VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 6, 2003
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: June 17, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

juyie ihrroved For RelemfaffigilAAElft-Mb1300fitalejn0300180024-4
13469
Lewis quite obviously never has known
the rapture of a west Texas dawn where
the sun flames crimson on the rugged
canyon Walls and the day opens big as
all outdoors.
Someday when Mr. Lewis' lnngs are
choked with smog and his nostrils of-
fended by the exhaust fumes of the east-
ern metropolis, his nerves a jangle from
the raucous bleetings of the auto horn,
lie should seek a week of serene repose in
the lush, semitropical beauty of the Rio
Grande Valley where the fragrance of
some budding plant forever scents the
atmosphere, multicolored foliage salves
the eyes, and where the nerves are
balmed at siesta time by the gentle strok-
ing of guitars.
Or perhaps he should take a leisurely
canter 0X1 horseback through the Texas
hill country in springtime when blue-
bonnets cover the meadows with an azure
blanket, or relax by gondola through the
picturesque downtown meanderings of
the San Antonio River beneath the
storied Alamo, or drive the freeway be-
tween Fort Worth and Dallas where the
skylines of the twin cities loom breath-
takingly out of the plain.
I wish he could visit Six Flags over
Texas, or the Chandor Gardens in
Weatherford, or Houston's Astrodome, or
the Sunken Gardens of Brackenridge
Park, or the Botanic Gardens of Fort
Worth.
NQ scenic beauties? Texas has so
many we cannot even name them all.
ASSATEAGUE ISLAND
(Mr. TODD asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. TODD. Mr. Speaker, have be-
come concerned by the shortage of ade-
quate public beach facilities in the mid-
dle Atlantic coastal region. Cape Cod
ha, relieved the pressure for swimming
areas In New England, and the Fire Is-
land National Seashore seems adequate
for New York City, but there is a long
gap between Fire Island and the next
national seashore south, Cape Hatteras,
N.C.
Assateague Island, it seems to me, is
the logical solution to this problem, and
I urge that we take immediate action to
Make the island a national seashore.
Assateague is ideally located to serve
the large portion of our eastern populace
which now has little or no access to good
beaches. Within a 250-mile radius of
the island live over 34 million people,
one-fifth of our entire population, most
in the large metropolitan areas of Wash-
ington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wil-
mington, and Richmond. And there
seems little doubt that Assateague could
accommodate this terrific demand. The
Department of the Interior recently esti-
mated that a national seashore at Assa-
teague could probably serve 3 million
each year.
This spring I spent two weekends on
Assateague, and I am convinced that it
would be perfect as a national seashore.
The southern tip a the island is quite
WOOdeci and m.arshy, an ideal refuge for
110---:2
thousands of ducks, geese, and swans, as
well as the 'famous wild ponies. The
northern end, on the other hand, is a
long, wide beach. The water tempera-
ture there is moderate, and the dropoff
gradual. Even on rough days, I am told,
there is virtually no undertow. In short,
it is an ideal swimming area.
At the same time, because of its topog-
raphy, Assateague is not at all suited
for private cottages or summer resi-
dences. In the first place, if many homes
were built there, before long, there would
be a terrific sewage disposal problem. In
an effort to prevent sewage contamina-
tion on the island, the Maryland State
Health Department has banned all sep-
tic tanks. It feels that the only solu-
tion to the problem is a fairly compli-
cated sewage system?a system much too
costly to be financed by any private land
developer.
But the main reason that Assateague
is not suitable for private housing de-
velopment is that it often floods. In the
hurricane of March 1962, for example,
the island was almost completely sub-
merged. The Washington Post's ac-
count of the storm read:
In. * * * the great storm, the ocean rolled
right across Assateague into Chincoteague
Bay at perhaps five points. Dunes were
washed away and the sand deposited in what
had been swamps. The shoreline was
moved, leaving former beaches deep under
water. One summer house, built fore-
sightedly on deep pilings in the dunes, was
left with its doorstep out of reach above the
new ground level.
, ?
In short, I feel that the arguments in
favor of a national seashore at Assa-
teague are indisputable: There is a ter-
rific need for swimming facilities in this
area; Assateague has an ideal beach; and
it is completely unsuitable for private
ownership and development. It is my
hope, therefore, that in the near future
the House Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs will hold hearings on the
Assateague National Seashore bills, and
that it will see fit to act favorably on
them. A Senate committee has already
done so, and it is of the utmost urgency
and importance that we follow suit.
NEW YORK STATE MOVING TO-
WARD ADOPTION OF LOTTERY AS
A SOUND SOCIAL AND REVENUE
DEVICE
(Mr. FINO asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FINO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday,
I spoke before this House to announce
that the New York State Senate had
voted in favor of a State lottery by a
2-to-1 majority. Today, it is my pleasure
to announce that the State assembly fol-
lowed suit and also voted in favor of a
resolution for a constitutional amend-
ment to establish a State lottery. I am
happy to say that the assembly did so
by a majority of 8 to 1.
This, Mr. Speaker, means that a State
lottery is about to become a reality in
New York. After next year's legislative
action on this proposal, the people will
have an opportunity to vote on it in
1966.
I am confident that this lottery pro-
posal, which I have supported for a long
time, will win an overwhelming victory
because the people want a lottery to help
ease their tax burdens.
There is no doubt that New York has
immense illegal gambling activity which
should be tapped for the public good. I
am confident that a lottery in New York
will cut heavily into the multibillion-
dollar gambling activity which has been
for too long a monopoly of the under-
world crime syndicates.
New York proposes to use lottery reve-
nues for education?this will certainly
be a great boom to education in New
York.
The legalization of a State lottery in
New York will prove to our neighboring
States that hypocrisy costs money. I
say this because people from all over the
United States will look forward to the
opportunity to buy a New York State lot-
tery ticket.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the New
York State Legislature's vote on the lot-
tery proposal is further evidence of a
growing trend toward the lottery idea as
a sound social and revenue device?a
trend which will be more and more felt
even in the Coni the years go by.
F( Again&
e4114-447
(Mr. CALLAWAY asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. CALLAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I feel
certain that of all the various phases of
this Nation's foreign policy, the one in
which this Congress is most interested
is the war in Vietnam.
I have this week returned from a brief
tour of that country, the purpose of
which was to better my understanding of
the situation through firsthand experi-
ence. During the week I was briefed by
Ambassador Johnson, met with General
Westmoreland, had briefings at three of
the four corps areas in South Vietnam,
met with the commanding generals of
?
the Marines in Danang and of the 173d
Airborne Brigade at Bien Hoa. I talked
with American colonels, captains and
sergeants; with U.S. advisers to the
Vietnamese army at all levels. I talked
with the Vietnamese officers and men.
For 3 days, dressed in fatigues and
armed with a carbine, I talked with our
troops all the way from the rice paddies
of the Mekong Delta to the mountain
command posts overlooking Danang.
While I certainly do not want to in-
timate that I could become an expert on
Vietnam in 1 week, I do feel that I had
the opportunity to learn a good deal more
about the situation and our mission
there.
In an effort to share my opinions on
the war with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent to insert a
speech that I gave last Saturday before
the 45th Annual convention of the Dis-
abled American Veterans of Georgia, re-
cording my thoughts and observations
on the war.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R009300180024,4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE June 17, 1965
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have taken
a special order this afternoon for the
purpose of enlarging and detailing my
remarks. I invite all my colleagues to
join with me this afternoon in discussing
the situation in Vietnam.
The speech is as follows:
THE WAR IN VIETNAM
(Speech of Hon. HOWARD H. CALf.swsy be-
fore the 45th annual convention of the
Disabled American Veterans of Georgia,
June 12, 1965)
The war in Vietnam is a different kind of
war. It is in no war comparable to World
War I, World War II, or the 'Korean war.
This is the classic war of liberation. This is
the kind of war that Mao Tse-tung and his
Chinese Communists understand and want
to fight all over the world. This is the kind
of wax that Mr. Khrushchev praised in his
famous speech of January 6, 1961; it is the
kind of war that Castro's Che Guevara de-
scribes in the field manuals that are being
circulated today throughout Latin America;
and this is the kind of war that will break
out all over the world if we allow it.
A war of liberation is a phantom war that
we hardly understand. It can best be de-
scribed in Mao Tse-tung's words that "Our
guerrillas will swim in a sea of peasants."
Mao's classic war of liberation has three
phases: the first phase is entirely guerrilla
action, In the second phase the guerrillas
group together in units of company to regi-
ment size, attack and then fade away. The
third phase is conventional war In which the
guerrillas actually seize territory.
The war with the Vietcong today is in the
second phase. Vietcong troops assemble al-
most at will in strengths up to regimental
size, attack or ambush, and then vanish.
They never stand to fight against superior
forces, but always melt away into the sea of
humanity. They live off the land, which is
not difficult, for around each village there
are coconut trees, fruit trees, and hundreds
of pounds of rice stored in each home.
