
present WI, and his advice has been of im-
measurable assistance to all of us who have
Labored to ftnd a fair and equitable answer
to a loaa and bitter :e.rugiee. I MUM, LOU,
give thanks to your own Bob Will whose
fidelity f,, this cause hats been constant, and
whose help has been invaluable.
The guarantee to California of 4.4 million
;sore- feet ef Colorado River water annually
.was written into the draft legislation. This
proposed legislation recoguizes the validity
end the integrity of California's claim. It
provider that if there Is insufficient Colo-
ratio River water to supply 7.5 million acre-
feet of consumptive use, divergence to the
central Arizona project shall be reduced to
the extent necessary to supply 4.4 million
acre-feet of existing Mies and decreased rights
in California and to supply Mintier existing
uses and rights In Arizona and Nevada as
well It further provides that this protec-
tion shall remain In force until the Presi-
dent procielms that additional public weeks
carry into the river, from an outside source,
2.5 naillan ecre-feet of supplemental water.
Thus, this proposal gives to California a
guarantee against new water demands which
the ,ientral Arizona project will create And
when finally surplus waters in the north are
transported thousands of tailea Into the
Coa auto 'riser main stream, toy a iiew re-
payalae Federal under-
taltiag. Calliorria's future requirement's, far
el excess of 4.4, will be met by the Colorado
Inter .Old ',y the supplemental waters which
will le, poorer: into this selfsame stream.
On Fein eery 8, I lutrudueed this legisla-
tion for myself and Senator MURVIIY, It
was subsequently introduced by all 9 Arizona
flepreaentativem and by la of California's
Ftn'prein 'itmcthv ci, Tle, two Governors have
publiily I act raid It Senator nitYT,til,
:;tatert that he a 1P rola, rt it as Inca Sem.
ator FANNrti .is wel Teey have 1-10I., how -
eter. plat Melt mines on toe bill as co,
am thothyn. as 1 an their Governor
aaorsc 0 '1, ond the!, Arizona collatignea
hate all introduee I the same bill
daY' ego, eeearor liseinee Governor
Caen:lard and I met with Ii esident Johnson,
The President ;um interest in ap-
proving inv bill He instructed his stair to
antier with the Budge! Bureau and the Sec-
retary of the Interior to discuss the coo-
manic* ef the legislation, relative to the
Bureates report which must be made. I
venture to 'lope that the executive branch
will sanction this undertaking If that is
done, I think the Representatives in the Con-
greoil of all the Banta Stales may well give
their apprigid. We will need all the help we
can get.
The conarrtiethin of the central Arizona
oro)ect will be the that in a sirlas of author-
Ization.? winch ?loans' will bring new wider
into the :a:ilia-Ai-emu or the low en baain Scar-
city would be avoided and tile app re n 1 -
Mons of the Upper Basin States would be
igatved Our obligation to Mexico would be
fulfilled, and all the S'attea along the river
could far better plan tor their futeme writer
needs.
I think the agreement of our two States
Is me happy aorl ii unplc total developmeot. We
can now work together for the good of both.
All the imprecations and intierness of bygone
year, ma' not,, he swept away Aa good
neighbors, Arizoita and Califinnia Call work
Ion the in:atilt/pine/it and progreas of both
our people, and it brighter light will shine
upon our future. We nuts, look forward
with coueldernble assurance to an inererus-
Mg, rather than a dwindling, water supply.
The magnet which hes drawn, and is draw-
leg, millions of people to this corner of the
continent, 110.08 nut seem to be toeing its
power. If we can solve the problem of an
adequate water supply, then the 40 million
Californiem, who will call this State their-
home in the year 2000, well fulfill Use hopes
and dreams we proudly and fondly have for
the future of our State,
NEGOTIATIONS TO BRING ABOUT
A PEACEFUL, JUST, AND HONOR-
ABLE SETTLEMENT IN VIETNAM
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, few Sena-
tors, and few people of the United States
have as full an understanding of foreign
affairs arid how to get along with the peo-
ple of other countries as has the Senator
from Kentucky lMr, Coorral, There-
fore, I believe it is partlCularlY appropri-
ate at this time to have printed in the
Itucorro all editorial which was published
in the Glearier-Journal, of Henderson,
Ky., on Friday. April 9, 1965, I
unanimous CortSeni, that it be printed.
There being no objection, the edit?
Was ordered to be printed in the RISCOMV.
as follows:
TIMELY APparess
On March 25, Kentucky's JOHN einiasseer
cooexa, in a speech before the Senate, asked ?
Presideut Johnson ten make it clear that OUT
Gmernmeni, i.c.t a'11:1hg to enter into nego-
/lateens to mine about a peaceful, just, and
llontjrit(, me'it noun in Vietnam.
On Apr:1 ? cm issue noire than 2 weeks later,
Pretuderir Jonlim.ilk lots followed Up On Sena-
tor tiaiiiera'a ray ureat 'rhe President said in
televised speech Wednesday night that the:
Un; ted eta test Is ready to begin, without prime
condittotis, diplomatic discussions to end the -
war In Vietriani
Though the Prealcient said that our Gov-
ernment has !wen willing to conduct such
eeteeiele,,,ne !ore. he has never said this
restate:1y
erevioesey. is :lona :or Comez pointed out,
Inn teetrri its:. ?. mi Unposed certem cons
titieee, before o?.y negoliaticais could be
.-Larted Tha Coatimunist Chlinsae and the
North VhIth:ouec,.. Eaht t: the United states
vioind oats to inn or Vietnam n before
nefaitlictioria eiaticl begin. Quite naturally.
ohr Cloverhtorl:I. (^Minot, agree to any such
notion But tit, tallied States imposed Ks
eve. conditioe, that the interven-
tion and aggression oi North Vietnam must
cease before negutiattona start.
Senator Cociarac noted that in this atmos-
phere, bote sides were seeking "a kind of
utacontiltii and surrender. I'belleve it more
rerusonable to aay drat We am prepared to
enter Into t e negotiations "
Recallina, evertor leading up to the cease-
ere le F(,), f';. irrat noted that neither side
In that votilhc. imprased previous eonditions
prier to the !leant oinns.
"Through mai it no tuna, the effort :tele
matte to atotin the objectives that we still
beta; today,- t.,:tid CoOrta.
Every Amer ICK1) ought to realize that the
United Satin, !ever accept the condi-
tions now unposed by the Communists " ? ?
Slid It Is reasonaloe to say that they will not
accept ours. There is no evidence that the
Communion; all' Whiling to negotiate at all
or that they will agree to any settlement
which would end their support of the CO-
called war of ustee ell liberation which they
IlaVe initiate.." !sod Cm-spER
Ihdt it for Ill ml atitiOttliatioterit by the Presi-
dent that tile limited States is willing to
negotiate without prior conditions would
clear the air. Previldent Johnson has
maria euch iii mac III 0 neernent,
The Gleaner-Journal commends Sena
Cooeza for lila ',cry timely speech in the
ate. There ii tie deubt that the speech
a beneficial ellect on T.7f3. policy.
Kentuckians can be grateful that Sena
Coorea Is on the alert in following r
relations policy ilia remarks triggered
comment The fact that our Govern
has altered its course la indicative of
importance or iiirra's speech.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
pril 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
ESIDENT JOHNSON'S RECENT
VISIT TO MIDWEST HEARTENED
CITIZENS OF OHIO
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
a April 14 President Johnson person-
ly visited the tornado-ravaged sections
Ohio and neighboring States. Our
resident again demonstrated his deep
)ncern over the problems faced by citi-
ms in distress. It was not satisfactory
) Lyndon Johnson to receive factual re-
orts of the sad loss of life and of dam-
ge caused by this disaster. He had to
ie firsthand the havoc and misery re-
ulting from this tragedy.
Almost immediately help was forth-
*ming from many agencies of the Fed-
:ral Government. The Farmers Home
A.dministration made available loans for
'armers in this area unable to obtain as-
sistance from other sources. Officials of
the Small Business Administration set
up disaster loan offices for businessmen
and homeowners in all of the stricken
areas. Officials of the Office of Emer-
gency Planning established a disaster
field office to facilitate that agency's role
in supplementing State and local emer-
gency efforts. The President's visit did
much to hearten and encourage families
who suffered great hardship as a result
of the tornado.
Mr. President, upon his arrival at To-
ledo on April 14 and before his departure
from that city on the same day, Presi-
dent Johnson made two brief speeches.
They both express clearly our President's
real and sincere concern in the welfare
of all Americans. I ask unanimous con-
sent that his remarks be printed at this
point in the RECORD as part of my re-
marks.
There being no objection, the remarks
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT ON ARRIVAL AT
TOLEDO, OHIO
I am delighted to be here this afternoon
with Governor Rhodes, Congressmen ASHLEy,
SWEENEY, FEIGHAN, VANIK, LOVE, Bow, and
MOSHER.
I have visited today in three States. I have
flown across and observed from the air six
States. All these States were struck by the
tragedies of this past weekend.
I have come here this afternoon to Toledo
to see firsthand, to look for myself at the
extensive damages caused and to meet with
your public officials to plan with them the
support and the action that the Federal Gov-
ernment can take in assisting your city and
your citizens to meet the challenge which
has been inflicted so cruelly and so unex-
pectedly.
No words of ours would be adequate to ex-
press the sympathy and compassion of the
entire Nation for those who have suffered
the loss of loved ones or injuries to members
of their families. So I want each of you to
know that we share with you the heavy-
heartedness that I know weighs upon you
now.
It is an American characteristic to be con-
cerned not about self alone but about the
fate and the fortune of your neighbors and
your friends under circumstances such as
these. It is also an American characteristic
for those who have suffered hardship and
tragedies to turn quickly and hopefully to
the task of reconstruction.
Wherever we have gone throughout this
long, long day I have seen that spirit and
I have seen it in Americans and it is strong
and it is sure.
I would like to express to you my personal
concern as evidenced by my presence here
and my condolences. I would also, as your
President, like to pledge to you the full co-
operation and support of your Government
in working with your State and with your
local officials to help overcome the losses
that so many of you have suffered.
Governor Rhodes was in contact with us
yesterday. We told him then that the full
facilities and power of the Federal Govern-
ment were at your disposal. We will be here
today to take a firsthand look. We hope by
the time we get back to Washington tonight
we can have plans in the offing to relieve as
much misery as possible and to begin our
task of rebuilding.
Unfortunately throughout the years we
suffer from these disasters, and we can't help
that, but once we have ttliem we can do some-
thing about it. That l's what I have come
here to do.
Thank you very much.
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT ON DEPARTURE
FROM TOLEDO, OHIO
Governor Rhodes, Members of Congress,
public officials, my dear friends in Ohio, for
many years I have been coming to this won-
derful State and meeting its fine citizens. I
always enjoy learning that I am scheduled
to be here, and I always hate to leave. But
for myself and all the people that traveled
with me from Washington, this has been a
day of both heartsickness and hopefulness.
We have much to be thankful for. Each
of us don't know how lucky we are until
we see what has happened to our neighbors
through no fault of their own.
From the air and on the ground today we
have seen destruction and desolation the
kind of which I have never seen before in all
of my life. It is of the very worst degree.
When you think of the lives that are lost,
the lives that have been changed, the lives
which will forever bear the memory of this
sad Sunday, when you look at the little boys
with the holes in the top of their head,
the mothers' homes that were there yesterday
and now are gone they know not where, it is
enough to bring tears to the eyes of any-
one.
Yet, we have seen very few tears in these
six States that we have visited today. At
the very worst of the stricken neighborhoods
we have seen the young, we have seen the
old standing there shoulder-to-shoulder
planning hopefully for tomorrow.
Well, that is the purpose of our mission?
to come here to personally extend our sym-
pathy and our condolence, to try to learn
and understand about what has happened,
and then try to do something.
There are talkers and there are doers, and
there are people who believe in action, and
there are people who put it on the back
burner. But we want to be certain that
everything is done as rapidly and as effec-
tively as it can be done. We want to re-
build for tomorrow.
In a situation such as this, it is the role
of the Federal Government to assist the
States; for the President to work with the
Governor; for the Governor to work with the
mayors, and all of us to work together. While
there are limits to what we can do, / want
to pledge this afternoon to every citizen, to
every community afflicted by the tornadoes
or the floods, that your Government, and
your President, will do everything conceiv-
ably possible to be of assistance under our
laws.
Before I leave, I want to congratulate espe-
cially the Governors, the mayors, and the
local officials that we have talked to in these
areas. Each of them are tremendously con-
cerned and want to do all they can. You
have one of the finest delegations in the
Congress, and each of those men are here
with me today and are going back to roll up
their sleeves and try to redo what was un-
done only yesterday and the day before.
I am pleased by the ready, willing under-
standing, and the cooperation which exists
7963
between the Federal Government and the
State of Ohio, between the Federal Govern-
ment and the local governments. Everywhere
I have gone I have heard the very highest .
praise for the performance of the National
Guard, and the highway patrol, the State
police, the local law-enforcement officers, as
well as the Red Cross. I want to express my
personal appreciation to each citizen who is
giving much of himself to be helpful and
useful to his neighbors and his community
in these times of need. This is really Amer-
ica at its finest and at its best.
I remember back when I was a youngster
growing up. When adversity would overtake
my family we would all pull a little bit
closer together and try to be sorry for the
things we said just the day before about
each other?our brothers and our sisters, and
maybe our fathers and our mothers. So, in
this hour of adversity we are not concerned
with titles or positions, we are not concerned
with parties or politics. We are concerned
with the country that we all love so much.
As I speak here men are manning their
stations 10,000 miles from here in order to
protect the freedom that we enjoy here. And
I hope that when we get ready to turn out
the light tonight each of us will say a prayer
for them, and also for these poor people who
have suffered these great losses, suffered them
with their chins up and their chests out,
and who are ready to roll up their sleeves
tomorrow when we build what has been taken
from them.
This has been a sad experience for me to-
day. It has been a long one that began at
5:30 this morning. I am due to report to 33
Senators at 6 o'clock in Washington this eve-
ning. And I am going to report to them on
what is happening in Vietnam and what is
happening out here in the heartland of Amer-
ica. I am so proud that / am privileged to
live in a country and to lead a country like
the United states, and one of the really best
parts of that country is the State of Ohio and
you people that live here.
Thank you so much.
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITU-
TION OF THE UNITED STATES RE-
LATING TO THE SUCCESSION OF
THE PRESIDENCY AND VICE PRES-
IDENCY
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask that
the Chair lay before the Senate a mes-
sage from the House of Representatives
amending Senate Joint Resolution 1, pro-
posing an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States relating to the suc-
cession of the Presidency and Vice Presi-
dency and to cases where the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before
the Senate the amendment of the House
of Representatives to the joint resolution
(S.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States re-
lating to succession to the Presidency and
Vice Presidency and to cases where the
President is unable to discharge the pow-
ers and duties of his office which was, to
strike out all after the resolving clause
and insert:
That the following article is proposed as an
amendrhent to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the several States within seven years from
the date of its submission by the Congress:
"ARTICLE ?
"SECTION 1. In case of the removal of the
President from office or of his death or resig-
nation, the Vice President will become Presi-
dent.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: 61A-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
7964
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 196,
"SEC. 2. Wherever there is a vacancy in the
office of the Vice President, the President
shall nominate a Vice President who shall
take office upon confirmation by a majority
vote of both Houses of Congress.