This is a war of terror. A standard Viet-
cong tactic is to attack a village in which
the villagers have been friendly to the Re-
public of Vietnam or to the United States,
and assassinate in a cruel fashion those who
have cooperated. In 1964 alone, some 500
village chiefs were assassinated and more
than twice that many kidnaped. This points
out the obvious necessity of giving security
to each of the villages. It is hard to get
people to stand up for us when we can't pro-
tect them.
While this war has many aspects of a civil
war, of Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese, I
want to point out strongly that the Vietcong
are supplied and directed totally from North
Vietnam and Hanoi. Over 20,000 hard-core
Vietcong are known to have come down the
Ho Chi Minh trails into South Vietnam.
Ther have trained, recruited, and kidnaped
some 60,000 local Vietnamese into the Viet-
cong service; arms and ammunition are sup-
plied from Hanoi. Most of these are light
armaments such as 60-millimeter mortars,
57-millimeter recoiless rifles, and a new se-
ries of 7.62-millimeter small arms weapon. A
significance of the new Weapons is that they
are manufactured in Communist nations and
are of a different caliber from anything our
forces are using. This means that the Viet-
cong are now so sure of their lines of supply
that they no longer need to rely on captured
weapons, but can count on supplying their
own. Most of the weapons come in junks
and sampans down the coast from North
Vietnam.
How can Atnericrens fight such an alien
and unfamiliar type of war? The war is
being fought today primarily by the Army
of the Republic of Vietnam, ARVN. They
are fighting it first with regular troops,
quickly meeting VC attacks before they can
disappear. Helicopters are being used ex-
tensively and the ARVN is continually de-
veloping new successful techniques. But
primarily the war is being fought by a pro-
gram of rural reconstruction. This program
has replaced the strategic hamlet program
and has the same purpose of providing
security to friendly villages.
The Vietcong controls a very large part
of the territory of South Vietnam, but the
Republic of Vietnam controls most of the
large population centers in all of the 45
provinces. The idea of rural reconstruction
is to start with the population center al-
ready controlled, and then like a spreading
drop of oil, move out slowly taking more
and more areas under the control of the
Republic of Vietnam. As this control
spreads, regular army ARVN forces are re-
placed by both regional forces, and by popu-
lar forces who together secure the areas from
the Vietcong. As soon as an area is secure
civilian government is established in cooper-
ation with the armed forces.
This is how the Vietnamese are fighting
their war, and it seems to me a very sound
method of fighting it.
And what are we doing to help? First
of all we are providing advisers at all levels
to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. In
each of the four corps areas there is a senior
American adviser, a full colonel. He works
hand in hand with the Vietnamese corps
commander giving tactical advice, helping
with training, and coordinating the Ameri-
can Air Force units. Similarly, American
advisers are working side by side with divi-
sion, regimental and battalion commanders
as well as with province chiefs and district
chiefs.
This program is working extremely well.
Of the hundreds of advisers I saw, each
worked in close cooperation with his Viet-
namese counterpart. The Americans had
nothing but praise for the Vietnamese Army
and for the courage and fighting ability of
the Vietnamese soldiers.
The one problem with the Vietnamese
Army is that of leadership. During their
tenure, the French did not train native
leaders, and it is only now that leaders are
being trained. This takes time, but wherever
there is good leadership, the Vietnamese sol-
diers fight Well. In the few instances where
they have not fought well, it has always
been attributed to poor leadership. One
significant example was of a battalion in
a heavy fight recently that was doing ex-
tremely well until its battalion commander
was killed. As there was no one to step in
and take over the leadership, the battalion
fell apart. Our advisers are playing a signifi-
cant role today in providing and training
the necessary depth of leadership.
In addition to advisers, we are also fight-
ing the war with operational American
troops. We have the 3d Marine Division
whose mission it is to protect the three air-
fields of Phu Bai, Danang, and Chu Lai in
the northern part of the country, and the
173d Airborne Brigade stationed near Ben
Hoa and operating in that area. These are
conventional American troops with specific
missions such as the protection of airfields.
We have to realize that our troops are operat-
ing as guests in a friendly sovereign coun-
try. This is frustrating at times, but the
problems are being worked out as the spirit
of cooperation is strengthened between the
two nations. For example, when the marines
first came into Danang they were assigned
to a sector much too small to carry out their
mission of defending the Danang Airbase.
Yet as the marines have operated and
showed the local Vietnamese that they are
careful net to harrn any of the civilian
population, their sector of responsibility has.
been increased.
Our third tactic in fighting this war is to
interdict the Vietcong supply routes by air
strikes north of the 17th parallel into North
Vietnam. Generally the air attacks are held
below the 20th parallel, with only an oc-
casional strike above that line. Although
our pilots are encountering antiaircraft fire,
and from time to time lose aircraft, the
strikes have been quite effective in cutting
supply lines in this limited area. But the
real problem is that the Vietcong needs such
a small amount of supplies, using no petro-
leum and no food and very little ammuni-
tion. It has been found that if we knock
out a bridge one day the next day supplies
are routed around to ferry sites. Therefore,
these strikes are effective, in that they are
making matters more difficult for the North
Vietnamese, but they in no way stop the
supplies that are needed for the Vietcong.
Most of the supplies eventually find their
way to the Vietcong by sea and rivers in
junks and sampans.
My assessment of the war in Vietnam is
that under the present circumstances we are
winning. This month we are in better shape
than we were a month ago, and a month ago
we were in better shape than we were 2
months ago. In each of the Provinces, the
area under control of the Republic of Viet-
nam spreads out week by week. The Viet-
cong seems to be maintaining its strength,
but it is getting no stronger. And added to
this is the encouraging fact that the morale
of both American troops and Vietnamese
troops is extremely high. As a matter of
fact, most of the commanders that I talked
with felt that morale was higher than they
had ever seen it in any operation in war
or peace. We can be extremely proud of
our fighting men.
RECOMMENDATIONS
From my brief visit I would make the fol-
lowing recommendations:
1. I think that we should do everything
we can to explain to our people that this
is a Vietnamese war and not our own. Our
role is only to help, not to take over. Cer-
tainly it would be a great mistake to get
into the position of fighting a major ground
war on the mainland of Asia. I hope that
with our help and advice, the Vietnamese
troops will be able to control the Vietcong
without U.S. Operational forces and that
perhaps within the next year all U.S. forces
except advisors might be pulled out safely.
I say this even as additional U.S. oper-
ational troops are being moved into Viet-
nam. I support the move of additional
troops as necessary to protect ourselves
against the threat of a new kind of war, an
attack by regular operational armed forces.
Should this war in Vietnam change from
the present war against the Vietcong to a
different kind of war against regular forces
of North Vietnam, China or Russia, then
we would have to analyze the situation and
change our plans accordingly. I cannot
speculate on what our reaction to such an
event might be, but I hope that it would
be firm, and with the full consideration of
all of the resources at our command. I
might say in passing that in some respects
a war against an overt aggression would be
easier to fight than the present one.
But I return to my point that the war
against the Vietcong guerillas should be
fought by the Vietnamese, not by U.S. opera-
tional troops. We should continue to help
the Vietnamese with advisers, military and
economic assistance, and most of all with
training and leadership; but we should Let
them fight their own war, which with our
help they are perfectly capable and willing to
do. Let me say that in the role of advisers
and helpers. I think we are committed to a
long-range program of many years duration.
2. We should consider a change in the
ground rules for bombing north. There are
new and dangerous military targets in the
Hanoi area. Specifically, the 11-28 Russian
jets and the SAM missiles. I would hope we
would consider bombing these military tar-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
June 17, 1965 CON'GRESSIONAL RECORb --HOUSE
gets within the next few days. This is a
decision that only the President" Can and
should make, and its iniplicationi are great:
'2'et there is perhaps more danger involved
in allowing establishment of these sites, UI-
timely inviting Russian jets to attack us
In South Vietnam and Russian missiles to
shoot down our planes, than to destroy these
military targets promptly and eliminate their
danger.
*8. We should consider some kind of politi-
cal solution whereby the free world would
gain from the war in Vietnam. As it is now,
Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese leader,
can at any moment call a halt and negotiate
according to the 1954 Geneva agreement
which divides the country into North and
South Vietnam. In that event, we would be
' back right where we were, and then after
a rnpnth or 6 months, the North Vietnamese
001ddstart the war all over again. As the sit-
? uation npw stands, the North Vietnamese
have nothing to lose but everything to gain
and thus It is to their advantage to continue.
Thus the free world will have to set an ob-
pctive beyond returning to the status quo.
.?Perhaps we will have to make some plan
for liberating North Vietnam from Corn-
num:1st control so that the rulers in Hanoi
?1/27,111 know that they do have something to
lose. Until then I see very little hope in
stopping their aggressions.
? My final comment is that we in America
?can be extremely proud of our fighting
troops, They are fighting the most dif-
flout war that can be imagined in the finest
traditions' a our Nation. Let us at home be
firm, and give them the backing that they
deserve for if we do they will never let us
down.