"SEC. 3. Whenever the President transmits
to the President pro tempore of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives his written declaration that he is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, and until he transmits a written decla-
ration to the contrary, such powers and du-
ties shall be discharged by the Vice President
as Acting President.
"Sno. 4. Whenever the Vice President and
a majority of the principal officers of the
executive departments, or such other body
as Congress may by law provide, transmit to
the President pro tempore of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their written declaration that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office, the Vice President shall imme-
diately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.
"Thereafter, when the President transmits
to the President pro tempore of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives his writtefi declaration that no inability
exists, he shall resume the powers and duties
of his office unless the Vice President and a
majority of the principal officers of the ex-
ecutive departments, or such other body as
Congress may by law provide, transmit within
two days to the President pro tempore of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives their written declaration that
the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office. Thereupon
Congress shall decide the issue, assemblying
within forty-eight hours for that purpose if
not in session. If the Congress, within ten
days after the receipt of the written declara-
tion of the Vice President and a majority of
the principal officers of the executive depart-
ments, or such other body as Congress may
by law provide, determines by two-thirds vote
of both Houses that the President is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of the
office, the Vice President shall continue to
discharge the same as Acting President; oth-
erwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office."
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, on April
13, 1965, the House of Representatives
passed the above-mentioned joint reso-
lution with amendments. Because of
the substantial changes made, I move
that the Senate disagree to the amend-
ments of the House of Representatives,
that a conference be requested, and that
the Chair appoint the conferees on the
part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. BAYII,
Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. ERVIN, Mr. DIRKSEN,
and Mr. HRUSKA conferees on the part of
the Senate.
Whereas Senate bill 1592 has been pre-
sented to Congress containing proposed
amendments to the Federal Firearms Act;
and
Whereas Senate bill 1592 can in no way
accoMplish its purpose of the suppression of
crime in the United States, but contains pro-
visions which will abridge and encumber
the right of law-abiding free people to own
and bear arms; and
Whereas such attempted legislation can
lead to a further attempt to disarm the law-
abiding gun-owning public and hamper
their ability of self protection: Now, there-
fore, be it
Resolved, That the Dallas Gun Club be
recorded as opposed to the passage of Sen-
ate bill 1592 and be further recorded as de-
manding a public hearing on said bill.
RESOLUTION OF THE DALLAS GUN
CLUB CONCERNING PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE tohl)ERAL
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the
board of directors of the Dallas Gun Club
recently adopted a resolution concerning
proposed amendments to the Federal
Firearms Act. In order that other Sen-
ators may share the views of this dis-
tinguished club, I ask that the resolution
be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, RS follows:
board of directors of the San Antonio Hom(
builders Association.
LLOYD W. BOOTH,
President.
Attest:
CARL E. NIEMEYER,
Secretary.
RESOLUTION OF RETIREES OF THI
MONSANTO CO. CONCERNTNC
MEDICAL CARE LEGISLATION
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, retirees
of the Monsanto Co. at Texas City, Tex.,
recently unanimously adopted a succinct
and thoughtful resolution concerning
medical care legislation. In order that
other Senators may share the convictions
of these Monsanto Texas City alumni, I
ask that the resolution be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Be it resolved, That we, the retirees of
Monsanto Co. at Texas City, Tex., are un-
alterably opposed to the medicare bill as
presently written or any other bill that pro-
vides for:
1. Financing through increased social
security tax of a compulsory nature.
2. Benefits limited primarily to hospital
costs to the exclusion of other major medi-
cal expenses, such as?doctor's fees, drug
fees (outside of hospitals), etc.
3. Coverage of everyone 65 and over
regardless of their financial status.
Furthermore, that Texas Congressmen be
urgently requested to vote against the medi-
care bill or any other bills which includes
the provisions of this resolution.
Respectfully submitted.
M. D. VARNADORE,
President,
Monsanto Texas City Alumni.
TEXAS CITY, TEX.
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN ANTO-
NIO HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIA-
TION CONCERNING H.R. 6363
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, the San
Antonio Homebuilders Association re-
cently passed a strong and thoughtful
resolution concerning H.R. 6363. I com-
mend to the Senate the views of the as-
sociation upon the most pressing matter
involved in this bill, and I ask that the
association's resolution be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Whereas the board of directors of the San
Antonio Homebuilders Association supports
the principal purpose of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, namely, to foster
peaceful relationships between labor and
management throughout the Nation, includ-
ing the homebuilding and construction in-
dustry; and
Whereas legislation (HR. 6363) has been
introduced for consideration by the 89th Con-
gress which would change this law to permit
a union within the industry to apply coercive
picket and strike pressures against neutral
employees and employers performing work at
a construction site where such union has a
primary labor dispute with another em-
ployer; and
Whereas secondary strike or boycott pres-
sure against neutral and innocent employees
and employers by such unions in the industry
was outlawed by the Congress under this law
in 1947, and reaffirmed in 1959 by passage of
the Landrum-Griffin labor reform law, to
protect and insulate such neutral parties
from being injured through irresponsible and
damaging acts of such unions; and
Whereas picketing and strike coercion by
construction unions against such neutral
and innocent employees and employers not
involved in the primary labor disputes will
result in loss of employment by such em-
ployees and direct harm to the business of
the neutral employer and cause increased
home building and construction costs to the
American home buyer and the Federal Gov-
ernment: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the board of directors of the
San Antonio Flomebuilders Association urges
Hon. RALPH W. YARBOROUGH and Hon. Jousr
TOWER, U.S. Senators, and Hon. HENRY B.
GONZALEZ, House of Representatives, 20th
District, Texas, to oppose vigorously HR.
6363 and similar bills which would make any
change in the National Labor Relations Act's
ban against secondary boycott strike and
picketing by unions in the construction in-
dustry as destructive to the basic purpose of
this law, contrary to the general public wel-
fare and as harmful special interest legis-
lation.
Adopted this 6th day of April 1965, by the
RESOLUTION OF THE McLENNAN
COUNTY, TEX., CENTRAL LABOR
COUNCIL CONCERNING VOTING
RIGHTS
Mr. TOWER,. Mr. President, the Mc-
Lennan County, Tex., Central Labor
Council recently passed a most succinct
and thoughtful resolution concerning the
protection of voting rights. I support
the council's determination that no
American be denied the right to vote be-
cause of discrimination, and I ask unani-
mous consent that the resolution be
printed at this point in the RECORD SO
that other Senators may review it.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
RESOLUTION TO PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS
Whereas organized labor's struggle for free-
dom was much like the present day struggle
of Negroes for freedom; and
Whereas by the events these past few days
we have seen a basic freedom denied; and
Whereas if the right to vote can be denied,
the right to picket an employer while on
strike can also be denied; and
Whereas the President of the United States
made a speech Monday night and introduced
legislation that would protect the right to
register to vote: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the McLennan County
COPE, AFL-CIO, let it be known that we
favor legislation that would protect this
freedom; and be it further
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
yril 22, 1965 CON6RESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
esolved, That We favor quick passage of
; legislation.
Passed Wednesday night, March 17, 1965.)
('HE CRISIS IN SOD LH. VIETNAM
Ur. CLARK. Mr. President, every day
celerates the crisis in South Vietnam.
le problems that confront the Presi-
nt are indeed difficult of solution. The
vice that he is receiving from various
urces is conflicting.
We must all give the President our weakness of the Chinese-expansion argu-
import in the most difficult decisions ment, as it relates to Vietnam, ? is that China
hich confront him. My personal view
has thus far displayed no wish to invade
southeast Asia. To date, Chinese troops have
in secorcl with that expressed by my not been fighting in Vietnam. Moreover,
istinguished colleague and seatmate, China hasn't yet moved a cadre of "advisers"
ie senior Senator from Idaho [Mr. into North Vietnam that begins to compare.
BUSCH]. in numbers of men or in the amount of aid
I ask unanimous consent that a closely given, to the American presence in the
easoned and extremely able article en- south. The best way to keep China out of
itled "WesShould Negotiate a Settlement Vietnam is to settle the war there. An
escalation of the war northward, if it con-
n Vietnam," written by Senator CHURCH, tinues unabated, is the most likely way to
laid published in the April 24 issue of the draw Chinese armies down, thus creating the
Saturday Evening Post, be printed at this very calamity our policy should be designed
Point in the RECORD. to avert.
There being no objection, the article However, a new definition of containment
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, has emerged to justify the deepening in-
as follows: volvement of the United States in the fight-
ing in southeast Asia. Our presence there,
WE SHOULD NEGOTIATE A SETTLEmENT IN it is said, is not to furnish a shield against an
, VIETNAM anticipated Chinese invasion, but rather to
(By Senator FRANK CHURCH) ' counteract the spread of Chinese influence.
Our struggle in South Vietnam has reached U this is our purpose, it is a vain one indeed.
a point where neither side can achieve a con- China is the giant of Asia, unshackled and
elusive military decision, and the only visible determined to reclaim her prerogatives as
prospect for a solution is to be found at the the dominant power of the mainland. In the
conference table. But there is so much Wash- natural course of events, we can no more
ington talk about stepping up the war that expect to deny China her influence in south-
it threatens to engulf all rational discussion east Asia, the region immediately beneath
of the crisis we face?as if peace was some- her, than China could expect to deny the
thing to be avoided!' United States our influence in Central
The war hawks are putting on the heat. America. ?
Anyone who disagrees with them is accused No outpost bristling with bayonets?least
of "running up a white flag." Debate is dis- of all one held in South Vietnam by Ameri-
couraged; dissent is condemned as endanger- can occupation forces?is going to stem the
Ing the country. Any talk of a negotiated spread of Chinese influence in Asia. If we
settlement in Vietnam is equated with Mu- cannot live in a world where the Chinese
Well; any prospect of an eventual American exert influence in Indochina, then we had
. withdrawal is likened to Dunkirk. better forget Vietnam and commence now to
Yet everyone senses that peace in Vietnam destroy and dismember China, something no
can only be restored through a political set- other nation in history has ever managed to
tlement, and that the United States neither do.
wishes nor expects to keep a foothold in But since the conquest of China is not an
southeast Asia. Accordingly, I believe we American ambition, we should stop fooling
should try to break the diplomatic deadlock ourselves with talk that our involvement in
th ill talk") Vietnam can somehow bring an end to the
shores of China. With unchallenged naval
and aerial supremacy we dominate it, patrol
it, and defend it. There is no way for the
landlocked forces of Asia to drive us from the
Pacific. The elephant cannot drive the whale
from the sea, nor the eagle from the sky.
Our presence in the Far East is not anchored
to Vietnam.
I believe that the containment of a hostile
China is a proper goal for American policy.
To avoid Chinese conquest of her neighbors,
we fought in Korea, and we have solemnly
pledged ourselves to defend Taiwan. The
-("FirstST ,
that finds both sides, in effect, demanding the spread of Chinese influence in Asia. In fact,
surrender of the other as the price for nego- the evidence is just the other way around.
tiations. I disagree with the prevailing doe- Because of the extent of our intervention in furnish a solution.
trine that now Isnot the time to parley. The South Vietnam, the Peiping Government is This brings us back to the central ques-
, longer we wait, the harder it will become to able to pose as the champion of Asia for the tion: Why did we intervene in South Viet-
achieve a satisfactory solution. Asians, defying the United States in the nam? President Eisenhower, who committed
Opposing any negotiations, the war hawks name of resisting the return of Western im- us there, expressed the reason, and his sue-
contend that we Americans must first have it periansm. ohou En-lai had reason to rub cessors. Kennedy and Johnson, have faith-
out with the Communists in Vietnam. They his hands with glee when he said recently to fully repeated it. We went in, upon the
see the struggle there, which has thus far a foreign visitor: "Once we worried about' invitation of Saigon (10 governments ago) ,
been mostly confined to the Vietnamese, as southeast Asia. We don't anymore. The to give aid and advice to the Vietnamese who
one of suddenly portentous importance. Americans are rapidly solving our problems were fighting the Vietcong rebels. We can
Hanson Baldwin, military editor for the New for us." - give arms, money, food, training, and equip-
York Times, declares that we should ready Although we cannot immunize southeast ment, which is all we committed ourselves
ourselves to send a million Americans into Asia from Chinese influence, the restoration to do, but we cannot, as a foreign nation,
battle. He writes: "We must fight a war to of peace to this war-weary region offers the win the war. Ultimately, a civil war has to
prevent an irreparable defeat. Vietnam is a little countries of Indochina their best hope be decided by the people of the country
nasty place to fight. But there is no good for remaining independent. They would, of concerned.
place to die. And it is far better to fight in. necessity, establish friendly ties with China, We only deceive ourselves when we pre-
Vietnam?on China's doorstep?than fight staying scrupulously neutral and unalined, tend that the struggle in Vietnam is not a
some years hence in Hawaii, on our own but they need not become the vassal states civil war. The two parts of Vietnam don't
t frontiers." ? that a spreading war, drawing Chinese armies represent two different peoples, with sep-
Such trumpetings substitute sound for in, would surely make them. This even ap- arate identities. Vietnam is a partitioned
sanity. We may have invested prestige in plies to North Vietnam, where nationalist country in the grip of a continuing revolu-
Vietnam, but by no stretch of imagination feeling against China is deep, and where tion. That the Government of North Viet-
does this atruggle threaten the life of our Ho Chi Minh does not yet take his orders nam has deeply involved itself in support, or
country. from Peiping. Clearly, if we seek to restrict even direction, of the rebellion in the south
We conquered the Pacific in the Second Chinese hegemony in southeast Asia, a set- doesn't make the war any less a civil war.
World War. It is our moat, the broadest on tlement in Vietnam is essential. The fighting is still between Vietnamese.
earth, from the Golden Gate to the very Those who urge the contrary course?a The issue is still that of determining what
7965
Korean-type war in Indochina?often argue
that South Vietnam has become the testing
ground of a new and vicious form of Com-
munist aggression, the guerrilla war. They
contend that the Vietcong rebels, though
perhaps not the pawns of Peiping, are at least
the agents of Hanoi; that indirect aggression
by infiltration is being practiced by the North
against the South; and that we Americans
must see to it that the guerrillas are driven
out, or such wars of subversion will spread.
I grant this seems a compelling argument,
but it won't stand up under close analysis.
Communist guerrilla wars didn't begin in
Vietnam and won't end there, regardless of
the outcome of this particular struggle.
American muscle, sufficiently used, may hold
the 17th parallel against infiltrators from the
North, but our bayonets will not stop?they
could even spread?Communist agitation
within other Asian countries. A government
may be checked by force, but not an idea.
There is no way to fence off an ideology.
Indeed, Communist-inspired guerrila wars
have always jumped over boundary lines.
They have erupted in scattered, far-flung
places around the globe, wherever adverse
conditions within a given country permit
Communist subversion to take root. The
threatened governments put down such guer-
rilla uprisings in the Philippines, Malaya,
Burma, and Greece. The decision for Saigon
hangs in the balance.
This is a time of ferment. Some of these
guerrilla revolts will succeed; others will fail.
The outcome, in eabh case, will depend upon
the character of the government challenged,
and the willingness of the people to rally
behind it. That some governments won't
prove equal to the test is no reason for us
to panic. The other governments in south-
east Asia are not so many dominoes in a
row. They differ, one from another, in pop-
ular support and in capacity to resist Com-
munist subversion. We all hope Saigon will
prevail, but the argument that "as goes South
Vietnam, so goes all of southeast Asia,"
is predicated more upon fear than fact.
Communism isn't going to take over the
world; it is much too poor a system for that.
Whether Saigon can meet the test remains
to be seen. Until now, it has been losing its
war, not for lack of arms, but for lack of
internal cohesion. The Vietcong grow
stronger, not because they are better sup-
plied but because they are united in their
will to fight. This spirit cannot be imported
from without. The weakness in South Viet-
nam emanates from Saigon itself, where we,
as foreigners, are powerless to pacify the
spoiling factions. Only the Vietnamese can
No. 71-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 11
groups of Vietnamese shall govern the
country.
It is true, of course, that foreign powers
are interested in the outcome of this struggle,
China favoring Hanoi, the United States
backing Saigon. But, again,, the involve-
ment of outside countries, even when it takes
the form of limited intervention, doesn't
change the essential character of the war.
With the war in Vietnam at a point where
neither side can achieve a conclusive mili-
tary decision, some kind of political settle-
ment has to be worked out. I cannot fur-
nish a precise blueprint for a peaceful settle-
ment. No one can at this point. But I can
indicate, in general terms, a form of settle-
ment that lies in that middle ground that
both sides must seek out if a negotiated
settlement is to be reached. The timing of
any settlement must, of course, be left to the
President. He alone can know whether or
when Hanoi appears willing to bargain.
As for the United States, we can always
deal at the conference table from a strength
that rests not upon the softness of Saigon
but upon our own possession of the sea and
air. Therefore I believe we must demon-
strate that we cannot be driven out of
Indochina, and that we won't bow to a Com-
miinist-dictated peace. Our recent bomb-
ings should make it clear to Hanoi that we
will not quit under fire, or withdraw or sub-
mit to coercion.
At the same time we should make it
eqtally clear that we are prepared to nego-
tiate on honorable terms. The judicious
use of both the arrows and the olive branch,
clutched by the American eagle in the Presi-
dential seal, represents our best hope for
avoiding a Korean-type war on the Aldan
mainland. We should indicate our willing-
ness to interpose a neutral buffer zone in
Indochina, consisting of Laos, Cambodia,
and South Vietnam. Such a zone need not
create a power vacuum for Chinese armies
to fill. This is a more likely result, in the
absence of such an agreement, of an ex-
panded war. The integrity of the neutral-
ized region against invasion from without
could be guaranteed by the signatories to
the agreement. Thus the military might of
the United States would remain a deterrent
to Chinese encroachment from the north,
which is?or ought to be--our primary pur-
pose in southeast Asia anyway. During its
transitional phase such an agreement could
be policed by special forces of an interna-
tional commission, set up to preside over a
cease-fire while political arrangements are
worked out by the people of each country.
Admittedly, this involves the unavoidable
risk that pro-Communist elements may come
to prevail, but the war itself?which sees
Western forces increasingly pitted against
Asians?has become the breeding ground of
steadily growing political support for the
Communist cause. As Prince Sihanouk,
Cambodia's royalist ruler, has pointed out,
the risk of Communist ascendancy after a
settlement grows larger every day the war is
prolonged. If this estimate is correct, and
there is mounting evidence to support it,
then the time to negotiate is now, while the
anti-Communist elements in Indochina still
posses authority.
Now is the time, while the jungles and rice
fields still belong to the Vietnamese, to
strive for an end to the war. Hanoi has
reason to bargain, for she covets her inde-
pendence and has cause to fear China. The
same holds true for Laos, Cambodia, and
South Vietnam. Even the Soviet Union has
incentive to work for a settlement that
will foreclose a Chinese occupation of
southeast Asia. These propitious condi-
tions, all of which work in our favor, are like-
ly to be the first casualties of a widening
War.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I find
myself also in agreement with the over-
all strategic position with respect to our
foreign policy that is outlined from time
to time by the distinguished columnist,
Walter Lippmann.
I ask unanimous consent that a column
printed this morning in the Washington
Post entitled "The Falling Dominoes,"
and an excellent article published in the
April 26 issue of Newsweek magazine, en-
titled "The Test in Vietnam," both arti-
cles being by Mr. Lippmann, be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Apr. 22,
19651
THE FALLING DOMINOES
(By Walter Lippinann)
Why is it, it is time to ask, that our
position in Asia has declined so sharply
though we are widening and intensifying the
war in Vietnam?
According to the so-called domino theory,
the United States would lose the respect and
support of the peoples of Asia if, in confront-
ing Chinese communism, it showed itself to
be a paper tiger and refrained from military
action. For 8 months, since February, we
have applied this theory ever more vigorously.
And what are the results? Quite contrary
to what was predicted: Today the United
States is not only isolated but increasingly
opposed by every major power in Asia.
With the exception of Japan, which has a
government but not a people who support
our policy, all the Asian powers are against
us on this issue, not only China and Indo-
nesia, but the Soviet Union, India, and Paki-
stan. The crucial fact is that although the
Asian powers are by no means at peace with
one another, what they do have in common
is an increasingly vociferous opposition to
the escalated war we have been waging since
February. India and Pakistan, India and
China, China and the Soviet Union are
quarreling to the point of war with one
another. But they are united in con-
demning our February war.
The administration should put this fact
in its pipe and smoke it. It should ponder
the fact that there exists such general Asian
opposition to our war in Asia. The Presi-
dent's advisers can take some comfort, but
mighty little, from the fact that alined with
us is the Thailand Government in Bangkok,
which is independent though weak, the gov-
ernment in Seoul, which we subsidize, the
government in Taipei, which we protect,
the government in Saigon, which governs
something less than half of South Vietnam.
Pondering the matter, we must, alas, put into
the other scale the ominous, rising anti..
Americanism in the Philippines.
The dominoes are indeed falling, and they
are falling away from us.
What is the root of all this swelling anti-
Americanism among the Asians? It is that
they regard our war in Vietnam as a war by
a rich, powerful, white, Western nation
against a weak and poor Asian nation, a
war by white men from the West against
nonwhite men in Asia. We can talk until
the cows come home about how we are
fighting for the freedom of the South Viet-
namese. But to the Asian peoples it is
obviously and primarily an American war
against an Asian people.
In my view the President is in grave
trouble. He is in grave trouble because he
has not taken to heart the historic fact that
the role of the Western white man as a ruler
in Asia was ended forever in the Second
World War. Against the Japanese the West-
ern white powers were unable to defend their
colonies and protectorates in Asia. That
put an end to the white man's domination
in Asia which had begun in the 15th
tuz7.
Since, then, despite our ultimate vie
over the Japanese Empire, the paramc
rule has been that Asians will have tc
ruled by Asians, and that the Western w
powers can never work out a new relati
ship with the Asian peoples except as t
find a basis of political equality and n
intervention on which economic and clan
exchanges can develop.
This great histor'c fact is an exceedin
difficult one for many Westerners to dig
and accept. It is as hard for them to aca
this new relationship with Asia as it is
many a southerner in this country to ace(
the desegregation of schools and public
commodations. The Asia hands who St
instinctively think of Asia in prewar ten
are haunted by Rudyard Kipling and t
white man's burden and the assumption th
east of Suez are the lesser breeds with?
the law.
Until we purge ourselves of these o
preconceptions and Frejudices, we shall in
be able to deal with Asian problems, and a
shall find ourselves, as we are today in Wei
nam, in what the German poet described
the unending pursuit of the ever-fleeting ob
ject of desire. We shall find ourselves wide
ly rejected by the very people we are pro
fessing to save.
Until this purge takes place, we shall gt
on drifting into trouble. For us the prob-
lem in Asia is primarily a problem in ow
understanding of historic reality. In out
view of Asia there will have to be a funda-
mental change akin to the illumination
which has come so recently here at home.
that the American Negro must become a full,
not a second-class citizen.
The day will come when the same kind
of illumination of the facts of life is granted
to the makers of our policy in Asia.
[From Newsweek magazine, Apr. 26, 1965]
THE TEST IN VIETNAM
(By Walter Lippmann)
The President's Baltimore address on Viet-
nam marked a certain change in our of-
ficial policy. For the first time he offered
to engage in discussions with Hanoi without
reserving the right to refuse discussions un-
less certain conditions (Which were riot
specifically stated) were met first.
Although this opened the door a little
for discussions, there is no reason to expect
a diplomatic settlement of the Vietnamese
war in the near future. For the time being
the outcome in Vietnam is being determined
by the course of the war itself, and there
is no disposition as yet on either side to
avoid a military showdown.
The scene of the showdown has been and,
it seems certain, will continue to be in South
Vietnam. It will be a showdown between the
government in Saigon which we are sup-
porting and the Vietcong which Hanoi is
supporting. The issue hangs in whether
there can be a government in Saigon which
is able to subdue the Vietcong rebellion,
pacify the countryside, and get itself ac-
cepted by the preponderant mass of the peo-
ple in the greater part of South Vietnam.
There is now no such government in Saigon.
As a matter of fact, the Saigon government
is in a critical position, having lost con-
trol of a large part of the countryside by
day, of an even larger part at night.
The United States has been committed,
and never more strongly than by the Presi-
dent at Baltimore, to reversing the military
trend in South Vietnam. The President has
undertaken to make the Saigon government,
which is near to defeat and collapse, into the
victor in the civil war. This will take a let
of doing, but the administration has decided
that it will be possible to defeat the Vietcong
in South Vietnam if it is deprived, as the
President put it, "of the trained men and
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP676004461000300150022-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Ayil 22, 1965
sup ies, orders and arms," which flow in a
co ant stream from north to south. This
su ort is the hearbeat of the War."
allE OFFICIAL THEORY
. is i,S the basis of the policy adopted in
ear February, of putting increasing pres-
su on North Vietnam by bombings which
cr nearer and nearer to the highly popu-
latl and industrialized centers around
lififoi and Haiphong. The official theory is
thu by these bombings we can deter Hanoi
frtn supporting the civil war in the south
aI even force Hanei to force the Vietcong
t sk for peace, especially since we are off er-
i4 an attractive economic future if they do
t s. We hope also that the bombings in
ir
ut down the rebellion. It depends in the
t north will inspire and enable the Saigon
g ernment to rally the people and to win
t e war.
W? are now embarked on a crucial test of
t Is theory. Can the Saigon government win
t e civil War while we attack the Hanoi gov-
flaunt? 'the outcome of this test depends
the first place on whether the govern-
ent in Saigon can acquire the military
orale and muster the national support to
second place on whether our bombing can
hurt or frighten the North Vietnamese suf-
ficiently to cause them to stop supporting
Ithe Vietcong rebellion and, indeed, to tell the
Vietcong to desist. .The official policy as-
sumes that they will do that when they are
hurt more 'than they can endure. Looking
at it in a coldbloOded way, this is a test
of a military theory. For my part, I am in-
clined to think that Hanoi will endure all the
punishment that we dare to inflict.
130M5ING CAN'T WIN
1 I am assuming that we dare not and will
not devastate the cities of North Vietnam
and kill great masses of their people. I am
I assuming that we shall not do this because
we are too civilized, and also because the re-
action to such cruelty would be incalculable
in every continent.
The relatively moderate punishment we
^ are inflicting we shall probably continue to
inflict. I believe it will not force the North
Vietnamese to their knees. They are, we
must remember, a country of peasants.
Their industries are comparatively primitive,
and their capacity to do without the prod-
ucts of their industries is quite different
from that, let us say, of a well-to-do, mid-
ale-class American community in an affluent
suburb. Provided they get some food, which
they can from China, they are not likely
to quit and to do what we might want be-
cause their powerplahts and bridges and
factories are demolished. What they are like-
ly to do if we make the north increasingly
uninhabitable is to go south into South Viet-
nam.
So, experience may show that our official
theory of the war is unworkable. If It does,
we shall have to do what we have already
done several times in the course of our en-
tanglement in southeast Asia. We shall have
to change our Minds. This is always a pain-
ful process, especially in a big, proud coun-
try. But it may have to be done, and it
will be done best if we keep the problem
open to free and resolute public debate.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that another closely
reasoned article which appeared in the
New York TiMeS Magazine of April 18
1966, by the distinguished political scien-
tist,' Hans J. Morgenthau, entitled "We
Are Deluding " be Ourselves in Vietnam,
, ,
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
-as follows:
WE ARE DELUDING OURSELVES IN VIETNAM
(By Hans J. Morgenthau)
The address which President Johnson de-
livered on April 7 at Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity is important for two reasons. On the
one hand, the President has shown for the
first time a way out of the impasse in which
we find ourselves in Vietnam. By agreeing
to negotiations without preconditions he has
opened the door to negotiations which those
preconditions had made impossible from the
outset.
By proposing a project for the economic
development of southeast Asia?with North
Vietnam a beneficiary and the Soviet Union
a supporter?he has implicitly recognized the
variety of national interests in the Commu-
nist world and the need for varied American
responses tailored to those interests. By
asking "that the people of South Vietnam
be allowed to guide their own country in
their own way,' he has left all possibilities
open for the future evolution of relations
between North and South Vietnam.
On the other hand, the President reiterated
the intellectual assumptions and policy pro-
posals which brought us to an impasse and
which make it impossible to extricate our-
selves. The President has linked our in-
volvement in Vietnam with our war of inde-
pendence and has proclaimed the freedom
of all nations as the goal of our foreign pol-
icy. He has started from the assumption
that there are two Vietnamese nations, one
of which has attacked the other, and he sees
that attack as an integral part of unlimited
Chinese_aggression. Consistent with this as-
sumption, the President is willing to nego-
tiate with China and North Vietnam but not
with the Vietcong.
Yet we cannot have it both ways. We
-cannot at the same time embrace these false
assumptions and pursue new sound policies.
Thus we are faced with a real dilemma.
This dilemma is by no means of the Presi-
dent's making.
We are militarily engaged in Vietnam by
virtue of a basic principle of our foreign pol-
icy that was implicit in the Truman doctrine
of 1947 and was put into practice by John
Foster Dulles from 1954 onward. This prin-
ciple is the military containment of commu-
nism. Containment had its origins in Eu-
rope; Dulles applied it to the Middle East
and Asia through a series of bilateral and
multilateral alliances. Yet what was an out-
standing success in Europe turned out to be
a dismal failure elsewhere. The reasons for
that failure are twofold.
First, the threat that faced the nations of
Western Europe in the aftermath of the
Second World War was primarily military.
It was the threat of the Red army marching
westward. Behind the line of military de-
marcation of 1945 which the policy of con-
tainment declared to be the westernmost
limit of the Soviet Empire, there was an an-
cient civilization, only temporarily weak and
able to maintain itself against the threat of
Communist subversion.
The situation is different in the Middle
East and Asia. The threat there is not pri-
marily military but political in nature. Weak
governments and societies provide opportu-
nities for Communist subversion. Military
containment is irrelevant to that threat and
may even be counterprOductive. Thus the
Baghdad Pact did not protect Egypt from
Soviet influence and SEATO has had no bear-
ing on Chinese influence in Indonesia and
Pakistan.
Second, and more important, even if China
were threatening her neighbors primarily by
military means, it would be impossible to
contain her by erecting a military wall at the
periphery of her empire. For China is, even
in her present underdeveloped state, the
7967
dominant power in Asia. She is this by vir-
tue of the quality and quantity of her popu-
lation, her geographic position, her civiliza-
tion, her past power remembered, and her
suture power anticipated. Anybody who has
traveled in Asia with his eyes and ears open
must have been impressed by the enormous
impact which the resurgence of China has
made upon all manner of men, regardless of
class and' political conviction, from Japan
to Pakistan.