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE AMATEUR
ATHLETIC UNION AND THE NA-
TIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given
? permission to address the House for 1
MinUte.)
-Mr. 1VIICHEL, Mr. Speaker, the situa-
tion in ainateur athletics is seriously em-
broiled in what appears to be irreconcil-
able copflict hetWeen the Amateur
Athletic ,Union and the National Col-
legiate Athletic Association.- I have
written the PreSident, and hope many
1W-embers would do likewise,. urging his
hiterCession to resolve the controversy,
possibly by the appointment of a special
blue-ribbon commission.
I believe it would be very unfair if
our young athletes should suffer by not
being permitted to compete in various
*Etc% and field meets because their elders
are argctng over who has jurisdiction
over them.
We have an international traek meet
with the soviet Union coming up this
year. ? At the National AAU meet,
scheduled for June 26 and 27, partici-
pants will compete for places to repre-
sent our Nation. It would be unfortu-
nate and unforgiveable if because of this
disunity between the AAU and the
NCAA our best athletes were pro-
? hibited from competing for places by
the administrative default of those w1.1.9
seek to be responsible for the conduct of
aMateUr, athletics. For example, the
,iviclely heralded Randy Matson, of Texas
A. 8; M,, who has broken the world's
shotput record, would be foreclosed from
competing in the National AAU meet,
urflesa pOillething is done. And of course
this would also amply to a host of other
college and university star performers.
What is needed is a blue-ribbon com-
mission, headed by someone like the late
Douglas McArthur, whom President
Kennedy had appointed, to bring these
two organizations together and agree on
binding arbitration of their differences,
and I call on the President to take im-
mediate and appropriate steps. Time
is of the essence.
ANNUAL CONGRESSIONAL
BALLGAME
(Mr. CONTE asked and was granted
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, as you
know, it will soon be time once again
for the Republicans to assemble their
baseball team at District of Columbia,
Stadium to claim our annual victory over
a similar group of sports from the other
side. I speak, of course of the annual
congressional game scheduled for the
end of this month. I wish to take this
opportunity to again invite the Speaker
and the minority leader to be our guest
of honor on June 30,1965.
I am pleased to serve once again as
coach, manager, and star player for the
Republican team. Although we are
badly outnumbered and have been in
recent years, I am confident we will again
demonstrate that superior skill has more
to do with the outcome than superior
numbers.
That undoubtedly has a great deal to
do with the events I wish to relate here
this morning, events concerning a rather
startling piece of treachery on the part
of our opponents. In spite of their over-
whelming manpower advantage, our op-
ponents have again been reduced to
underhanded guerrilla warfare in an
effort to stave off certain defeat again
this year.
They have attempted to shanghi one
of our most promising prospects this
year, my learned colleague and honor-
able gentleman from Tennessee, the
heavy-hitting JOHN DUNCAN. My Col-
league was invited to sign with the other
team in a manuever reminiscent of the
infamous "Black Sox" scandal of 1919,
and the ill-fated attempt by one of our
Latin American neighbor countries to
lure our big league stars away from us
after World War II.
I consider this an act of treachery and
underhanded perfidy that goes against
all our American traditions of sports-
manship, statesmanship, and collective
bargaining. I must admit I am seriously
considering a formal protest before the
House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee.
I am stunned by the audacity of the
learned manager of the other team who,
by this act, demonstrates his contempt
for the national pastime and for the
skills of his colleagues. I must say in all
fairness, however, that he is able to rec-
ognize a loser when he has one and I
can understand his earnest desire to help
his cause no matter what the risk or the
pOsSible consequences.
I am confident that truth and justice,
13471
in the resplendent uniforms of the Re-
publican team, will win out in the end.
Mr. Speaker, I have dispatched the fol-
lowing letter to the manager and play-
ing coach of the Democratic team, the
Honorable HARLAN HAGEN:
DEAR HARLAN : It has just come to my at-
tention that Is spite of your overwhelming
manpower advantage the Democratic forces
have again been reduced to psychological
warfare with regard to the annual Demo-
cratic-Republican baseball game. The un-
derhanded attempt to sign the Honorable
JOHN J. DUNCAN away from the Republican
squad has been paralleled only by the
notorious Black Box scandal in the annals of
baseball history. Remembering the so-called
"secret strategy" charges of last year, how-
ever, the above act of aggression does not
seem inconsistent with prevailing Demo-
cratic policy.
This is to notify you that an official pro-
test will be lodged before the House Un-
American Activities Committee at the earliest
possible convenience. The dedicated loyalty
of Representative DUNCAN and the other
Members of the outnumbered but never out-
played minority team leads me to expect a
glorious victory on June 30, repeating last
year's 6-to-5 triumph by an even greater
margin.
Again, such tactics from a man of your
noted baseball ability are both shocking and
injurious to the reputation of our national
pastime, but truth and justice (in the uni-
forms of the Republican ball club) will win
out in the end.
Competitively yours,
SILVIO 0. CONTE.
YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM
OF POUGHKEEPSIE EXCHANGE
CLUB, DUTCHESS COUNTY, N.Y.
(Mr. RESNICK asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Speaker, I would
like at this time to recognize the con-
tributions of the Poughkeepsie Exchange
Club in Dutchess County, N.Y., for its
fine record of interest in the youth of our
Nation.
Cognizant of the fact that the top
ranking scholars receive ample recogni-
tion through scholarships and other
awards, this club for several years has
sponsored a youth achievement program.
The ground rules for the selection of out-
standing students to be recognized were
set as follows.
He or she must be a well rounded person
exhibiting not only a superior scholastic rec-
ord but a record of contribution and lead-
ership in such things as sports, clubs, stu-
dent government within the school, and
scouting, 4-H, church, charities, etc., within
the community as well.
Nine Dutchess County high school stu-
dents, five girls and four boys, have been
selected for this honor. Their names
are: George Hritz, John Bernard Kane,
Jr., Thomas E. Albro, Julia Hunter,
Karen Mae Creswell, Nina Busick, Wil-
liam Sleeper, Maryellen Bagiackas, and
Marilyn G. Tanner. Their individual
records of accomplishment and commu-
nity interest constitute a fine example of
the achievement of the youth of our Na-
tion. The delinquents and dropouts re-
ceive a great deal of attention in the na-
tional press. But it is good medicine to
_
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13472 , CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 17, 1965
look at the other side of the picture. The
great majority of our students take their
education seriously. And a gratifying
number of them, in addition to their aca-
demic accomplishments work just as
hard on their development as good citi-
zens. Because it is important to provide
recognition to the youth of our country,
who are concerned with their responsi-
bilities to, society, I am proud to intro-
duce this statement into the REcom
honoring both the students and the
Poughkeepsie Exchaige Club.
r
VIETNAM
The SPEAKER. Under a previous o
der of the House, the gentleman f
Georgia (Mr. CALLAWAY] is recognized
for 60 minutes.
Mr. CALLAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I have
just returned from a week that will stand
out in my memory as one of the most
vivid and rewarding weeks of my life. I
have just returned from a 1-week trip
to South Vietnam. Certainly, as all
Members realize, there is no way to be-
come an expert on any problem as com-
plex as the problem of the Vietnamese
war in I week. I do not claim to be
an expert, but I do feel that I had an
unusual experience which I should like
to share with you, my colleagues.
I had the opportunity to hear brief-
ings at the highest level in Saigon?from
Ambassador Johnson and from the offi-
cers of the Military Assistance Command
In Vietnam. I met with General West-
moreland, I had the opportunity of go-
ing to all of our operational units?to
the 3d Marine, Division in Da Nang and
to the 173d Airborne Brigade at Bien
Hoa. I received briefings at both of
these places.
I also went out with our patrols on the
ground and talked with our enlisted men
as well as our officers. I went into three
of the four corps areas in South Viet-
nam, and at each of these places I talked
with and was briefed by the command-
ing officers and their staffs.
Further than that, particularly in the
Mekong Delta rice paddies, I had an op-
portunity to go out on an operation that
had just taken place, and I talked to
men who had been only moments before
engaged in combat with the Vietcong.
I had a unique opportunity that per-
haps some of my colleagues will not be
able to share, in that as a graduate of
the West Point class of 1949, I found,
wherever I went, many old friends and
old classmates who, of course, were only
too willing to share their experiences
with me.
I hope that as I discuss what I saw in
Vietnam those of you who wish will join
me in colloquy in these discussions this
afternoon.
The first and foremost impression I
received from Vietnam is that this is an
entirely different kind of war. This is
unlike what we in this country think of
as war. It certainly bears no relation to
the trenches of World War I or the hard
conventional fighting of World War U.
I would like to say it even bears no re-
semblance whatsoever to the War in Ko-
rea. This war today being fought by
the Vietcong is what the Communists
call a "war of liberation." This is the
kind of war Mr. Khrushchev spoke of so
glowingly in his famous speech of Janu-
ary 6, 1961. It is the kind of war Mr.