The issue China poses is political and cul-
tural predominance. The United States can
no more contain Chinese influence in Asia
by arming South Vietnam and Thailand than
China could contain American influence in
the Western Hemisphere by arming, say, Nic-
aragua and Costa Rica.
If we are convinced that we cannot live
with a China predominant on the mainland
of Asia, then we must strike at the heart
of Chinese power?that is, rather than try
to contain the power of China, we must try
to destroy that power itself. Thus there
is logic on the side of that small group of
Americans who are convinced that war be-
tween the United States and China is in-
evitable and that the earlier that war comes
the better will be the chances for the United
States to win it.
Yet, while logic is on their side, practical
judgment is against them. For while China
is obviously no match for the United States
in overall power, China is largely immune
to the specific types of power in which the
superiority of the United States consists?
that is, nuclear, air and naval power. Cer-
tainly, the United States has the power to
destroy the nuclear installations and the
major industrial and population centers of
China, but this destruction would not defeat
China; it would only set her development
back. To be defeated, China has to be con-
quered.
Physical conquest would require the ? de-
ployment of millions of American soldiers
on the mainland of Asia. No American mili-
tary leader has ever advocated a course of
action so fraught with incalculable risks, so
uncertain of outcome, requiring sacrifices so
out of proportion to the interests at stake
and the benefits to be expected. President
Eisenhower declared on February 10, 1954,
that he "could conceive of no greater tragedy
than for the United States to become in-
volved in an all-out war in Indochina."
General MacArthur, in the congressional
hearings concerning his dismissal and In per-
sonal conversation with President Kennedy,
emphatically warned against sending Amer-
ican foot soldiers to the Asian mainland to
fight China.
If we do not want to set ourselves goals
which cannot be attained with the means
we are willing to employ, we must learn to
accommodate ourselves to the predominance
of China on the Asian mainland. It is in-
structive to note that those Asian nations
which have done so?such as Burma and
Cambodia?live peacefully in the shadow
of the Chinese giant.
This modus vivendi, composed of legal in-
dependence and various degrees of actual
dependence, has indeed been for more than
a millennium the persistent pattern of Chi-
nese predominance on the mainland of
Asia. The military conquest of Tibet is the
sole exception to that pattern. The mili-
tary operations at the Indian border do not
diverge from it, since their purpose was the
establishment of a frontier disputed by both
sides. .
On the other hand, those Asian nations
which have allowed themselves to be trans-
formed into outposts of American military
power?such as Laos a few years ago, South
Vietnam and Thailand?have become the
actual or prospective victims of Communist
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 195
aggression and subversion. Thus it appears
that peripheral military containment is
counterproductive. Challenged at its pe-
riphery by American military power at its
weakest?that is, by the proxy of client-
states?China or its proxies respond with
locally superior military and political power.
In specific terms, accommodation means
four things: (1) recognition of the political
and cultural predominance of China on the
mainland of Asia as a fact of life; (2) liqui-
dation of the peripheral military contain-
ment of China; (3) strengthening of the
uncommitted nations of Asia by nonmili-
tary means; (4) assessment of Communist
governments in Asia in terms not of Com-
munist doctrine but of their relation to the
interests and power of the United States.
In the light of these principles, the alterna-
tive to our present policies in Vietnam would
be this: a face-saving agreement which
would allow us to disengage ourselves mili-
tarily in stages spaced in time; restoration
of the status quo of the Geneva Agreement
of 1954, with special emphasis upon all-Viet-
namese elections; cooperation with the So-
viet Union in support of a Titoist all Viet-
namese Government, which would be likely
to emerge from such elections.
This last point is crucial, for our present
policies not only drive Hanoi into the wait-
ing arms of Peiping, but also make it very
difficult for Moscow to pursue an independ-
ent policy. Our interests in southeast Asia
are identical with those of the Soviet Union:
to prevent the expansion of the military
power of China. But while our present
policies invite that expansion, so do they
make it impossible for the Soviet Union to
join us in preventing it. If we were to re-
concile ourselves to the establishment of a
Titoist government in all of Vietnam, the
Soviet Union could successfully compete
with China in claiming credit for it and sur-
reptitiously cooperate with us in maintain-
ing it.
Testing the President's proposals by these
standards, one realizes bow far they go in
meeting them. These proposals do not pre-
clude a return to the Geneva Agreement and
even assume the existence of a Titoist gov-
ernment in North Vietnam. Nor do they
preclude the establishment of a Titoist gov-
ernment for all of Vietnam, provided the
people of South Vietnam have freely agreed
to it. They also envision the active par-
ticipation of the Soviet Union in establish-
ing and maintaining a new balance of power
in southeast Asia. On the other hand, the
President has flatly rejected a withdrawal
"under the cloak of a meaningless agree-
ment." The controlling word is obviously
"meaningless," and only the future can tell
whether we shall consider any face-saving
agreement as "meaningless" regardless of its
political context.
However, we are under a psychological
compulsion to continue our military pres-
ence in South Vietnam as part of the periph-
eral military containment of China. We
have been emboldened in this course of
action by the identification of the enemy as
"Communist," seeing in every Communist
Party and regime an extension of hostile
Russian or Chinese power. This identifica-
tion was justified 20 or 15 years ago when
communism still had a monolithic character.
Here, as elsewhere, our modes of thought and
action have been rendered obsolete by new
developments.
It is ironic that this simple juxtaposition
of "communism" and "free world" was
erected by John Foster Dulles' crusading
moralism into the guiding principle of Amer-
ican foreign policy at a time when the na-
tional communism of Yugoslavia, the neu-
tralism of the third world and the incipient
split between the Soviet Union and China
were rendering that juxtaposition invalid.
Today, it is belaboring the obvious to say
that we are faced not with one monolithic
communism whose uniform hostility must be
countered with equally uniform hostility, but
with a number of different conanunisms
whose hostilities, determined by different na-
tional interests, vary. In fact, the United
States encounters today less hostility from
Tito, who is a Communist, than from De
Gaulle, who is not.
We can today distinguish four different
types of communism in view of the kind and
degree of hostility to the United States they
represent: a communism identified with the
Soviet Union?e.g., Poland; a communism
identified with China--e.g., Albania; a com-
munism that straddles the fence between
the Soviet Union and China?e.g., Rumania,
and independent communism?e.g., Yugo-
slavia. Each of these communisms must be
dealt with in terms of the bearing its foreign
policy has upon the interests of the United
States In a concrete instance.
It would, of course, be absurd to suggest
that the officials responsible for the conduct
of American foreign policy are unaware of
these distinctions and of the demands they
make for discriminating sublety. Yet it is
an obvious fact of experience that these of-
ficials are incapable of living up to these de-
mands when they deal with Vietnam.
Thus they maneuver themselves into a
position which is antirevolutionary per se
and which requires military opposition to
revolution wherever it is found in Asia, re-
gardless of how it affects the interests?and
how susceptible it is to the power?of the
United States. There is a historic precedent
for this kind of policy: Metternich's military
opposition to liberalism after the Napoleonic
wars, which collapsed in 1848. For better or
for worse, we live again in an age of revolu-
tion. It is the task of statesmanship not to
oppose what cannot be opposed with a
chance of success, but to bend it to one's
own interests. This is what the President is
trying to do with his proposal for the eco-
nomic development of southeast Asia.
Why do we support the Saigon Govern-
ment in the civil war against the Vietcong?
Because the Saigon Government is free and
the Vietcong are Communist. By containing
Vietnamese communism, we assume that We
are really containing the communism of
China.
Yet this assumption is at odds with the
historic experience of a millennium and is
unsupported by contemporary evidence.
China is the hereditary enemy of Vietnam,
and Ho Chi Minh will become the leader of a
Chinese satellite only if the tinned States
forces him to become one.
Furthermore, Ho Chi Minh, like Tito and
unlike the Communist governments of the
other states of Eastern Europe, came to
power not by courtesy of another Communist
nation's victorious army but at the head of a
victorious army of his own. He is, then, a
natural candidate to become an Asian Tito,
and the question we must answer is: How
adversely would a Titoist Ho Chi Minh, gov-
erning all of Vietnam, affect the interests of
the United States? The answer can only be:
not at all. One can even maintain the
proposition that, far from affecting adversely
the interests of the United States, it would
be in the interest of the United States if the
western periphery of China were ringed by a
chain of independent states, though they
would, of course, in their policies take due
account of the predominance of their power-
ful neighbor.
The roots of the Vietnamese civil war go
back to the very beginning of South Vietnam
as an independent -state. When President
Ngo Dinh Diem took office in 1954, he pre-
sided not over a state but over one-half of a
country arbitrarily and, in the intentions of
all concerned, temporarily severed from the
other half. He was generally regarded as a
caretaker who would establish the rudiments
of an administration until the country was
united by nationwide elections to be heli in
1956 in accordance with the Geneva accals.
Diem was confronted at home with a nm-
bar of private armies which were politicely,
religiously or criminally oriented. To he
general surprise, he subdued one after a-
other and created what looked like a viale
government. Yet in the process of creatig
It, he also laid the foundatione for the pr3-
ent civil war. He ruthlessly suppressed 11
opposition, established concentration cams,
organized a brutal secret police, closed nea-
papers and rigegd elections. These polies
inevitably led to a polarization of the polite
of South Vietnam?on one side, Diem's fat-
fly, surrounded by a praetorian guard; on t.e
other, the Vietnamese people, backed by te
Communists, declaring themselves liberates
from foreign domination and internal o)-
pression.
Thus, the possibility of civil war was il-
herent in the very nature of the Diem regime.
It became inevitable after Diem refused o
agree to all-Vietnamese elections and, in tle
face of mounting popular alienation, accer-
tuated the tyrannical aspects of his regime.
The South Vietnamese who cherished free-
dom could not help but oppose him. Threat-
ened by the secret police, they went either
abroad or underground where the Comrnu-
fists were waiting for them.
Until the end of last February, the Gov-
ernment of the United States started frore
the assumption that the war in South Viet-
nam was a civil War, aided and abetted?but
not created?from abroad, and spokesmer
for the Government have made time arm
again the point that the key to winning the
war was political and not military and wee
to be found in South Vietnam itself. It wac
supposed to lie in transforming the indiffer-
ence or hostility of the great mass of the
South Vietnamese people into positive
loyalty to the Government.
To that end, a new theory of warfare called
counterinsurgency was put into practice
Strategic hamlets were established, massive
propaganda campaigns were embarked upon
social and economic measures were at least
sporadically taken. But all was to no avail.
The mass of the population remained in-
different, if not hostile, and large units oi
the army ran away or went over to the
enemy.
The reasons for this failure are of general
significance, for they stem from a deeply
ingrained habit of the American mind. We
like to think of social problems as technically
self-sufficient and susceptible of simple,
clear-cut solutions. We tend to think of
foreign aid as a kind of self-sufficient, tech-
nical economic enterprise subject to the laws
of economics and divorced from politics, and
of war as a similarly self-sufficient, technical
enterprise, to be won as quickly, as cheaply,
as thoroughly as possible and divorced from
the foreign policy that preceded and is to
follow it. Thus our military theoreticians
and practitioners conceive of counterin-
surgency as though it were just another
branch of warfare like artillery or chemical
warfare, to be taught in special schools and
applied with technical proficiency wherever
the occasion arises.
This view derives of course from a com-
plete misconception of the nature of civil
war. People fight and die in civil wars be-
cause they have a faith which appears to
them worth fighting and dying for, and they
can be opposed with a chance of success only
by people who have at least as strong a faith.
Magsaysay could subdue the link rebellion
in the Philippines because his charisma,
proven in action, aroused a faith superior to
that of his opponents. In South Vietnam
there is nothing to oppose the faith of the
Vietcong and, in consequence, the Saigon
government and we are losing the civil war.
A guerrilla war cannot be won without the
active support of the indigenous population,
short of the physical extermination of that
Approved For Release 2003110/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150022-9
April 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
population. Germany was at least consistent
when, during the Second World War, faced
with unmanageable guerrilla warfare
throughout occupied Europe, she tried to
matter the situation through a deliberate
policy of extermination. The French tried
counterinsurgency in Algeria and failed;
400,000 French troops fought the guerrillas
in Indochina for 9 years and failed.
The United States has recognized that it
is failing in South Vietnam. But it has
drawn from this receognition of failure a most
astounding conclusion.
The United States has decided to change
the character of the war by unilateral dec-
laration from a South Vietnamese civil war
to a war of foreign aggression. "Aggression
From the North: The Record of North Viet-
nam's Campaign To Conquer South Vietnam"
is the title of a white paper published by the
Department of State on the last day of Feb-
ruary 1965. While normally foreign and
military policy is based upon intelligence?
that is, the objective assessment of facts?
the process is here reversed: a new policy
has been decided upon, and intelligence must
provide the facts to justify it.
The United States, stymied in South Viet-
nam and on the verge of defeat, decided to
carry the war to North Vietnam n.ot so much
in order to retrieve the fortunes of war as
to lay the groundwork for "negotiations
from strength." In order to justify that new
policy, it was necessary to prove that North
Vietnam is the real enemy. It is the white
paper's purpose to present that proof.
Let it be said right away that the white
paper is a dismal failure. The discrepancy
between its assertions and the factual evi-
dence adduced to support them borders on
the grotesque. It does ndthing to disprove,
and tends even to confirm, what until the
end of February had been official American
doctrine: that the main body of the Vietcong
is composed of South Vietnamese and that
80 percent to 90 percent of their weapons
are of American origin.
This document is most disturbing in that
it provides a particularly glaring instance
of the tendency to conduct foreign and
military policy not on their own merits, but
as exercises in public relations. The Govern-
ment fashions an imaginary world that
pleases it, and then comes to believe in
the reality of that world and acts as though
It were real.
It is for this reason that public officials
are so resentful of the reporters assigned to
Vietnam and have tried to shut them off
from the sources, of news and even to silence
them. They resent the confrontation of
their policies with the facts. Yet the facts
are what they are, and they take terrible
vengeance on those who disregard them.
However, the white paper is but the latest
instance of a delusionary tendency which
has led American policy in Vietnam astray
In other respects. We call the American
troops in Vietnam advisers and have assigned
them by and large to advisory functions,
and we have limited the activities of the
marines who have now landed in Vietnam
to guarding American installations. We have
done this for reasons of public relations,
in order to spare ourselves the odium of
open belligerency,
There is an ominous 'similarity between
this technique and that applied to the ex-
pedition in the Bay of Pigs. We wanted to
overthrow Castro, but for reasons of public
relations we did not want to do It ourselves.
So it was not clone at all, and our prestige
was taniaged far beyond what it would have
suffered had, we worked openly and single-
mindedly for the goal we had set ourselves.
Our very presence in Vietnam is in a sense
dictated by considerations of public rela-
tions; we are afraid lest our prestige would
suffer were we to retreat froni an untenable
position.
One may ask whether we have gained
prestige by being involved in a civil war on
the mainland of Asia and by being unable
to win it. Would we gain more by being
unable to extricate ourselves from it, and by
expanding it unilaterally into an interna-
tional war? Is French prestige lower today
than it was 11 years ago when France was
fighting in Indochina, or 5 years ago when
she was fighting in Algeria? Does not a
great power gain prestige by mustering the
wisdom and courage necessary to liquidate a
losing enterprise? In other words, is it not
the mark of greatness, in circumstances such
as these, to be able to afford to be indif-
ferent to one's prestige?