Che Guevara, Castro's man, writes field
manuals about?field manuals that are
now being used in training guerrillas -
from Latin and South America. It is
the kind of war espoused by Mao Tse-
tung and about which he speaks when
he says, "Our guerrillas will swim in a
sea of peasants." My point is that this
is an entirely different kind of war from
anything we have fought. It is the kind
of war where our major and first prob-
lem is to find an enemy who merely
evaporates and goes out of sight. Be-
cause this is a new kind of war, a "war
of liberation," it takes on a special im-
portance. Every single senior officer I
spoke with in Vietnam told me that this
is a war we must win. This is the clas-
sic "war of liberation." This is the war
that all Communist leaders have told
us we will be having throughout the
world. If the Communists win, we can
expect immediately similar wars not only
in southeast Asia where we all hear of
the domino theory but throughout the
entire world, particularly in Africa and
Latin and South America.
The people with whom I have talked
said with all conviction that the very
moment the Chinese, the Russians, and
the North Vietnamese think that they
can win this "war of liberation," other
"wars of liberation" will start through-
out the world. By the same token, if we
in this country can show to the people
of the world that we can win on the con-
tinent of southeast Asia, in the backyard
of the Communists, then we will certain-
ly go a long way toward stopping these
wars throughout the world.
This classical war of liberation is
fought in three phases. The first phase
is strictly guerrilla warfare with very
small units. In the second classical
phase, the guerrillas get together in com-
pany, battalion, and even regimental
size to attack, then fade back into the
sea of humanity. In the third phase of
the conflict, the guerrillas mass and ac-
tually seize and hold territory. Today in
South Vietnam we are in the second
phase. The Vietcong control about half
of the actual land of South Vietnam.
They can mass anywhere in this territory
at regimental strength and sometimes
with the strength of two to three regi-
ments. They can mass, they can hit
hard, they can ambush, and they can
do their devastation. When our troops
come to fight, unless they come quickly,
the Vietcong have evaporated and are
completely lost. You cannot find them.
They live off the terrain. It is very easy
to do, because in the places I saw, par-
ticularly in the southern part of the
country, every village is surrounded by
coconut and fruit trees, and in each
home there are huricireds of pounds of
rice stored the year around. It provides
the perfect setting for guerrillas to live
off the land and melt in among the peas-
ants and villagers.
I would like to point out also that this
is a war of terror. You have heard, as
pointed out in the State Department
white paper, that 500 village chiefs have
been killed in 1964 alone and over twice
the many kidnaped. These are village
chiefs. Many times that number of just
plain civilians have been killed, kid-
naped, and captured. Five hundred
may not sound like so many, but if we
think of the equivalent of their popula-
tion to our population, it is the equiva-
lent in 1 year of 20,000 U.S. mayors
killed or kidnaped. This is a genuine
war of terror.
These people were killed or kidnaped
for the sole reason that they had been
loyal to us or to the Republic of Viet-
nam or had supported our program. So
it is obvious that we cannot be effective
in Vietnam unless we give these loyal
Vietnamese our protection.
There were a few little things that
made me aware of the unique nature of
this war. First of all, I was able to go
on a civilian passport. More than that,
at the airport in Saigon, while I was tak-
ing off in a Marine C-54, on the runway
just landing was a Pan American civilian
707. Three planes behind me was a
Hong Kong Airlines plane going to Hong
Kong; immediately in front of me was an
Army F-100 armed with bombs, taking
off for a mission, and between my plane
and the Hong Kong plane were two
South Vietnamese Air Force planes go-
ing into action against the Vietcong.
Civilian planes took off along with Air
Force fighters going out to do their job.
And to further point out the difference
between this and other wars, I was told
that Vietnamese nationals travel from
one end of the country to the other,
through Vietcong territory daily on a
routine basis on local buses. There were
Vietcong inspection check points, paying
charges, and so forth.
I point this out to show that there are
no front lines. This is certainly a mixed-
up kind of war, from our viewpoint.
When you speak of the Vietcong you
often think of men loosely joined to-
gether, but they are much more than
that. I found that the Vietcong have
their own government, they have their
own mayors, and they collect taxes. Sur-
prisingly, they have their own APO num-
bers for their troops and have even been
known to issue war bonds.
In some ways it is like a civil war be-
cause you have Vietnamese fighting Viet-
namese. But I would say without ques-
tion that this is not a standard civil war,
because the Vietcong is supplied, fur-
nished, and controlled from Hanoi.
There is no question about that. The
State Department White Papers have re-
ferred to 20,000 known Vietcong who
have come down over the Ho Chi Mirth
Trails from North Vietnam. We know
that they have recruited or kidnaped at
least 60,000 men from South Vietnam to
join their hard core units. So they have
a Vietcong force of almost 100,000 now
in South Vietnam.
And while this does not seem to be too
many, the traditional or classic rule for
fighting guerrillas is that conventional
troops need to have at least 10 times as
many people as the guerrillas in order to
hold them.
I have said that the Vietcong are com-
pletely supplied today from Hanoi. They
have no munitions factories. They have
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Reie
June 17, 1965 CO
no Way of getting weapons. They are no
longer capturing the weapons that they
need. The supplies come from Hanoi
and are carried mostly by sea in junks,
sampans, and different kinds of small
Vessels.
Many of the major rivers in South
Vietnam are controlled by the Vietcong.
It is an ,interesting thing to see the
use of these rivers. In the Mekong Delta
there are over 2,000 miles of rivers and
canals with a navigable depth of 61/2
feet. This is more than the total of the
roads and navigable trails in that same
area, and the Vietcong controls a great
deal of this waterway.
I would like topoint out that they need
very little in the way of supplies, how-
ever. They need no food whatsoever.
They need no oil Or gas of any-kind. The
Only supplies they really need or receive
In quantity are 60-millimeter mortar
ammunition, 5'7-millimeter recoilless
rifle ammunition, and weapons some-
what similar to our .30 caliber weapons.
-One of the interesting things is that
they have just been supplied with new
and modern '7,0-millimeter weapons
Made in the Communist countries. Our
ammunition will not fit any of those new
weapons. They must be sure of their
source of supply from Hanoi, because in
the past they have relied heavily on
captured ammunition, which will no
longer be useful to them.
Mr. Speaker, my point then is that
this Is a new and different kind of war.
The question is how do we fight it. The
Way that we fight it is basically with the
Regular Army of the Republic of Vietnam
called Arvin, Army of the Republic of
Vietnam. We fight it in conventional
Ways where possible. We fight it partic-
ularly well with helicopters. As the Viet-
cong ambushes and moves fast, we try
to. Use everything we can to strike back
qtickly. Sometimes we catch themand
destroy them. The difficulty is finding
the enemy.
Mr. Speaker, the Vietcong operates al-
Most entirely at night. 'We have had to
set up clever ambushes in order to catch
them at night. This phase of the opera-
tion is going better and better. Our air
strikes, coupled with those strikes of the
Vietnamese Air Force are doing an ex-
tremely effective job against the enemy.
We have complete superiority of the air
there now.
But, Mr. Speaker, the basic program
for winning the war in Vietnam is one
that is called- rural reconstruction.
This replaces the old "strategic hamlet"
concept and yet is serving the same pur-
pose. While it is true that the Vietcong
controls a great deal of the territory of
Vietnam they control very few popula-
tion centers.
There are 45 provinces in Vietnam,
the province being the nearest equiva-
lent to pur State. All provinces have
population centers under the control of
the Republic of Vietnam.
The rural reconstruction program
starts with the population centers already
under control. The plan then is to move
OU,t trom, these population centers like
spreading drops of oil, little by little,
until tne spreading centers join the en-
tire country as one. They move first
se 200$/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
GRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13473
with regular army troops. The troops
clear out the Vietcong and set up a good
civilian government. Then they recruit
and train civilians into regional forces
and popular forces, whose duty it is to
protect the villages after the regular
army unit moves out.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the whole
problem is to secure these areas and
grant the protection that is needed.
I would like to say that this program
is working well and that our area is ex-
panding in every province that I visited.
This is the basic way that the war is
being fought by the Army of the Repub-
lic of Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, what is the role of the
United States in this operation?
Basically, our role is as advisers. We
have active advisers at every level, Ameri-
cans who are working with the Viet-
namese troops. We have a full colonel
as a senior adviser to each Vietnamese
corps. We have officers at the division
level, the regimental level, and the bat-
talion level who are training side by side
and fighting sideby side with the Viet-
namese troops. Our advisers live, eat,
and sleep with their Vietnamese counter-
parts.
Mr. Speaker I would like to say that
I have heard nothing but the highest
praise for our men who are serving and
living under severe conditions to which
they are not accustomed.
Mr. Speaker, the Vietnamese are good
soldiers. Our men. praise them. They
are hard fighters. They are brave.
They are taking extremely heavy casual-
ties and continuing to fight. But they
have one real overriding problem; the
problem of leadership.