The peripheral military containment of
China, the indiscriminate crusade against
communism, counterinsurgency as a techni-
cally self-sufficient new branch of warfare,
the conception of foreign and military policy
as a branch of public relations?they are all
misconceptions that conjure up terrible dan-
gers for those who base their policies on
them.
One can only hope and pray that the
vaunted pragmatism and commonsense of
the American mind?of which the Presi-
dent's new proposals may well be a manifes-
tation?will act as a corrective upon those
misconceptions before they lead us from the
blind alley in which we find ourselves today
to the rim of the abyss. Beyond the present
crisis, however, one must hope that the con-
frontation between these misconceptions
and reality will teach us a long-overdue les-
son?to rid ourselves of these misconcep-
tions altogether.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I find
these articles far more persuasive than
those by certain other columnists such
as Marguerite Higgins and William S.
White, who take what is to my point of
view an unduly emotional and quite un-
sound position.
I hope that the articles introduced to-
day will have some bearing on the final
judgments made in the White House.
SAVE AND STRENGTHEN THE
UNITED NATIONS
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a statement
adopted by the National Executive Coun-
cil of the United World Federalists, on
March 7, 1965, at New York City, en-
titled "Save and Strengthen the United
Nations" be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the bro-
chure was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SAVE AND STRENGTHEN THE UNITED NATIONS:
A DECLARATION
In 1961 the General Assembly of the United
Nations designated 1965 as International Co-
operation Year, to celebrate the 20th anni-
versary of the founding of the United
Nations.
It was a good purpose but International
Cooperation Year could turn out to be a
grim, cynical joke unless certain present
trends are soon reversed. The year 1965 may
mark not only the 20th anniversary of the
founding of the U.N. but also the beginning
of its destruction. Either the nations and
peoples of the world will revive the United
Nations in 1965?or they will bury it, and
with it the best hopes of humanity for sur-
vival in the nuclear age. And if the U.N.
is allowed to die, mankind will have to create
another world organization to take its place.
The U.N. is in peril for one single, tragic
reason: it was not made strong enough at
San Francisco in 1945, nor has this been done
in the intervening years.
The United Nations can live only if it is
granted independent life?only if it Is eh-
7969
dowed in its own right with the necessary
capacity to establish and preserve the peace.
The U.N. does not now have that strength.
It is allowed to act only with the consent of
the nations affected by its actions.
The peoples of the world deserve some-
thing better than to live in constant dread
of world war III. With the development of
mainland China's nuclear device, the people
of the world can only hope that the neces-
sity for universal, enforceable world law will
become too plain to be disregarded. They
can only hope that the recent spectacle of
the United Nations, unable to collect its
dues, to decide its issues, indeed to vote at
all on any question, will so shock the con-
science of the member nations that they will
at last act to strengthen the U.N. The peo-
ple of the world can only hope that this is
the darkest hour just before the dawn.
Yet hope is not enough.
Twenty years ago mankind wrote its hope
for peace into the United Nations. That was
before the first atomic bomb exploded on
Hiroshima. After that event, mankind's
hope for peace?and for survival itself?has
rested primarily in the United Nations de-
spite its weaknesses.
Today-20 years later and in the midst of
International Cooperation Year?those
weaknesses have been revealed by the Gen-
eral Assembly's recent display of impotence.
Either the United Nations will be strength-
ened or it will wither away.
The hour is at hand for a true world states-
man to arise and speak for man, to say that
his nation is ready to vest in the United Na-
tions sufficient peacekeeping power to pre-
vent the existing world situation from plung-
ing mankind into the disaster of world war
III. It is time for a world statesman to
challenge all nations to propose the kind of
United Nations that could effectively police
peace and render justice.
Now is the time for some nation to define
the terms under which the United Nations
could survive and develop.
As Americans, we cherish such a role of
world statesmanship for the President of the
United States. Presented with what may
well be the ultimate challenge of the ages
of man, he would speak not only for his na-
tion but would voice the hope of all man-
kind.
Adopted by National Executive Council,
United World Federalists, March 7, 1965,
New York City.
REMARKS OF VICE PRESIDENT
HUMPHREY BEFORE THE PACEM
IN TERRIS CONFERENCE
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the comments
made by Vice President HUBERT H. HUM-
PHREY before the Pacem in Terris Con-
ference in New York City on February
17, 1965, entitled "Peace on Earth," be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the remarks
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
PEACE ON EARTH
(Remarks of Vice President HUBERT M. HUM-
PHREY before the Pacem in Terris Confer-
ence, New York City, February 17, 1965)
The Scripture tells us to "pursue peace"?
and mankind has since the beginning of time
condemned the horrors of war. If discord
and strife, wars and the threat of wars have
persisted throughout history, it is perhaps
as St. Augustine says: "that men make war
not because they love peace the less, but
rather because their love their own kind of
peace the /Imre." Yet men of peace of every
kind and every land remember well the year
1963. For in that fateful year a venerable
apostle of peace left our world, leaving be-
hind a legacy which will endure for years to
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
7970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 22, 1965
come. Generations of men?young and old
alike?will remember the final testament of
that gentle peasant Pope, Pope John XXIII,
the encyclical "Pacem in Terris," in which he
left to men of all faiths, to men holding
many concepts of peace, an outline for peace
in our world which can be accepted by all
men of good will.
And if our generation can heed the part-
ing plea of the man whose work we honor
at this Conference, generations yet to come
may hope to live in a world where in the
words of the late President Kennedy "the
strong are just, the weak secure, and the
peace preserved."
It is a privilege and an honor to partici-
pate in this Conference dedicated to explor-
ing the meaning and the messages of "Pacem
in Terris." It is particularly fitting that this
convocation meet at the beginning of Inter-
national Cooperation Year. I am confident
that your deliberations here will advance our
world along the road to "peace on earth" as
described by Pope John.
The encyclical John XXIII presented to
the world was a public philosophy for a nu-
clear era. Comprehensive in scope, his mes-
sage expounded a political philosophy gov-
erning relations between the individual and
the state, relations between states, and rela-
tions between an individual state and the
world organizations.
"Pacem in Terris" continues and completes
the social philosophy which the Pope had be-
gun a year earlier in his encyclical "Mater et
Ma,gistra," in which he elaborated the prin-
ciples of social justice which should guide
the social order. In "Pacem in Terris" he ex-
tended this philosophy to the world, concen-
trating now on relations between states and
the role of the world community.
This encyclical represents not a utopian
blueprint for world peace, presupposing a
sudden change in the nature of men. Rather,
it represents a call to action to leaders a
nations, presupposing only a gradual change
in human institutions. It is not confined to
elaborating the abstract virtues of peace but
looks to the building of a world community
governed by institutions capable of preserv-
ing peace.
The Pope outlined principles which can
guide the actions of men?all men regard-
less of color, creed or political affiliation--
but it is up to statesmen to decide how these
principles are to be applied. The challenge
to this conference is to provide statesmen
with further guidelines for applying the phi-
losophy of "Pacem in Terris" to the problems
confronting our world in 1965.
I would like to direct my remarks princi-
pally to the questions of relations between
states and to that of a world community.
Pope John's preoccupation?and our preoc-
cupation today?is with an amelioration of
international relations in the light of the
dangers to mankind posed by the existence
of modern nuclear weapons. The leaders of
the world must understand?as he Under-
stood?that since that day at Alamogordo
when man acquired the power to obliterate
himself from the face of the earth, war has
worn a new face. And the vision of it has
sobered all men and demanded of them a
keener perception of mutual interests and a
higher order of responsibility. Under these
conditions mankind must concentrate on the
problems that unite us rather than on those
which divide us.
Pope John proclaimed that the issues of
war and peace are the concern of all. States-
men?who bear a heavier responsibility than
others?cannot ignore the implications for
the survival of mankind of new discoveries
in technology, biology, nuclear physics, and
space. In this nuclear age the deliberate ini-
tiation of full-scale war as an instrument
of national policy has become folly.
Originally a means to protect national in-
terests, war today can assure the death of a
nation, the decimation of a continent.
Nuclear power has placed into the hands
of men the power to destroy all that man has
created. Only responsible statesmen?who
perceive that perseverence in the pursuit of
peace is not cowardice, but courage, that re-
straint in the use of forces is not weakness,
but wisdom?can prevent present interna-
tional rivalries from leading to an inciner-
ated world.
The confrontation between the United
States and the Soviet Union over Cuba in the
autumn of 1902 undoubtedly weighed
heavily in the Pope's thinking and lent ur-
gency to his concern to halt the nuclear arms
race. Addressing the leaders of the world,
he stated: "Justice, right, reason, and hu-
manity urgently demand that the arms race
should cease; that the stockpiles which exist
in various countries should be reduced
equally and slmultaneously by the parties
concerned; that nuclear weapons should be
bann,ed; and that a general agreement should
eventually be reached about progressive dis-
armament and an effective method of con-
trol."
This plea had special pertinence for the
leaders of the United States and the Soviet
Union, the principal nuclear powers.
A few months later, President Kennedy
demonstrated the U.S. commitment to the
goal of peace. In a speech at American Uni-
versity in June of 1963, he called for renewed
efforts toward a "more practical, more at-
tainable peace?based not on a sudden revo-
lution in human nature but on a gradual
evolution in human institutions?on a series
of concrete actions and effective agreements
which are in the interest of all concerned."
The leaders of the Soviet Union responded
favorably. In October 1963, the United
States and Soviet Governments signed a
treaty banning nuclear tests in the atmos-
phere, in outer space and under water. This
treaty won respect throughout the world for
the United States and the Soviet Union?in-
deed for all nations who signed it. It has
inspired hope for the future of mankind on
this planet. And members of this audience
will recall that the man who first proposed
a test ban treaty way back in 1956?and who
shares in the credit for its accomplishment?
is the U.S. representative to the United Na-
tions, Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson.
The nuclear test ban was the first step in
the path toward a more enduring peace.
"The longest journey begins with a single
step," President Johnson has said?and that
single step has been taken.
Other steps have followed.
We have resolved not to station weapons
of mass destruction in space. A United Na-
tions resolution, jointly sponsored by the
United States and the Soviet Union, called
on all countries to refrain from such action.
It was adopted by acclamation?without a
single dissenting vote.
This was a vital step toward preventing the
extension of the arms race into outer space.
This year the United States is cutting back
on the production of fissionable materials.
Great Britain and the Soviet Union have an-
nounced cutbacks in their planned produc-
tion of fissionable materials for use in weap-
ons. As President Johnson has stated, the
race for large nuclear stockpiles can be
provocative as well as wasteful.
The need for instant communication be-
tween the United States and the Soviet
Union?to avoid the miscalculation which
might lead to nuclear war?was proven dur-
ing the Cuban missile crisis. Since that
time, we have established a hotline between
Washington and Moscow to avoid such mis-
calculation.
The agenda for the future remains long.
Among the measures needed to limit the
dangers of the nuclear age are measures de-
signed to prevent war by miscalculation or
accident.
We must seek agreements to obtain saf e-
guards against surprise attacks, including a
network of selected observation points. We
must seek to restrict the nuclear arms race
by preventing the transfer of nuclear weap-
ons to the control of nonnuclear nations;
transferring fissionable materials from mili-
tary to peaceful purposes, and by outlawing
underground tests, with adequate inspection
and enforcement. The United States has
offered a freeZe on the production of air-
craft and missiles used for delivering nuclear
weapons. Such a freeze might open the door
to reductions in nuclear strategic delivery
vehicles.
It is the intention of the U.S. Government
to pursue every reasonable avenue toward
agreement with the Soviet Union in limiting
the nuclear arms race. And the President
has made it clear that he will leave no thing
undone, no mile untraveled to further the
pursuit of peace.
Today in the year 1965 we must recognize
that the next major step in controlling the
nuclear arms race may require us to look
beyond the narrow United States-Soviet
competition to the past. For the explosion
of a nuclear device by Communiat China in
1964 has impressed upon us once again that
the world of today is no longer the bipolar
world of an earlier decade. Nuclear com-
petition is no longer limited to two super-
powers.
The efforts of the United States and Eu-
rope to enable the nations of Europe to have
a greater share in nuclear defense policy? -
without encouraging the development of in-
dependent national nuclear deterrents?con-
stitute a recognition of this.
In addition to Europe, we now have the
problem of finding ways of preventing the
further proliferation of nuclear weapons in
Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle
East.
With the explosion of the Chinese nuclear
device several months ago?and the prospect
of others to follow?it may be that the most
immediate next step in controlling the nu-
clear arms race is the prevention of further
proliferation of nuclear weapons in Asia.
In view of the evident determination of
the present Communist government of Main-
land China to use its limited nuclear capa-
bility it hopes to develop for maximum po-
litical and propaganda benefit, it is not sur-
prising that other modern Asian nations are
tempted to build their own nuclear deter-
rent.
But the nations on the perimeter of Com-
munist China are not alone. As President
Johnson has stated, "The nations that do
not seek national nuclear weapons can be
sure that if they need our strong support
against some threat of nuclear blackmail,
then they will have it."
If the need for preventing the prolifera-
tion of nuclear weapons is more immediate
in Asia today, it is no leas important in
Latin America, Africa and the Near East.
All of these areas are ripe for regional arms
pacts which would prevent these countries
from developing nuclear weapons. Nuclear
weapons would serve no useful purpose in
preserving their security. The introduction
of these weapons would provoke a rivalry
that would imperil the peace of Latin Amer-
ica and Africa and intensify the present
rivalries in the Near East. It would endanger
the precarious economies of countries which
already possess military forces too large for
their security needs and too expensive to be
maintained without outside assistance.
Such nuclear arms control agreements
should naturally be initiated by the nations
of the area.. In Latin America, such an
agreement has already been proposed.
Should the nations of Latin America, of Afri-
ca and the Near East through their own in-
stitutions or through the United Nations,
take the initiative in establishing nuclear
free zones, they will earn the appreciation
of all nations of the world. Containment in
these areas would represent a major step to-
ward world peace.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 196Approved FoC14414,63530:61411421WQ0300150022-9
. A1927.
Washington's strange course not only
coreder, and even to act upon, controversial
and forward-looking bills.
Probgbly most important of all was the
strong direction that came fLO/11 the Gov-
ernor's office. For the first time in the
memory of many legislators the Governor
not only proposed legislation, but he actively
fought for it.
Governor Avery presented an ambitious
program?one to which he had largely com-
mitted himself during the 1964 campaign.
But he would have achieved little of it
without the second step?he showed the leg-
islature how it could be financed. And by
accepting this responsibility for increased
taxes instead of passing the buck to the leg-
islators as so many previous Governors have
done, Avery won their respect and gained
many successes.
In addition he chose two experienced and
knowledgeable men to serve as his liaison
with the legislature?Odd Williams and
Laurin Jones. Thus the Governor was aware
at all times when one of his programs was
in trouble, and he knew where the trouble
lay. He spent many hours discussing dif-
ferences with individual legislators, and he
argued forcefully and well for the things he
wanted. The result was that he got most
of them,
Since. education played so large a part
in this session, much credit also must be
given to the efforts and ability of the two
men who headed the education commit-
tees?Senator Joe Harder, Republican,
Moundridge, and Representative John Bow-
er, Republican, McLouth. Both worked long
and hard and were unyielding in their deter-
mination to insure legislation that would
accomplish an improved system of schooling
in Kansas an all levels.