During their tenure in Vietnam, the
French did not train native leaders.
Certainly we are doing so now, but this
takes time, and meanwhile, the lack of
native leadership poses a big problem.
A striking example of this was one bat-
talion fighting in the Second Corps area.
The battalion was doing extremely well,
until the battalion commander was
killed, and then the group went com-
pletely to pieces and was routed. There
are not enough qualified replacements
to take the place of men killed.
This poses the biggest problem to our
advisers. These men are building Viet-
namese leadership but I would like to
point out it is an extremely long range
program.
In another phase of the war, we are
attacking the North with our aircraft.
We are attacking basically from the 17th
Parallel that divides North and South
Vietnam to the 20th Parallel.
There have been effective attacks on
bridges, barracks, and ,major military
targets in this area; the purpose of which
has been to interdiet the supply routes
of the Vietcong. But the 'Vietcong's
needs are small. One Defense Depart-
ment official told me they could be sup-
plied with some 3 tons per day. It is
inconceivable that 3 tons could supply
the entire area, but I have said that they
use no gasoline? no food, and only very
light weapons. We make it difficult, but
we do not stop the sup-plies. rf we bomb
out a bridge, they simply ferry the am-
munition across the river. We are hin-
dering them; we are giving them trou-
ble, but they are getting through with
the small supplies that they need.
This is the basic situation in Vietnam
as I see it: Our advisers are working well;
the Vietnamese are fighting well. Basi-
cally, we are winning the war.
I have not spoken of the second kind
of war which, to many, appears to be
imminent at any moment. This is the
overt kind of war where we would face
operational troops from North Vietnam,
China, and even from Russia. This is a
much more serious kind of war. But it
is a war we are better trained and
equipped to fight. At least you can find
the enemy. "In order to be prepared to
fight this kind of war, we have introduced
our own operational troops commanded
by American officers. An example is the
3d Marine Division. They are protecting
airfields in the northern part of the
country and they are protecting us
against the threat of armed operational
troops from North Vietnam.
We have the same situation with the
173d Airborne Brigade. They have the
mission of protecting us from the pos-
sibility of attack by operational troops.
We know, as it has been announced, that
additional U.S. operational troops will be
sent to Vietnam soon.
I would like to say this poses a whole
lot of new problems when we put in our
own troops, rather than advisers. You
notice this everywhere you go. We
have the problem of fighting in a
friendly nation in which we are only
guests. We cannot do as we did in
Korea, for here we have a sovereign na-
tion. This creates a lot of problems,
but I can say that by cooperation the
Problems are being worked out and I
hope they may be solved by now. If we
should find large numbers of operational
troops of China, Russia, and North
Vietnam moving into the area, I cannot
speculate on what we could or should do.
I would hope, if this should happen, that
we`will answer such a threat with resolve
and firmness and will consider the use of
all of the power at our command to an-
swer it.
As a result of this trip and of the
things I did see in a week, I have come
up with some recommendations.
The first recommendation is that we
should realize that the Vietcong is being
fought by the Vietnamese with the as-
sistance of our advisers. It is not our
war. This is a Vietnamese war and our
units should be used as advisers to help
train the Vietnamese.
I want to say again that I do support
sending operational troops into Vietnam
because I feel it may be necessary to pro-
tect our interests against other opera-
tional troops. But the long-range war
against the Vietcong guerrillas should
be fought by the Vietnamese. They are
willing and capable of fighting their own
war and with the help of our advisers
and support they can continue to do
that.
I would like to say in this regard that
I hope our operational troops will be able
,to come back to our country in a short
time?within a year or so. But I see no
hope that our advisers will be able to
come back within a short time. I feel
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?,HOUSE June 17, 1965
that this is a long-range war. We are
still in Korea today and we may still be
In Vietnam 20 years from now.
a/1y second recommendation is that we
should now consider bombing additional
military targets in North Vietnam. We
know that Russia has the IL-28 jets near
Hanoi and the jets have a capability of
bombing us in South Vietnam today.
We know of the SAM missile sites in the
same region. Either today or shortly,
we may have jets bombing our bases and
ships and missiles shooting down our
aircraft.
It seems to me that the President,
whose decision it must be, must consider
promptly the advisability of attacking
these military targets. Some will say
that this will escalate the war. But, in
my opinion, there will be a much greater
escalation of the war if we do not attack
these targets and if we allow them to
build in strength to the point of bombing
us and shooting down planes?that to
maavould be the greater escalation.
A third recommendation is that we
consider some kind of political solution
whereby the free world would gain from
the war in Vietnam. As it is now, the
leaders of Hanoi have nothing to lose.
Whenever they feel they may be losing
the war, they can merely say that they
will live up to the 1954 Geneva agree-
ment, since this is apparently our objec-
tive. They only need to say "we will stop
breaking our word and stop trying to
destroy South Vietnam." Since this is
our apparent objective, we would stop
our participation in the war on this basis
as a great victory. But would it be a
victory?
In a month, or 3 months or 6 months,
when the time was right, the leaders of
Hanoi could start down the trails again
to supply the Vietcong.
All we are now asking for our expendi-
ture of American money and our ex-
penditure of American lives is for Hanoi
to go back and do what they have al-
ready promised to do. But if we should
have a further objective, then the situa-
tion would change. Suppose we should
adopt as our objective a "unified Vietnam
free from Communist control." We
would then have something to win and
conversely the leaders of Hanoi would
have something to lose. I should think
that our strength at the bargaining table
would be greatly strengthened by such
an approach.
My fourth and final recommendation
is a personal one to my colleagues. I
hope that each of you will take the op-
portunity, if it is available, to go to Viet-
nam. Certainly, in the short time that
any of us can give up to go there, one
cannot learn all there is to know about
any nation or any problem as complex
as this, but I do feel that even in a short
time there is a tremendous amount one
can do and learn, and that such a trip
would be most valuable.
Finally, I should like to say that we
can be proud of our troops in Vietnam.
The morale is higher than I have ever
seen it anywhere. All the leaders tell us
this. They are doing the job. As of now,
against the forces we are now fighting,
we are winning.
Mr. O'NEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield
Mr. CALLAWAY. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. O'NEAL of Georgia. I commend
my distinguished colleague from the
Georgia delegation for his enlightening
and comprehensive report on the situa-
tion in Vietnam. It is a mark of service
above and beyond duty when a U.S. Con-
gressman pays his own expenses to gain
firsthand knowledge of our efforts in
southeast Asia.
Above all, it is a mark of patriotism for
an elected official to devote valuable time
and accept personal risks in order to be
of greater service to his constituents and
to his country.
It is indeed reassuring to hear Mr.
CALLAWAY'S factual report. I feel that
the gentleman is more qualified than
most of us to make such an authorita-
tive report on the subject before us to-
day. He is a graduate of West Point
Academy with a bachelor of science de-
gree in military engineering. He has
also served as a commissioned officer
in the U.S. Army Infantry.
While no man can predict with cer-
tainty what the future course of events
In southeast Asia will bring, the gentle-
man from Georgia has given us an in-
formed account of particular signif-
icance in the light of recent occurrences.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, I should like to commend
the gentleman from Georgia for a fine
presentation today. What he said has
been an inspiration to all of us.
It is certainly refreshing to me
to have the firsthand knowledge the gen-
tleman obtained on his trip to Vietnam.
I also wish to commend the gentleman
for paying his own way. In this day
and time when we seem to spend the
taxpayer's money like it is going out of
style, this also is refreshing, to find a
man interested enough in what is going
on in the world to pay his own way to
go over to find out for himself.
I am sure the report the gentleman
has brought back to the House will be of
immeasurable value not only to Members
of Congress but also to the Department
of Defense.
I thank the gentleman for presenting
us this report.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I thank the gen-
tleman for his kind remarks.
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
distinguished conference chairman.
Mr. LAIRD. I wish to concur in the
remarks made by the gentleman from
Alabama and the gentleman from
Georgia in commending the gentleman
on his fine report of his trip to Vietnam.
I believe it calls to the attention of all
Members of Congress the responsibility
we have to examine carefully the posi-
tion of our Government in this area of
the world.
It is my hope that in the next few
weeks we can have farther public dis-
cussions about the position we occupy
in southeast Asia and the overall policy
decisions which have been made.
This afternoon we are reporting the
defense appropriation bill from the Ap-
propriations Committee. Many of us on
that committee are concerned about the
inadequacy Of the budget which was sent
to us for the Department of Defense, to
cover the expenses of that Department
in the fiscal year 1966. Time and again
witnesses before the committee from the
Department of Defense and from the
three services indicated to us that the
guidelines which were set forth for draw-
ing up this budget did not take into con-
sideration the escalation which has
taken place in Vietnam after the Presi-
dent made his decision to go North, as
far as the Air Force was concerned, in
the latter part of calendar year 1965.
We have already had one supplemental
budget request totaling some $700 mil-
lion sent to the Congress, and I would
predict that in January, or early in the
next calendar year, we will have another
supplemental request to cover the costs
of the Vietnamese operation.
It would seem to me that all of us in
the Congress should be made aware of
one fact: the budget which was sent to
us supposedly was under $100 billion as
far as estimated expenditures at the first
of this year are concerned, and that
budget showed a reduction in defense
spending so that other domestic pro-
grams could be funded at a higher level
without breaking through the $100 billion
ceiling. Yet that budget did not take
into consideration these increased Viet-
namese activities. They set a budget
ceiling of $100 billion while at the same
time they knew full well with the Viet-
namese operation going as it was that
further requests would be made of this
Congress in order to fund this particular
operation. The highest priority as far
as the expenditure of the taxpayer's dol-
lars today, is concerned is in the area
of national security. The commitment
that this country has made as far as
southeast Asia is concerned and, yes,
throughout the world in this area of na-
tional security should have the No. 1
place as far as our Governmen is con-
cerned.
Therefore I say, as we proceed down
the line, we will find that this budget doc-
ument with the $100 billion ceiling, which
was hailed all over the United States
early in January, had no consideration
given in it to the stepped-up activities
which were already in the works at that
partciular time. This is something that
we should discuss and that the American
people should be made fully aware of.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding to me.
Mr. CALLAWAY. Mr. Speaker,
thank the gentleman for his contribu-
tion.
I would like to say that I agree with the
gentleman and, as one who has con-
sistently supported the President's policy
in Vietnam, I certainly think that we
should certainly watch carefully any-
thing this important to this Nation.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I yield to the distin-
guished majority leader.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/t5 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
June 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to join my colleagues in commend-
ing the gentleman from Georgia for the
very informative and comprehensive re-
port which he has given to ns. The gen-
tleman has done the House and the
country a service in making this report
on his brief but very fruitful visit to
South Vietnam.
Mr. CALLAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the distinguished gentleman for
his kind remarks
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Ur. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I ap-
predate the gentleman yielding to me.
I want to join, too, in commending the
gentleman from Georgia, who has a great
deal of personal knowledge and experi-
ence In the military field, on his com-
ments and for making his trip. I think
we have all found his observations help-
ful. I was particularly impressed by the
fact that, as he just remarked, his obser-
vations as he comes back do not differ
very significantly from the established
policy of our Government. He did rec-
ommend an extension of bombing to more
military targets in the north, but at the
same time, if I understand him cor-
rectly, he indicated that he recognized
some Of the complexities that were in-
volved in making that kind of a decision.
If the gentleman will yield further, I
would like to ask him a question with
respect to his first recommendation,
which I did not understand entirely. If
I understood the gentleman correctly, I
understood him to say there was some
distinction between the fight going on
there now and the fight over the ulti-
mate political control of the territory.
He suggested, if I understood him cor-
rectly, that in one area we should help
the South Vietnamese, but in another
area the fight should be left up to the
Vietnainese themselves. I am afraid I
do not quite understand that, because it
seems to me basically these two struggles
are the same, In fact, those who are now
proposing that we pull out of Vietnam
are the loudest in suggesting that what
is going on there is really only a civil war
and that we should leave that war to the
Vietnamese themselves. I am sure the
gentleman did not intend to subscribe to
that point of view, but I wonder if he
could make his point again, so that I
might understand it more clearly.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I thank the gentle-
man very much.
First of all, I would like to say that he
is entirely correct in that I do support
the present policy in Vietnam. I had the
opportunity to meet this morning with
Secretary McNamara on that subject
and we found ourselves almost in com-
plete agreement.
You are correct that I have recom-
Mena4. 0914e farther actions in the
north particularly bombing military tar-
gets, further than our administration is
doing today. I feel that should be con-
sidercdhy our President. To that extent
we have differences, perhaps, but in the
main I support our effort in Vietnam and
think it is _being handled extremely well
and witch intter than press reports give
us reaaoh to believe.
I especially want to thank the gentle-
man for referring to my first recom-
mendation. I am sorry I did not make
It clear, My intent was to state my con-
viction that there are two entirely dif-
ferent kinds of war that we may be called
upon to fight in Vietnam.
The first is the war against the Viet-
cong which we are fighting today, and
which the Communists call a "war of
liberation," It is my opinion that this
can best be fought by the Army of the
Republic of Vietnam, with the advice and
help of our people, stressing the training
for leadership, which is a long-range pro-
gram.
In my opinion, we will be there a long
time fighting this particular war against
the Vietcong.
Apparently, the main reason that we
are sending in so many U.S.-commanded
operational troops as I understand it, is
to protect against the possibility of a
great influx of operational troops from
the enemy, be it North Vietnam, or who-
ever. This, to me, is a different kind of
war which must be fought by our opera-
tional troops in order to be successful.
I do not believe that the army of the
Republic of Vietnam can. take care of
that, We must fight it. So there are
two different kinds of war.
My recommendation was that if we
continue to fight this Vietcong style of
"war of liberation," that we pull out our
operational troops or do not use them,
but rather use the Vietnamese troops
who are willing to do the fighting and
that we provide them the training.
Mr. STRATTON, Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield further to me, would
the gentleman not agree that what he
refers to as the Vietcong war is also a
war that has very largely been created
by the infiltration of troops from out-
side South Vietnam? I wonder if the
gentleman would not agree that what
we are seeing in Vietnam is not really
two different kinds of war, but rather the
gradual extension of this initial Infiltra-
tion, with operations conducted entirely
on a guerrilla basis, now moving to a
point where these _same operations,
though still conducted by the same Viet-
cong, who have actually infiltrated down
from. the North, are beginning to resem-
ble a conventional, infantry-scale type
of war?
The gentleman is not suggesting, is he,
that we would be willing to let this Viet-
cong operation be expanded to the point
where South Vietnam itself might fall
before such an attack? Do we not have
an obligation to defeat this kind of in-
filtration, in whatever form it comes, so
as to secure the liberation of South Viet-
nam, because for us to do anything less
would be to negate our own commitment
and let this vital area fall to the
Communists?
Mr. CALLAWAY'. I agree with the
gentleman wholeheartedly. I would like
to say that the Vietcong would fall and
would have fallen long ago without sup-
port from Hanoi. So it is not a true civil
war. It is totally financed, supported
and instigated by North Vietnam.
My distinction was perhaps a military
one. I feel that as long as we are fight-
ing the Vietcom in this present situation
where they attack and evaporate, use
13475
light weapons and use no trucks or air-
craft, then the Army of the Republic of
Vietnam can and should handle the fight.
But if we move into an area of conven-
tional war, with conventional frontlines,
heavy 105-millimeter howitzers, trucks
and tanks and aircraft and traditional
frontline equipment, then I think we
have a war that operational troops would
have to fight.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, I
commend the gentleman, particularly, as
I understand it, from what the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. O'NEAL] said
that the trip to Vietnam was made at his
own personal expense; is that correct?
Mr. CALLAWAY. That is correct.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. May I ask the
gentleman whether that was on a private
commercial aircraft or was it on the basis
of reimbursement for use of the Military
Air Transport Service of the U.S. Gov-
ernment?
Mr. CALLAWAY. It was on a regu-
larly operated commercially scheduled
airline. You just buy a ticket as you
would if you were to go to Chicago.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. Does the gentle-
man have any idea how much more ex-
pensive it was to travel, as the gentleman
from Georgia did, on a private commer-
cial carrier from Washington to Saigon
as opposed to reimbursement on MATS
on a space-available basis?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I do not know the
difference in cost.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. It is fair to say,
I am sure, that the cost of the gentle-
man's travel on a private commercial
carrier was more expensive than it would
be on a basis of reimbursement to the
Government for a space-available seat.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I feel certain it is.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. If the gentleman
will yield further, may I ask the gentle-
man whether or not any official in the
Department of State or the Department
of Defense or the Executive Office of the
President extended to the gentleman the
opportunity to ride on a space-available
basis on MATS aircraft?
Mr. CALLAWAY. No; they did not.
Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Speak-
er, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I want to
congratulate the gentleman for having
made his trip. I want to state that in
November of 1964, as a member of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations, I also
went to Vietnam. At that time I was
taken by helicopter to a small village
which was surrounded by Vietcong ter-
ritory, I talked to the people who were
the residents of the village. This was a
village which had been overrun by the
Vietcong about 3 weeks before we got
there. You could still see the scars from
the battle. In fact, almost all of the peo-
ple who survived had relatives who had
been killed, wounded, or kidnaped at the
time of the Vietcong attack.
This, certainly, I am sure the gentle-
man will agree is a heart-rending sort
of war. It is very difficult terrain. It is
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 17, 1965
hard for the people who are combatants,
but it is harder for the people who are
dependents of those who are lighting.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman
joins me and I am sure the other Mem-
bers of the House hope that the end of
this war will come more clearly in sight
than it now appears to be, and that we
will continue to do what is necessary as
far as our national commitment is con-
cerned to the cause of the free world,
and that we will be able to aid the South
Vietnamese to bring this whole matter
to a conclusion which will be a victorious
one for the cause of freedom..