Even the voters deserve some credit. For
this legislature has an unusual number of
able and responsible members, both new
and old, and without them, of course, the
best leadership in the world could have
accomplished nothing.
The United Nations and Vietnam i\
-
EXTENSION OF REM KS
QF
HON. JOHN SHERMA
OF KENTUCKY
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the Appendix of the RECORD an editorial
entitled "The U.N. and Vietnam," pub-
lished in the New York Times of April
4, 1965.
I shall not comment on it because it is
an eloquent expression of approval of the
speeches made by the majority leader,
the distinguished Senator from Montana
[Mr. MANSFIELD], and the distinguished
senior Senator from Vermont [Mr.
AIKEN].
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE. U.N. AND VIETNAM
The administrative's attitude toward
United Nations action on Vietnam seems am-
bivalent, to say the least. A few days ago As-
sistant Secretary Harlan Cleveland spoke
favorably of United Nations aid in opening
V.etnain negotiations and in policing an ulti-
mate eettlernent. The next day the State
Department took pains once again to deny
that it was encouraging Secretary General
Thant to play any role.
makes it difficult for the United Nations to
help, but downgrades the world organization
It compounds the damage the State Depart-
ment inflicted on the U.N. last winter_ by its
tactics on the Soviet debt issue. Those
tactics?as Senator Ansmq., clean of Senate
Republicans, pointed out a few days ago?
have weakened the United Nations just when
its help is badly needed in southeast Asia.
"International events of recent weeks,'
the Vermont Senator said, "seem to have
overwhelmed the capacity of this Govern-
ment for affirmative action, except in the
military field." His trenchant comments on
the U.N.'s peacekeeping role?and on Wash-
ington's efforts to force Moscow and Paris to
pay for operations of which they disap-
proved?received the immediate endorsement
of Majority Leader MANSFIELD. They deserve
serious attention.
The American attempt to force the Rut..
sinusto pay up or lose their General Assem-
bly vote under article 19 of the U.N. Charter
"collapsed like a punctured balloon," Sena-
tor AIKEN said?and not simply because a
majority of the member nations were reluct-
ant to go along. The main reason, in his
judgment, was that the United States, after
taking a tough line, "backed away" from a
winning vote. It did so not only for fear of
a Soviet withdrawal, but because such a vote
would have set a precedent contrary to
American national interests.
"The United States now recognizes," Mr.
AIKEN said, "that if it were in the position
of the Russians or the French, it would prob-
ably react in the same way * * * (the United
States) is unwilling and unable to force
the United Nations to abide by article
19 * * * (because it) is not willing to have
article 19 applied to itself when its vital in-
terests are involved."
What both Senators AIKEN and MANSFIELD
were getting at was the explosion of new
nations that has more than doubled U.N.
membership to a present 114. A decisive
two-thirds vete in the Assembly could now
be made up of Countries which possess only
10 percent of the U.N.'s population and pay
less than 5 percent of its budget. As -a re-
sult the United States shares the Soviet de-
sire to increase the role of the Security Coun-
cil, where the major nations possess a veto.
The real issue behind the financing of
peacekeeping operations, as Senator AIKEN
points out, "involves the readjustment of
power and influence between the greater
powers and the lesser nations rather than a
struggle between the Soviet bloc and the
West."
There is a problem of U.N. solvency?$110
million is needed to save the world organiza-
tion from bankruptcy. And there is a need
to work out new methods of authorizing and
financing future peacekeeping operations.
There is also a need for a Soviet financial
contribution, which Moscow has acknowl-
edged. But there is no need to force the
U.S.S.R. to comply with article 19 by paying
the exact sum Washington says?and Moscow
denies?it owes.
As Senator AIKEN observed, President
Johnson now "has a magnificent opportunity
to put the United States back into the lead
in international diplomacy by putting the
United Nations back into business." And
his first move should be to "instruct his
representative to the united Nations to recon-
cile our position with the Soviet and French
position on the assessment of members for
peacekeeping functions?a view which may
shock some, but a position which would defi-
nitely be in our own national interest * * *.
Article 19 is dead as a doornail anyway."
It is essential to move now not only in the
long-term interests of the United Nations
but precisely because a vigorous U.N. could
play a vital role in extricating the United
States and the two Vietnams from their
present tragic predicament.
School Aid Bill Can Be Most
Meaningful of Any
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. WILLIAM R. ANDERSON
GP TENNESSEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, Apr21 22, 1965
_ Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, one of our Nation's truly great
newspapers, the Nashville Tennessean,
has carried an editorial which describes
the impact that the recently enacted
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act will have on my home State of Ten-
nessee and the Nation. The President
and the Congress are to be commended
for the reasons so well described in this
excellent editorial.
The editorial follows:
[From the Nashville Tennessean, Apr, 11,
1965]
SCHOOL AID BILL CAN BE MOST MEANINGFUL
OF ANY
Congress has now passed and sent to the
President a $1.3 billion blueprint for aiding
the Nation's elementary and secondary
schools. It was a major victory for President
Johnson, and it could well be the most mean-
ingful legislative action of this session.
Both Tennessee Senators ALBERT GORE and
Ross BASS voted for the legislation. Senator
BASS was presiding officer for part of the
session which produced approval of the
measure.
In the House, Representatives MURRAY,
BRocx, DUNCAN, and QUILLEN voted "no."
The measure passed is not perfect, and
there are several areas in which refinements
could doubtless be made. Neither is it a
landmark in terms of policy, since the Fed-
eral Government has been aiding education
since the Land Grant College Act. It is a
milestone, however, since a general bill of
this kind has been the subject of congres-
sional wrangling for some 20 years.
The two major obstacles to previous legis-
lation have been constitutional questions
about providing aid to parochial schools and
the issue of racial segregation in public
schoola. The latter issue has become all but
moot. In this case the religious issue has
been skirted by providing aid only through
public channels. Parochial pupils may bene-
fit by attending some classes in public in-
stitutions on a "shared time" basis and from
use of school libraries, and teaching aids.
But the books and aids remain public prop-
erty.
The main emphasis of the school aid pro-
gram is on helping students in economically
burdened areas. One billion sixty million
dollars will go to help school districts with
projects to better educate children of poor
families; $100 million will be used to ease
the widespread need for more and better
school libraries. Another $100 million will
be earmarked to set up educational centers
to provide specialized programs that indi-
vidual schools cannot afford.
It is estimated that more than 90 percent
of the Nation's 26,000 school districts would
receive funds. Tennessee's share of this
might well amount to $30 to $35 million.
The bill contains provisions throughout
requiring States to submit their plans for
using the new aid, but forbidding Federal
officials from attempting to dictate local
school policy. It also bars use of any funds
for supporting religious _instruction or wor-
ship.
The greatness of any nation must rest in
large part on the education of its youth.
Now, in the swift pace of technological
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
A1928
Approved For
eSPCRWItialF-P-6APM148
change, this Nation cannot afford to neglect
any of its children in whose hands the future
must be shaped.
There was a time in the development of
this Nation when brawn could find Its own
place in the scheme of things. That day is
passing. Now it is imperative that the new
generation be given full opportunity to de-
velop its skills, talents, and creativity that
will not be just desirable, but mandatory in
the years ahead.
President Johnson has every basis for be-
ing pleased at passage of the bill which can
be a broad step toward the victory of enlight-
enment over darkness.
Address by Vice President Humphrey at
the Azalea Festival
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON
OF VIRGINIA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President,
one of the most spectacular festivals an-
nually celebrated on the east coast is the
International Azalea Festival, at Norfolk,
Va. Norfolk, now the largest city in the
Old Dominion, and one of its most pro-
gresSive, has developed an Azalea Park
which rivals, if it does not excel, the
famed Azalea Gardens of the historic
city of Charleston. Thousands of tour-
ists are attracted to Norfolk at this sea-
son of the year, to witness that inspiring
spectacle of the rebirth of nature; and
added interest will be given to this festi-
val this year through the participation
of our distinguished Vice President, Hon.
HusEix H. HumPHREY.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Appendix of the RECORD
the addresS which Vice President HUM-
PHREY delivered at the Azalea Festival
luncheon today, in Norfolk.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
aS follows:
THE AZALEA FESTIVAL ?
(Address by Vice President 1117BERT Et Hine-
r/1XE/ , International Azalea Festival
luncheon, Norfolk, Va., Apr. 22, 1965)
serve, direct, and utilize all this country's
vast human resources. We will meet these
challenges if we realize the full potentialities
of this country and each of its citizens.
This administration and this Congress, act-
ing out the Will of the American people, are
providing to the world our answers to these
challenges.
We are building a solid, lasting base for
American health and growth.
Health and growth built on a strong and
flourishing economy?and we have just cele-
brated-Our 50th consecutive month of unin-
terrupted prosperity, I might add.
Health and growth which can give via the
means to provide a social system with justice
at its heart.
Health and growth to provide sustained
American leadership in the world.
President Johnson told this Congress, on
the first day of its session, that: "Our Nation
was created to help strike away the chains
of ignorance and misery and tyranny wher-
ever they keep man less than God means him
to be."
We are not afraid to say it: We will work
until every citizen of America has equal op-
portunity to make a better life for himself
and his children. Only when this equality
of opportunity is achieved can we truly find
the freedom we seek.
Today in this country we are making great
strides toward achieving that goal.
There are two basic forces at the heart of
OUT progress:
First, the vigorous leadership of Lyndon
Johnson.
Second, the unprecedented peacetime unity
of our Nation which now exists.
There is another word for this unity. It
is consensus.
Consensus is voluntary agreement based
on constructive dialog, mutual respect, and
understanding. In consensus, we Americans
are breaking through.
United we stand. And united we gain.
We gain together as a great national con-
sensus says all Americans shall have equal
voting rights. And that consensus today is
truly national, not regional.
We gain as our Nation agrees that all
Americans shall have an education which
can give them the opportunity to live them-
selves.
We gain in agreement that all Americans
shall have adequate medical care;
That we should make our cities better
places in which to live and work in safety
and health;
That we should preserve this Nation's
beauty, history, and natural resources;
That We should give the aging hope for
life and work;
That we should open our doors again to
initnigrants who can enrich and lend new
vitality to our national life;
That we should help our urban and rural
Americans alike adjust to technological rev-
olution and social change;
That we should not drop the torch of in-
ternational leadership;
That we should make whatever investment
is necessary to realize our American dream.
That investment will be great. But it will
be less than the cost of illiteracy?of school
dropouts?of poverty?of discrimination?of
disillusion and bitterness?of isolation in the
world. Far less.
For example: We spend 6450 per year per
child in our public schools, but we spend
$1,800 a year to keep a delinquent in a de-
tention home, $2,500 a year for a family on
relief and 63,500 a year for an inmate in a
State prison.
.We nitist make the investment necessary
so that all in our society may be productive.
Poor and uneducated people- are poor con-
sumers. They are a drain on our economy.
They are wasted resources.
With continuing support of the American
people, we will continue now and in the years
My friends, it is my honor to be invited to
address this International Azalea 5'e5tival
luncheon. For this great festival celebrates
not only the well-being' and prosperity of
Virginians and Americans, but celebrates also
this country's cbmmitment to interdepend-
ence among nations,
Today I would like primarily to discuss
with you our well-being at home?and then
to place that domestic well-being in the con-
text of the role we Americans play in the
World.
? Today, our democratic society faces great
challenges. We are being challenged both at
home and abroad by great political, economic,
and social forces.
Will we be able to meet these challenges:
Can democratic government provide for the
general welfare:
Is freedom incompatible with responsi-
bility?
Is democracy as a system able to provide
rapid and just progress for the hungry and
disaffected on our planet?
Must the fulfillment of the individual be
subordinate to the welfare of the whole?
We will meet these challenges if we pre-
R003001500224-9
april 22, 1965
to come to make the basic investments nece.'s-
sexy to answer "yes" to our future.
We will continue to forge a strong' econ-
omy, unmarked by recessions. We will con-
tinue to search for and develop tools to
overcome the so-called business cycle.
We will continue to explore outer space-
and inner mind in development of knowl-
edge for use by all the world.
And we will continue to defend and pre-
serve the precious peace with strength and
perseverance.
We will maintain our strong and active
faith in the ability of freemen?developed
to their fullest?to build a better life for
themselves and for others.
Now, before clOsing, would like to direct
a few personal words to you about America
and its role in the world.
For a long time we Americans have stood
for the belief that the world need not destroy
itself by war, and that we Americans can
help others, too, find a better society.
We hear many voices these days saying
that America is overextended in the world?
that other people's problems needn't be our
problems?that we ought to close up shop
overseas and enjoy our blessings here in the
good old United States of America.
My friends, when that time comes, this
Nation is doomed. Who in the world will
work for democracy if we do not? Who in
the world can preserve the peace if we do
not? Who in the world can set the example,
can offer the needed hand, if we do not?
We live in a time when everything is
complex, when there are no more rapid or
easy answers. We live in a time when we
must retain our patience as never before.
Have we the patience, for instance, tc
work and bleed 5,000 miles from home for
months and years ahead?without any guar-
antee of finial success? I can tell you that
the forces of totalitarianism have that pa-
tience.
This is what the Great Society is all about.
It is the recognition that vacations abroad,
fur coats, and electric toothbrushes are not
enough. It is the recognition that we stem.
for something not seen before in the world.
We stand for the dignity and fulfillmen
of individual man and woman.
We stand for the chance for each man to
make something better of himself.
We stand for free speech and government
of the people.
We stand for peace without conquest.
We stand for the belief that others in less
fortunate places should have opportunity for
the blessings of abundance and should la3
free of tyranny. We stand for the pledges
made by men and women who left the oal
ways and fought a living out of the soil of
new continent.
As President Johnson expressed it in his
historical speech at Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity:
"We will not be defeated.
"We will not grow tired.
"We will not withdraw."
We 'will stand, at home and abroad, fcr
the pledges made and efforts expended by
Americans who came before. We must love
freedom and justice enough to practice them.
America is still the last, best hope on
earth.
A New Offer on Vietnam
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. NEAL SMITH
OF IOWA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the
now famous speech by President Johnson
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 19.60proved For egjimmtaSibliygt 06,6111FU_EAVitiffl9941300150022-9
stating that we remain ready for "un-
conditional discussions" on the Vietnam
situation was criticized by the Commu-
nist powers and by a few Americans
prior to the time that it became appar-
ent that it placed the United States on
the diplomatic offensive; but, I have not
seen many, in depth, interpretations of
the situation by those who approved
which weighed the various, factors in-
volved as well as did an editorial in the
Des Moines Register on Friday, April 9,
1965. So that those who receive the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD will have an op-
portunity to read it, I am inserting it in
the RECORD. It is as follows:
A NEW OFFER ON VIETNAM
In one heartfelt outpouring Wednesday
night, President Johnson put together the
two contrasting sides of U.S. policy in the
Vietnam war. One is the determination not
to accept defeat, open or disguised, and the
other is willingness to make peace, today or
10 years from now, on generous terms.
The President himself called his speech a
review of a position stated "over and over
again 50 times and more?to friend and foe
alike." Yet in impact and emphasis, and in
certain details, it was new.
New was the little phrase in connection
with possible peace talks: "We remain
ready?with this purpose?for unconditional
discussions."
Previous statements usually have given the
impression that the United States had a
condition?that it was not willing to start
discussions until North Vietnam had given
some sign it was stopping its help to the
Vietcong fighters in South Vietnam.