When I came back, I said that the
prime need in Vietnam was for a stable
civilian government to run this war. I
still say so. I hope our Government will
bend every effort to help such a govern-
ment to evolve.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I think the gentle-
man from Arizona and I certainly agree
with the gentleman.
Mr. yeaGHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I shall be happy to
yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. FEIGHAN. I wish to commend
my distinguished colleague from Georgia
for the interest he has taken in the prob-
lems of Vietnam and I would like to
ask the gentleman whether, while he was
in Vietnam, he developed any evidence
of the Communist Vietcong atrocities
against U.S. servicemen, U.S. civilians in
that area, and against the South Viet-
namese servicemen or civilians including
women and children?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I would like to say
to the gentleman from Ohio that I did
not develop any evidence on this. I, of
course, saw where the Embassy was
bombed in Saigon shortly before I was
there. But I did talk to people who in-
dicated that there were terrible atrocities,
not only to village chiefs and people who
might have some reason to be treated
this way, but even brutal atrocities to
women and children for no reason what-
soever.
I did not see this myself but I had
reason to believe it is true.
Mr. FE1GHAN. If the gentleman will
yield further, that is a matter I believe
of deep concern to the people of the
United States and the free world and
I am very glad that under the leadership
of our very able chairman of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services, the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. RIVERS], that
committee is going to make a full in-
vestigation and present, as they should,
this evidence to the people of the United
States.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I thank the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just
one word further on the atrocities that
are taking place all the time. In those
areas in which the people show loyalty
to us, children are actually kidnaped
from their mothers and fathers, and en-
listed into the Vietcong to fight their
countrymen against their wills.
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. PICKLE. I would like to join my
colleagues in commending the gentleman
from Georgia for this trip and for this
very fair and factual report which the
gentleman has given to the Members of
the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great
deal of interest to the report and I have
profited from it, as I am sure all Mem-
bers on both sides of the aisle have
profited from it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that,
of course, the recommendations which
the gentleman has made are his indi-
vidual recommendations, but I believe
the gentleman has given us a better in-
sight as to the problem which exists in
Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the
gentleman for his report.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I thank the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. MIZE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Kansas.
Mr. MIZE. I want to join my col-
leagues in complimenting the gentleman
for this fine report.
I want to get it clear with reference
to the morale of our troops which the
gentleman states is high, is that correct?
Mr. CALLAWAY. It is not only high,
but it is in the opinion of every single
commander that I asked, higher than
they have ever seen it in any other war.
Mr. MIZE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I would like to
thank the gentleman from Kansas for
bringing this out because I do not think
we get the feel of that from the press.
May I say that I talked to a young cap-
tain who had been up fighting all night.
He was tired, and bearded, his radio was
strapped on his back, and he was covered
with mud. I asked him, "How do you
like it out here?" And his first word was
"Great."
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I yield to the -gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. YOUNGER. I would like to Join
with my colleagues in thanking the gen-
tleman for making this trip and giving
such a fine report of it. I am not sure
all of the Members realize that the man
in the well is also a graduate of West
Point, so that he is giving us from his
training and his experience something
that we rarely get here on the floor.
I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. CALLAWAY. I thank the gentle-
man for his kind words. I do not pre-
tend to be an expert on this. But I do
recommend to my colleagues that they
go to Vietnam; I think that those able
to make the trip will profit greatly.
I would like to stress again that our
morale is high. Both the Vietnamese
and the Americans feel they are doing
an important job and I feel they are do-
ing it well.
WE NEED A TECHNOLOGICAL
BREAKTHROUGH IN URBAN MASS
TRANSPORT, NOT JUST BE'ri'Elt
INTERCITY RAIL TRANSPORT
The SPEAKER. Under previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Wis-
consin [Mr. REuss] is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to-
day to remind my colleagues of the very
serious state of transportation in our
Nation's cities.
Soon we will be asked to approve a $20
million research and demonstration pro-
gram to design a new high-speed inter-
city ground transportation system along
the Washington-Boston, or northeast
corridor. This program will be focused
on travel between cities despite the
greater demand which exists for good
public transportation systems within the
cities themselves.
As a cure for the intraurban trans-
portation problem, we are instead rely-
ing on the Mass Transit Act of 1964. But
this act can do little more than help
cities purchase new buses or replace
wornout subway cars. No substantial re-
search is being sponsored by the Federal
Government in an attempt to develop
new. dynamic- systems which will provide
urban dwellers with good public trans-
port.
We should be spending at least as much
on research to provide whole new systems
of moving people about within our cities
rapidly, safely, economically, and effi-
ciently, as we are on research into other
modes of transportation.
It is rather like concentrating all one's
efforts on saving the dying dogwood
tree?beautiful as it is?and neglecting
the withering oak which provides the
real strength of our forests. We should
be working to save both.
Today, nearly. three-quarters of our
population lives in urban areas. All of
these people must move about in the cities
in which they live. They need quick,
economical, and sate ways to get to work,
to shop, and to visit. They cannot for-
ever depend on existing transportation
systems. Therefore, it is the responsibil-
ity of our Government to promote the
development of systems which will sup-
plement existing methods.
In view of this need, I am today in-
troducing H.R. 9200 to amend the Mass
Transit Act of 1964. The measure would
require the Administrator of the Hous-
ing and Home Finance Agency to under-
take a research program aimed at achiev-
ing a technological breakthrough in the
development of new modes of urban
transportation.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. ASH-
LEY]; the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
CABELL], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. MuvrER], the gentleman from New
York [Mr. RosENTHAL], the gentlewoman
from Missouri [Mrs. SuLtrvAH], the gen-
tleman from Ohio [Mr. VAEnc], the gen-
tleman from Georgia [Mr. WELTNERL
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
YATES] are introducing identical bills.
The text of H.R. 9200 follows:
Re it enacted by the Senate and the House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
6 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 is amended by redesignating subsection
(c) as subsection (d), and by inserting after
subsection (b) the following new subsection:
"(c) In addition to projects undertaken
under subsection (a) the Administrator
shall undertake a program of research de-
signed to achieve a technological break-
through in the development of new kinds of
public intraurban transportation systems
which can transport persons in metropoli-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13570
elrareEbb9Pier5ITI:R-WB15.6-711001.1461?000300180024-4
The OAS even has persuaded the leaders of
the military junta to promise that none of
them will run in the elections.
Both sides in the civil war probably will
continue to drag their heels whenever they
can, but firm action by the OAS gradually
will overcome that handicap. At the mo-
ment, even though the situation remains
serious and difficult, the prospects are
brighter than might have been expected a
few days ago when confusion Was in com-
mand.
For this, on reflection, we can thank the
original decisiveness of President Johnson
in sending U S. troops -which undoubtedly
prevented an even worse slaughter of
Dominicans than occurred And the patience
and persistence of Mora and his OAS as-
sociates in negotiating the understandings
now seemingly being achieved.
Approved
ForCR
.1>ore 17, 1065
THE WASHINGTON, D.C., MEETING
ON OCEAN SCIENCE AND OCEAN
ENGINEERING
Mr. PFIJ,, Mr. President, a most out-
standing 4-day meeting has just con-
cluded here in Washington. The meet-
ing was remarkable for two reasons:
first, it was concrete evidence of a great
surge of activity in a field of primary
Importance for all Americans: and, sec-
ond, because in spite of its significance.
It passed almost unnoticed.
The meeting was on the subject of
ocean science and ocean engineering,
with dual sponsorship by the Marine
Technology Society and the American
Society of Limnology and Oceanography.
The Marine Teclinoloey Society is
new?less than a year old. Its remark-
able growth and achievement in less
than a year are a tribute to les officers
and directors, but?even more imp. o-
tant?also to the fact that it has filled
an Important void in national organiza-
tion, by providing an organization and
forum for those who are concerned, not
solely with obtaining knowledge from
the seas, but with putting that knowl-
edge to use in practical engineering
terms.
The American Society of Limnoloary
and Oceanography has a longer, but
equally successful, history. and is de-
voted to the advancement of science in
these fields.. Perhaps some Senators
find "limnology" a new word, as I did.
It Is perhaps most conveniently de-
fined by simply stating that a linanologist
is to..fresh water what an oceanographer
is to salt water.
The chairman of the joint conference
was the distinguished former Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research and
Development, and chairman of the In-
teragency Committee on Oceanography,
Dr. James 'H. Wakelin, Jr., now president
of the Scientific Engineering Institute.
The meeting was significant because
It provided a meeting ground for scien-
tists, engineers, and managers from the
academic world, from private industry,
and from Government. The subjects
ranged from detailed studies of a single
aspect of science or technology, such its
"Variability in Marine Benthic Com-
munities off Georgia" and "A Free Div-
ing Oceanography 13uoy:" to broad tappics,
ranging from an assessment of mineral
resources of the sea to a full day's dis-
cussion of the role of nuclear energy
In the sea.