The U.S. "purpose" in any such discussions
is "an independent South Vietnam"?not the
reunited Vietnam called for in the 1954
Geneva agreements. The President defined
this independent South Vietnam as one "se-
curely guaranteed and able to shape its own
relationships to all others?free from out-
side interference?tied to no alliance?a
military base for no other country." This
would mean an ultimate end to U.S. inter-
vention no less than North Vietnamese.
Another new detail in President Johnson's
talk Wednesday was the way he spelled out
his hopes for peaceful cooperation in eco-
nomic development for the whole of south-
east Asia. He referred directly to the U.N.
preliminary work already going on and said
the first step would be for the southeast
Asian countries to get together on a plan.
He hoped Secretary General U Thant would
work with them to initiate the plan.
New also was the figure of $1 billion which
he said he would ask Congress to put up as
the "American investment in this effort when
It is underway."
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and South Viet-
nam have been working on the preliminaries
of just such a plan for 7 years now, in spite
of civil wars, diplomatic breaks, coups, and
foreign interventions, under United Nations
auspices. North Vietnam could be brought
in to the benefit of all. It would be the logi-
cal place to use some of the power generated
by a dam in Laos.
Late in March, when President Johnson
first held out the olive branch of coopera-
tive peaceful development as an alternative
to war and mutual destruction in Vietnam,
the proposal had the weakness of seeming a
thing of words, without any U.S. planning
to make it a reality.
On April 7, the President remedied this
weakness by announcing that Eugene Black,
former president of the World Bank, will
head a tea.in to get the U.S. part of the job
started?not even waiting for peace, Black
Is a superb choice, a man of demonstrated
ability in this very difficult field of develop-
ing the underdeveloped. His appointment is
a convincing sign to other countries that the
offer of economic aid is not mere propaganda.
President Johnson is sensitive to world
opinion, to U.S. opinion. He knows how
much alarm and disapproval has been stirred
up by his bombing raids into North Vietnam.
He remains convinced that the raids are a
necessary part of keeping South Vietnam
from collapsing.
But he understands also that war is hell?
for the long-suffering Vietnamese people, the
brave Vietcong fighters as well as the U.S.-
backed South Vietnamese. Since February,
North Vietnam, too, is suffering direct hits
as well as the drain of blood and treasure
from intervention in the South.
Neither side can win the way things are
going. Both can win, if President Johnson's
olive branch is grasped.
Proposed Reduction in Funds for Soil
Conservation Service
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. WALTER F. MONDALE
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, re-
cently I received a thoughtful and
thought-provoking letter from the Presi-
dent of the Minnesota Farmers Union,
Edwin M. Christianson.
Mr. Christianson's remarks pointedly
and powerfully define the irrational and
unfounded basis upon which the pro-
posed reduction in funds for the Soil
Conservation Service and the agricul-
tural cost-sharing program is predicated.
Furthermore, Mr. Christianson's remarks
eloquently dramatize the stake which
each American has in the encourage-
ment of sound conservation practices.
Of particular salience, I think, is Mr.
Christianson's recommendation that the
President direct the Secretary of Agricul-
ture to prepare and publish annually a
"soil fertility balance sheet."
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Christianson's letter be printed
In its entirety in the Appendix of the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MINNESOTA FARMERS UNION,
St. Paul, Minn., March 30, 1965.
Hon. WALTER MONDALE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: The national in-
ventory of soil conservation needs which was
made public this week by the Department of
Agriculture presents some very impelling
reasons why the ACP and SCS funds should
not be reduced, but why they ought to be
increased.
The proposed budget reduction of $100
million for ACP would be false economy con-
sidering the vast amount of work needed.
Similarly, the proposal to charge farmers
for $20 million of the cost of SCS techni-
cal services would certainly hinder the pro-
gram.
Without question, in the light of the low
income prevailing on many farms, the need
to absorb more of the cost of soil conserving
projects would cause many farmers to de-
lay work which is needed in the ubli 1 -
A1929
terest, If the cuts are made, reliable esti-
mates are that ACP and other farm con-
servation project starts may drop by as much
as 50 percent.
Much of the work done under ACP and
SCS does not result in immediate cash bene-
fits to the owner of the land. It is done
to retain and improve the land capability
for the future. Therefore, the public has
a stake in assuring that conservation meas-
ures be undertaken by individual farmers
and they ought to provide a substantial
incentive for doing so.
The soil and water conservation inven-
tory shows that nearly two-thirds of the
rural land, near to 900 million acres, is in
immediate need of conservation treatment.
In this USDA study, you will find a projec-
tion of the trend of cropland into non-
farm uses, which will, by 1975, amount to 21/2
million acres in the Lake States and 20 mil-
lion acres nationally. This will throw an
additional burden on the remaining crop
acreage.
The soil and water conservation inven-
tory is a study of major importance in put-
ting our conservation needs in perspective.
In our opinion, however, it is not enough
for such a study to be made and published
once in every 5 or 10 years. We believe
that the time has come for Congress to
direct and authorize the Secretary of Agri-
culture to calculate and publish annually a
national "soil fertility balance sheet" so that
the people of the Nation will have the op-
portunity to know what progress is being
made.
Soil and water conservation is vital to all
of us.
Sincerely,
EDWIN CHR/STIANSON,
President.
The Republicans React in a Very Curious
Way
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. RICHARD FULTON
OF TENNESSEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. FULTON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, President Johnson's recent Bal-
timore speech on Vietnam held out the
promise of economic assistance to south-
east Asia as a means of settliag that
area's problems. There has been criti-
cisms from responsible quarters and
spokesmen of this possible approach.
In an editorial published Friday, April
9, 1965, the Nashville Tennessean raises
a very basic question which those who
find fault with the President's offer of
economic assistance as an alternative to
war must answer: Are we to put a greater
value on American dollars than we do
on American lives?
Mr. Speaker, under unanimous con-
sent, I insert the editorial from the Nash-
ville Tennessean at this point:
THE REPUBLICANS REACT IN A VERY CURIO/TS
WAY
Some of the Republican reaction to Presi-
dent Johnson's speech has been, to say the
least, disappointing.
Senator Evcricrr MCKINLEY DIRRSEN said
the President "offers a billion-dollar lure
as a step toward peace in Vietnam." And
he asked, "Do we actually buy peace with
an Ameripan aid program?"
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R00030015002.2-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 22,-1965
? CIA:RDP67aQ04ff00300150022-9
A1930 CONGRESSIONAL/ RECORD ? APFEN April
Aside from Mr. DIRKSEN'S rather loose in-
terpretation of the Johnson speech, can it
be that the Republican Senate leader is put-
ting a greater value on American dollars
than he puts on American Lives?
This Nation now is and has been expend-
ing its treasure and its blood in support-
ing South Vietnam. If that war should sud-
denly escalate into a major clash of land
armies and the intervention of Red Chinese
forces into Vietnam, Senator DIRKSEN can
be assured that a billion dollars will be a
small part of the eventual cost and that
America will weep over the totals of dead.
It takes a very casual Interpretation of
Mr. Johnson's speech to come up with the
idea that it was somehow a plea which was
suing for peace, or an offer to buy peace
from Hanoi at the price of a billion dollars.
And it is even a stranger interpretation
that glosses over the words of the President
jand finds a no-win policy or a trumpet
sounding retreat.
For the President said: "We will not be
defeated. We will not grow tired. We will
not withdraw, either openly or under the
cloak of meaningless agreement. We will
use our power with restraint, and with all
the wisdom we can command. But we will
use it."
If Senator DIFcKSEN hears this as an un-
certain trumpet, he is tone dear.
If it has suddenly become a sign of weak-
ness to urge warlike leaders to beat their
swords into plowshares; if the olive branch
has all at once become a symbol of retreat,
then this Nation and all humanity are rid-
ing the tumbrel cart downhill.
President Johnson said to all southeast
Asia that there is another road to the fu-
ture besides that of destruction, of bombs
and bullets and blood. But Senators DIRK-
SEN and TOWER and Representative GERALD
Foss leave the impression they would rather
achieve peace the hard and bloody way.
Therein is illustrated the difference be-
tween the statesmanship of peace and the
politics of opposition.
? Castro's Real Coup in Cuba
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. MELVIN R. LAIRD
OF WISCONSIN
/N nsa HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 15, 1965
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, a very per-
ceptive and enlightening article on the
methods Castro employed to entrench
and solidify communism in Cuba is con-
tattled In the April 1965 issue of Report
magazine, The article, "Castro's Real
Coup in Cuba," was written by Alberto
Martinez Piedra, a neighbor and friend.
Mr. Piedra was formerly a professor of
economics in Havana and currently
teaches at Catholic University in Wash-
ington, D.C. Knowing that the analysis
contained in this article would be of in-
terest to my colleagues, I include it
under unanimous consent at this point
in the RECORD.
The article referred to follows:
CASTRO'S REAL COUP IN CuBA
(By Alberto Martinez Piedra)
When Fidel Castro came to power in Janu-
ary 1959, everybody thought his long struggle
for victory had been achieved. Castro him-
self knew differently. For himself, and for
the few others who knew he was a Commu-
nist, it was just the beginning.
Communism did not come to power when
Castro emerged from the hills and seized the
rule from Batista. It came to power after-
ward and right before everyone's eyes. The
amazing story of Castro's real takeover is one
of deception, division, and destruction played
out in the midst of the Cubans themselves,
and all too often with anti-Communists as
the unwitting allies of Castro's clever game.
It is a tactic which continues today in Cas-
tro's relations with the rest of the hemi-
sphere.
According to classical Communist doctrine,
a country goes over to socialism because of
the inherent injustices of a capitalist society.
Exploitation leads to class war; capitalism
destroys itself; finally the people triumph.
In the same way that the Red Army dis-
proved this 'theory in the Communist take-
overs in East Europe after World War II,
Castro himself demonstrated that commu-
nism triumphs because a few men who know
how to play with power can deceive the
people.
For over a year after gaining power the
bearded hero of the hills talked about libera-
tion, progress, truth, social justice, defense
of democracy, religious freedom and the right
to vote. For more than a year this rhetoric
camouflaged his real objective and was made
to serve his real aims: to destroy all existing
values and institutions in order to achieve
absolute control and build a new order, Com-
munist style. Castro's greatest coup was not
against the Batista regime; it was against the
Cuban people themselves after Batista had
fled.
What was the strategy? Deception coupled
with the old maxim divide and conquer.
Time and again, Castro would find some issue
whereby he could divide various elements in
the press, in industry, among business men,
the church, landowners or the educational
establishment, and then rally some to his side
in order to undo the others in a process of
undoing all.
In 1959, for instance, Castro brought a
Spanish priest from Paraguay and put him
on radio and TV to denounce the Franco
regime in 'violent language. The Spanish
Ambassador protested. But Castro was after
bigger game. When representatives of many
of the religious orders protested?some pre-
cisely on the grounds that a cleric should
not mix in politics?Castro quickly labeled
them opponents of his regime and subservi-
ent to a foreign racist power.
The bait had been taken and the cam-
paign of villification was one which ended
in the expulsion of all Spanish priests and
nuns. Castro knew that the church was his
ultimate enemy: this as only the first of
his many moves which has left only 120
priests on the island to take care of nearly
7 million inhabitants.
The same tactic was used to get rid of
the newspaper El Mundo, owned by an Ital-
ian. The press was particularly vulnerable
to this strategy that reliect on the selfish
idea that another man's troubles are not my
tronbles--and sometimes can even be to my
profit.
Castro could not afford to have any group
united against him and least of all in the
press. When Batista's army was disbanded
Castro had a force of only 1,500 men. Boy
scouts were being used to direct traffic.
Castro himself had to go on TV day in and
day out, sometimes for hours at a time. But
until he was strong enough he needed a de-
ceived press to give him its support.
An exile, formerly connected with Bohemia
magazine, says that Castro used to visit the
magazine's offices three times a week, but
the visits declined as the strength of the
army increased. Castro knew how to play
favorites so that as he moved against one
publication after another, those that re-
mained would always feel "safe."
But getting rid of the "bourgeois" press
was always a piecemeal process, never a MRS-
sive blow that would show his hand. And
when the attack came it was rarely from
Castro himself. Union toughs would smash
the machinery of an afternoon paper over
some minor grievance. The morning paper
would find its position improved. When a
foreign-owned paper would be accused of
being anti-Cuban, the others would congrat-
ulate themselves on their illusory safety as
nationals.
Castro's second thrust against the church
was once again not on any religious issue;
that would have rallied opposition. Dis-
tinguishing between good Christians and bad
ones, he would praise the Sisters of Charity
as good religious women following the true
calling of Christ. They devoted their lives
to healing the sick and helping the poor.
But by appearing religious himself in this
way, he subtly advanced a purely social in-
terpretation of religion and thus opened his
attack on the Jesuits, the Augustinians, and
others involved in the education of the "up-
per classes."
His target was the vital field of education
and particularly the University of Santo
Tomas de Villanueva. With Law 11, passed
in January, 1959, Castro voided all degrees
and credits of Villanueva granted sine* the
University of Havana had shut down in 1956.
The charge was that Villanueva had not sup-
ported Havana University's protest against
Batista by closing its doors, too.
With rumors that the administration of
the university had considered declaring its
grounds and buildings American property,
Castro had new ammunition. With a charge
of "anti-Cuban" in hand, he went on to
develop antagonism between clergy and laity
over the question of Villanueva, duping many
into supporting the regime's attack on the
main nonstate university and the Augustin-
lens who ran it.
The closing of the university in 1961 con-
stitutes one of the saddest episodes in the
early days of Castroism. Those who had
criticized the Augustinians soon found that
they were following their brothers into exile,
and the church's activity in higher education
was stamped out.
Lay organizations were prey to manipula-
tion by the regime in order to weaken the
church. The JUC (Juventud Urtiversitaria
Catolica), for example, with prompting from
the government, denied that there were any
Communists in the University of Havana,
actually a Communist stronghold. Their ill-
considered statement only added to the con-
fusion already felt by many Cubans.
Distinctions and divisions between "con-
servative" and "liberal" Catholics were
pressed for all they were worth. "Progres-
sives" were opposed to "reactionaries" and
"antirevolutionaries." Those who supported
the aims of the revoluticin were said to be in
line with the true teachings of the Gospel.
Magazines like La Quincena were ap-
plauded, while any that criticized Govern-
ment measures were denounced as counter-
revolutionary. The distinction was only
transitory, the purpose being to confuse and
to divide the faithful into antagonistic
groups.
All the while the regime pretended to be
on the side of religion. But strange devo-
tions were fostered in a Machiavellian man-
ner to further confuse and mislead. The
veneration of the spurious San Lazaro was
encouraged and the road to his shrine was
modernized, above all because he was a poor
man in the Gospel parable who lived to see
the condemnation of the heartless rich man.
Propaganda, not religion, was the aim; but
the religious spirit of the people could be
used?and twisted in the process.
The final stroke was to try to create a
Cuban National Church, independent from
Rome and "faithful to the true teachings of
Christ," which, according to the revolution-
ary government, the priests and religious
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150022-9
April 22, 19 p rove d FoMmsEsMln WM820300150022-9
had forgotten to practice. The government
got a few of the clergy to attend the confer-
ence for this purpose, but made the mistake
of inviting Bishop Boza Masvidal, the new
auxiliary bishop of Havana, a native. The
bishop torpedoed the plan and so kept al-
most all of Cuba's priests loyal, an action
that took him a step closer to exile.
Castro worked to create the same kind of_
divisions throughout the entire society.
Since there was no "class war" in Cuba, he
had to create it. Early in 1959 he passed
two laws that completely disrupted real
estate business and which were calculated
to set the masses against the "easy living,"
"nonproductive" and "parasitic" rentiers.
One decree simply cut all rents in half; an-
other put an absurd Ceiling price on the sale
of land and then forced all owners (with a
few technical exceptions) to sell on demand.
The move aroused hardly any opposition
from intellectual or businessmen not directly
affected. To many it appeared simply as a
bungling and insane gesture by a new gov-
ernment of amateurs and destined soon to be
repealed. The mess :was indeed cleared up,
but in a way they hardly expected: a year
later Castro declared that rentiers were no
longer owners, and all rents were to be paid
to the government?toward a mythical
"eventual" purchase.
In a similar way Castro made use of the
agrarian reform law of May 1959, to destroy
first the foreign landholders, then those who
held large blocks of land and finally even
small landholders. Again, he attacked one
group at a time, so that others would not
protest until it was, too late. Now few "in-
dependent" farmers exist, and the state-
owned, state-run farm has become the,domi-
nant agricultural unit.
What were the elements of Castro's suc-
cess? The first and most important was
deception. Castro knew what his goals were
from the .beginning. When he admitted in
1961 that tie .had been a Marxist-Leninist all
along, he also declared that he deliberately
avoided saying this in the beginning because
he knew he wouldn't be able to generate sup-
port.
Castro knew what he intended to do; but
by concealing his aims while working for
them all the time, he perhaps more than any
other sticCessful Communist revolutionary?
even the Red "agrarian reformers" of China?
was able to take advantage of the combina-
tion of good will and selfishness that exists
in every society.
A free 'society?and for that matter, even
a Communist one?will always have a great
variety of opinions, groups, divisions, and
subdivisions and even antagonisms. Cas-
tro's second great tactic was to develop these
into outright clashes. One by one, each of
these groups could be isolated and then elim-
inated, while Castro was only apparently fa-
voring the rest. The Communist doctrine of
class war is pure myth, but it becomes a
"reality" for purposes of destruction under
the pressures of selective agitation and de-
ception. '
The tactic only works because there is
enough good will in a liberal society to
believe that piecemeal isolation of one "bad"
element soxnehow marks progress. And
there is always enough bad will to be found
that can close its eyes to the destruction that
ensues, the "good" always believing they are
safe. What is not realized is that such dis-
tinctions between bad and good are not part
of the Communist vocabulary. They are
only means by which the Communist is able
to divide and conquer.
And Castro is using these same tactics to-
day. Now that he has secured absolute
control in Cuba itself, he Is sparing no effort
to export the revolution to all of Latin Amer-
ica, .Terrorisjn Bolivia may seem merely
destructive. But in the Communist strategy
and propaganda it is aimed at pitting "the
people" against their "detestexi fascist rul-
,
ers," just as arson in Puerto Rico is aimed at
"foreign domination of capitalist overlords in
the United States."
And of all the deceptions and divisions
that are created and encouraged?rich
against poor, foreigner against native, owner
against worker, big business against little,
right against left?those involving the church
are at once the saddest and most pernicious.
Castro has added a new string to Lenin's
lyre in pretending to speak in the name of
the Gospel, playing upon the vast variety
in the church's activities and organizations.
By turning religion exclusively to social con-
cerns, its heart is cut out, true charity and
the unity that goes with it is smashed.
The state of the church in Cuba today
stands as witness to what communism means
bath in its tactics and in its goals. There
Is no persecution, it is claimed?as long as
religion is confined to the clouds "where it
belongs."
But the church is forbidden to teach; the
more than 300 Catholic schools have been
seized by the government; all religious pro-
grams have been banned from radio and tele-
vision; and even though churches are still
open in Cuba, as the propaganda takes care
to assert, the number of priests has been
reduced to a handful that is far too few to
minister to the needs of a population that
Is overwhelmingly Catholic. The church in
Cuba today has joined the honorable ranks
of the churches of silence behind the Iron
Curtain.
But the cry of the church in Cuba is not
merely a lament for itself; it is the cry of
witness against what communism is trying
to do everywhere. For the Cuban Church
to cease to occupy its honorable position, de-
clared Bishop Boza Masvidal, "communism
would have to cease being atheistic and en-
slaving," and both are equally impossible.
"Research: Key to Tomorrow"
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD
OF' PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 12, 1965
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I in-
clude as part of my remarks another
chapter in the story of Pittsburgh, "Re-
search: Key to Tomorrow":
RESEARCH MANPOWER
More than 14,000 research scientists, engi-
neers, and technicians are employed in the
Pittsburgh area. Of this total, 7,600 are pro-
fessional staff members. They represent all
the disciplines, ranging from the design engi-
neer to the theoretical physicist. Almost all
perform or are available for contract research,
In addition to their R. & D. activities,
Pittsburgh area Acientists and engineers en-
joy an active professional life through the
local sections of more than 60 scientific and
technical societies.
Among these organizations are the Ameri-
can Chemical Society with seven active sub-
groups, the largest local section of the Amer-
ican Nuclear Society, and the world head-
quarters of the Instrument Society of
America.
The societies sponsor a multitude of pro-
fessional programs, many of which are joint
projects. Typical activities include short
courses in solid-state devices and process
control by the Institute of Electrical & Elec-
tronic Engineers, PERT seminars by the
American Institute of Industrial Engineers,
a lecture series on space sciences by the
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astro-
A1931
nautics, and a unique high school engineer-
ing physics course sponsored by six societies.
Pittsburgh also is the annual site of such
highly regarded national and international
conferences as the Pittsburgh Conference
on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spec-
troscopy, Pittsburgh Diffraction Conference,
ISA Conference on Instrumentation in the
Iron. and Steel Industry, and the National
Conference on Open Hearth and Basic Oxy-
gen Steel.
Looking Back and Ahead in Wake of
House Vote
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
OF MICHIGAN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pur-
suant to permission granted I insert in
the appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD an excellent article appearing in the
Washington Report on the Medical Sci-
ences, published by WRMS, and edited
by Mr. Gerald G. Gross.
I am sure this excellent commentary
on the passage of the medicare bill, H.R.
6675, merits careful consideration.
The article follows:
LOOKING BACK AND AHEAD IN WAKE OF
HOLTSE VOTE
It really began a quarter century ago, when
organized medicine's hostility to a small
medical group formed to serve some govern-
ment employees on a prepaid basis led to
conviction of AMA and fellow defendants
on charges of violating antitrust laws. The
conviction stood up clear to the U.S. Su-
preme Court. But AMA was now on its
way to save the country from socialized
medicine. Today, millions of lobbying and
propaganda dollars later, the Nation is at
the brink. Credit those dollars, if you will,
with delaying the day; but credit them, too,
with the power of backfire.
The House has passed medical eldercare
under social security. Senate passage this
spring?possibly as a present for AMA on
the eve of its annual meeting in New York
City, June 20-24?is a virtual certainty. It
will be a big climax, yet it will be but the
first step. In time eldercare will give way
to true medicare, with no ages barred. Only
this time AMA persistence in its strange op-
position strategy will be an accelerant,
rather than an effective obstruction tactic.
In recent years particularly, AMA has en-
joyed exquisite success in antagonizing the
press, alienating those in Congress who would
be its friends, and picking the wrong horses.
Membership dues have gone from $0 to $45 a
year to raise a war chest that would stave
off Federal intervention in providing and
financing medical care. But any gains that
may have accrued were offset by Dearborn
Street aloofness to legitimate inquiries, oc-
casional arrogance, designation of a pat,
patronizing, palaverous doctor to be spokes-
man?at least temporarily?and failure to
recognize that AMA's refusal to take leader-
ship on health legislation weakened its posi-
tion as a pleader for the antieldercare cause.
Attempting to show that organized labor
was not solidly behind social security medi-
cal care, AMA engaged the president of an
International union to address its banquet
in Atlantic City. He said he was against
Wagner-Murray-Dingell. Not long afterward
he was in the penitentiary (though not be-
cause of that declaration) ?
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : ,CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150022-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 ?ciAzRIDP671KORS0300150022r9pril 22? 1965
A1932 CONGRESSIONAL RE(AMO ? AY.F.h.L\ uLIRO A
On May 25, 1960, your correspondent, de-
livering Alpha Omega Alpha lecture at Uni-
versity of Nebraska College of Medicine, pre-
dicted onset of Federal subsidization of
health services. Based on events and cir-
cumstances in which organized medicine
was anything but a disinterested bystander,
he made this prediction before 1960 and he
has made it since. In Omaha, as elsewhere,
audience reaction was one of a sort of re-
sentful, if not belligerent, silence, as though
the utterance mothered a wish. This is an-
other attitude that has hastened the day.
NEXT 90 DAYS COULD BE A TIME FOR INVENTORY
In the course of lengthy House debate
Wednesday and Thursday on Hitt. 6675, AMA
was slammed around a bit for its nega-
tivism and yet not even its severest critics
employed the invective that has been heaped
on King-Anderson bill and its predecessors.
No one tagged AMA's motives as "a fraud
and a hoax," a label once applied to Presi-
dent Kennedy for his sponsorship of social
security eldercare?a characterization that
was an important addition to the backfire
arsenal. Rather, the atmosphere seemed to
be one that could be summed up in the
words: Cooperation of America's doctors is
a must if this huge $6 billion program is to
work, so here's hoping they take a new look.
Passage of Medicare Bill Is a Legislative
Milestone
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. RICHARD FULTON
OF TENNESSEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. , FULTON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, on April 8 of this year the House
of Representatives approved the historic
bill to provide medical care for the
elderly under social security.
On April 10, the Nashville Tennessean
in an editorial, "Passage of Medicare Bill
Is a Legislative Milestone," stated final
approval of this bill by the Congress will
signal a "historic point in social legisla-
tion."
Mr. Speaker, under unanimous con-
sent, I insert the editorial from the
Nashville Tennessean at this point:
PASSAGE OF MEDICARE BILL IS A LEGISLATIVE
MILESTONE
House passage of the program for medical
care for the elderly under social security is a
legislative milestone. - If the Senate approves
this measure, it will mark a historic point
in social legislation.
Medical care for the aged has been one of
the top priority items on President Johnson's
must list. It was one of the early goals of
the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
For several years, the proposal has been
the center of great controversy. The Amer-
ican Medical Association has spent millions
to bring about its defeat.
But for all the furore and outcries raised,
a central fact has been that both sides have
agreed that the aged needed protection
against the rising costs of being sick. Sev-
eral factors have given the problem increas-
ing concern.
The number of elderly in our population is
large and it is growing. As a group, it is the
most economically vulnerable, and it is the
most likely to sustain long and serious ill-
nesses. There are nearly 20 million people
In the United States who are 65 years or
older. Many are dependent on small pen-
sions, social security, or inadequate life sav-
ings. To these older people, the costs of
medical care for serious illness can be cata-
strophic, financially.
The measure passed by the House is a
much broader one than was conceived orig-
inally. In brief, it would:
Increase social security payments to the
aged by 7 percent: broaden medical assist-
ance under existing welfare programs, and
liberalize other social security benefits.
The key feature is the right of persons
over 65 to a maximum of 60 days hospitaliza-
tion and 20 days nursing home care. The
patient would pay the first $40, the rest
would be paid for him.
Available to the elderly who want it is
a supplementary and entirely voluntary pro-
gram of insurance, which would defray ex-
penses of doctors' bills and other expenses
not covered by the basic plan. This sup-
plementary insurance plan would apply only
to those who want it and would be financed
by a $3 a month premium from those joining
the program and by matching funds from
Federal general revenue.
The bill includes a general liberalizing
of other old-age, survivors, and disability
benefits. Pensioners would be able to earn
more and still collect a retirement check;
widows could retire at an earlier age; chil-
dren would be given survivors benefits until
age 22 instead of the present 18.
All in all, it is a major package which
is a big step forward in behalf of the older
citizens of this Nation. House action by a
236-to-191 vote adds optimism that Senate
passage will come by June at least.
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. EDNA F. KELLY
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mrs. KF.T.11Y, Mr. Speaker, although
the history of mankind is unfortunately
liberally sprinkled with dictatorships of
the right and the left, as human beings
we may still take pride in the fact that
there have always been men who have
been willing to risk all in order to counter
them.
One of the most recent tyrannies was
that which existed in Germany from
1933 to 1945, when the Nazis under
Adolf Hitler attempted to establish their
"thousand year Reich." April 19, 1965,
was the anniversary of one of the most
tragic uprisings against that dictator-
ship: The revolt of the Warsaw ghetto
in 1943, when 40,000 Jews decided to
confront the German war machine. In-
adequately equipped, almost completely
untrained, and overwhelmingly outnum-
bered, their defiance of the SS and the
Gestapo was in the true sense of the
word a tragedy, because despite the
knowledge of certain defeat, they never
hesitated.
The Warsaw ghetto was officially es-
tablished in November of 1940: 100 city
blocks were surrounded by brick walls
10 feet high and barbed wire fences, and
the Jewish population was completely
cut off from the rest of the city?indeed,
the world. Despite the starvation, mis-
ery and death which followed, Jewish
community life continued: soup kitch-
ens, child care centers, schools, lectures,
musical events, and a host of other activ-
ities were carried out. Perhaps most
important for posterity, daily feports on
activities, scientific papers, and complete
archives were maintained. It is from
these that we have our information on
life in the ghetto; they provide a moving
and memorable record of the courage
and determination of the unfortunate
people to preserve and maintain their
Jewish traditions and way of life against
the Nazi holocaust.
But, their actions provide us at the
same time with a more meaningful and
wider lesson: that no tyranny, no matter
how ruthless and inhuman, is ever able
to extinguish the desire of man to live
in freedom. The Warsaw ghetto will
forever live as an example of how guns,
barbed wire, starvation, and torture are,
in the long run, unable to compete with
dedication and determination to the
cause of liberty.
Republican Task Force on Agriculture
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. ODIN LANGEN
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1965
Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Speaker, the
members of the House Republican Task
Force on Agriculture have expressed
grave concern over the rapid increase in
U.S. farm debt. It is our feeling that
the American farmer is literally being
crushed under this enormous burden of
debt. With farm mortgage and short-
term debt increasing far out of propor-
tion to income, the farmer's economic
situation is rapidly deteriorating.
We on the task force are continuing
our research into the agricultural situa-
tion for the purpose of arriving at a
better understanding of what is wrong
with present and past programs which
have not served the best interests of the
American farmer, taxpayer or consumer.
Such a thorough understanding is most
essential as a background for any and
all considerations of the farmer's eco-
nomic problems. Preliminary research
Into the farm debt situation has revealed
some alarming facts.
Unfortunately, administration farm
programs have accomplished the exaci,
opposite of their stated objectives. Since,
1961, net farm income has remained vir-
tually at the same level, while total farrr.
debt has increased nearly 50 percent.
Total farm debt today is actually great-
er than the entire Federal budget in
1948.
U.S. farmers in 1961 were indebted
$1.97 for every dollar of realized net in-
come. This year, after 4 years of current
farm programs, the farmer will owe a
whopping $2.86 for every income dollar.
To further illustrate what this means, in
1929, on the eve of the great depression,
the farmer owed only about $2.30 for
each income dollar. The farmer's best
postwar year was 1947, when the ratio
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150022-9