It was my Privilege to be invited to ate establishment of a new Federal agen-
participate in a panel discussion, on cy for ocean development were a close
Wednesday evening, on "Organization of second in number.
Oceanography and Ocean Engineering I do not regard any of this as definitive,
In the United States." My fellow Panel- but I think It is indicative of a lively M-
ists Included such distinguished scientists terest in the future of the oceans. If
as Dr Roger Revelle, of the Harvard there was a single point of consensus, it
Center for Population Studies, who has was that America must move forward in
been director of the famed Scripps ocean development, and that this is a
Oceanographic Institute, and scientific joint responsibility of Government at
adviser to the Secretary of the interior: all levels. industry, and the academic
Dr. Paul Eye, director of the equally community.
famous Woods Bole Oceanographic In- It is also important to note that sev-
stitute : and Dr. Wilbert Chapman. of the oral discussants SMIncied a note of cau-
Van Camp Foundation. Industry was tion, as 'follows We i-hould not move
represented by Capt. H. A. Arnold, of forward withous first defining our goals
United Aircraft Corp.; and David and examining all ita. implications of
Potter, director of the General Motors those goals. Vast as the seas may be,
Defense Laboratories. Other panelists they are not an endless resource, unless
were Representative Pant Rooms, of husbanded. We must be not only ener-
Florida. an articulate and informed gette and skillful, but also wise in our
champion of a forward-looking, national approach to the corning age of ocean
program for development of the oceans: development. We must foresee the con-
and Dr. Wakelin. The moderator was sequences of oui actions.
one of the most energetic and imagine- My own views on Chi, point are clear.
ton; men of my acquaintance?the distin- It was with this cautionary approach in
gnashed scientist and engineer, Dean mind that, on May n I snoke to the Sen-
Athelstan Spilhaus. of the University of ate about the possible establishment of
Minnesota. -sea-grant college, We did not know
A great deal of the discussion centered how to use the land profitably for agri-
on the role of the Federal Government culture until t,lic age of agri-
in ocean development: and when my cultural deveni; I-1. ?: t in science and
own time came for a summation and final technology WaS '..eadr.ci by the
comment, I asked for a show of hands mixed scientific one technological ap-
from those supporting each of three prolich of the a P 11C1 Lurid institutions.
points of view that had been expressed I behove-- and tm ,f the others pros-
during the evening: ent at the rrosor ,aemed to agree?
Font. No further action by the Gov- that we must :minor mechanism
errunent is necessary, in addition to that for the transie r of kilo-a ledge into pre.c-
already being taken, tical applications. oefr,re we can exploit
secend A self-liquidating commission the oceans in a soralar productive man-
should be established of a composition nor, ohne inaintinnoo the principles of
that woidd enjoy the confidence of the conservation.
Executive, Congress, industry, and the Within a short time, I Intend to intro-
academic community. The commission duce proposed legation designed to
would be charged with proposing a nit- meet this need. Meanwhile, my own
tional policy in ocean development, to- State of Rhode island already is looking
gether with int; plans and suggested ahead, thanks to the foresight, skill, and
organization for carrying it out. imagination of our own land-grant bol-
Third. The Government should move lege. the University of Rhode Island, In
at once to establish an appropriate developing cote ses Ii ecean science and
agency or other entity for ocean de- engineermg specifically designed to meet
velopment. the State andn,/..tai.1 need.
I should note that the second propo-
sition is consistent with a bill introduced F.
in the other House by Representative VIETNAM
Rogers. and the third is consistent with Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, the sit-
a bill introduced by the distinguished nation in Vietnam continues to require
Senator from the State of Washington calm and deliberate patience and perse-
'Mr. MAGNUSON]. In my view, the two verance on the part of the people of the
approaches are not at all incompatible. United States, as we Continue to give
Among the attendees, there seemed to our aid and a-ssistance against aggres-
be a substantial body of opinion that the sion which threatens tiit- people and se-
kind of entity proposed .by Senator curity of the world.
MAGNUSON WELS realistic, coupled with a Recently. Vice President HUBERT H.
view that the step proposed by Repre- HUMPHREY made at the National War
sentative RoGERS was a desirable prelim- College an outstanding speech in which
inary, in order to refine definitions, prob- he called for patience and persistence
lerne and the role of the organization to on the part of all Americans, and said:
be created. Liberals must learn that there are times
On the show of hands, only a sprin- when AnierIcau power must be used, and
king of attendees?about 10?expressed that there is ha sinp-titute foe' power in
the view that government need not take the of a detera;Av-ti terrorist attack.
further action. The majority preferred conservatives roust learn that in defeating
the establishment of a commission or a Communist lt,surgency the use of military
Power can be counteiproductilve without
other study group. representative of all
ReCoalp,inylug tflort and the ceredi-
in:ijor constituents of an ocean program,
hie promise to tine 1v"-,.,' a better lifs,
to conduct a preliminary examination in
depth, and to make recommendations T11 a speech 1:tt ivr-k at Michigan
for a positive policy and for an action State Univr'r:.:iy, Vice President
Program. Those who preferred Immedi- dealt Wail the alisconceptIon"
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
June 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 13571
that the Vietcong are a purely idealistic
movement, not living on fear and terror-
ism.
I ask unanimous consent that an edi-
torial on these two speeches by the Vice
President, published in the Baltimore
Sun on Monday, June 7, 1965, be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Tsaaoaism
Vice President IlumpHREY suggested last
week, in a speech at the National War College,
that liberals and conservatives should modify
their traditional positions on the use of mili-
tary power to help weak or struggling nations
to defend their independence against Com-
munist subversion and attack. "Liberals,"
he said, "raliSt learn that there are times
when American power must be used, and
that there is no substitute for power in the
face of a determined terrorist attack. Con-
servatives must learn that in defeating a
Communist insurgency the use of military
power can be counterproductive without ac-
companying political effort and the credible
promise to the people of a better life."
The Vice President was emphasizing, as he
said, that Communist terrorism cannot be
defeated "by good works alone, or by good
Intentions, or by slogans, or by propaganda
alone." He said further that Americans must
learn to be patient?"the Communists are
very patient"?and must learn to persist,
because the Communists are persistent, too.
"We must learn to adapt our military
planning and tactics to the new conditions
of Communist warwaxe," Mr. HIIMPHRE
added, and we must learn to coordinate
Military efforts, propaganda, effective politi-
Cal organizational efforts and economic in-
vestments far better than we have done so
In another speech last week, made at Michi-
gan State University, the Vice President dealt
with what he called the "curious misconcep-
tion" that in Vietnam the Vietcong is a
great idealistic movement with some resem-
blance, for example, to the American Popu-
list Party. In fact, however, he said the
Vietcong has made its gains in South Viet-
nam largely from terrorism. Arthur Schles-
inger, whose own qualifications as an Ameri-
can liberal are as authentic as Mr. HUM-
PHREY'S, said the Vietcong's gains "have come
in the main not from the hopes they have
inspired but from the fear they have created."
Agricultural stations hate been destroyed,
medical clinics raided, malaria control teams
killed or kidnaped. Since 1954, according to
estimates cited by Mr. HuMPHREY, more than
10,000 civilian officials have been killed or
kidnaped.
These comments on the war in Vietnam
are worth keeping in mind as the news dis-
patches describe the fighting and as the dis-
cussion of our policy continues in the United
States.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, an edi-
torial entitled "The Great Paradox,"
published in the New York Herald Tri-
bune on June 6, paints up some of the
facts of our changing world concerning
our relationship with the Soviet Union
arid Red China. I ask unanimous con-
sent that this editorial be printed at this
Paint .,in the RECORD.
Thexe 'being no objection the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE GREAT PARADOX
President Johnson calls on the Soviet
Union to join the 'United States in works of
peace, while evidence accumulates that Rus-
sian guns and planes are moving into North
Vietnam, The Soviet Union complains that
Johnson talks peace while bombing a Com-
munist country.
The situation is paradoxical. But the
contradictory elements in the two national
positions are real. There is no reason to
doubt that both Washington and Moscow
would prefer more stable relations with one
another?and there is equally no reason to
question the reality of the clash in Vietnam.
The United States is deeply committed there;
so is the Soviet Union. Americans had
hoped that the Russians would use their in-
fluence to end the intervention of the North
Vietnamese in South Vietnam; Russians
want the Americans to pull out.
Vietnam is not the only corner of the
earth in which American and Soviet interests
clash, nor does either nation make any par-
ticular secret of the fact that the Russians
want communism to spread and the Ameri-
cans want it to roll back. But what was
once a worldwide confrontation, with
dangers of overt hostility at every point on
the periphery of Communist power, has
altered profoundly. Much of the frontier
symbolized by the Iron Curtain has been
stabilized; the curtain itself has been per-
forated in spots, with trade and communica-
tion barriers lowered. Berlin and Cuba are
peril points, but even there the dangers are
likely to spring more from the ambitions of
Castro or the fears of the East German
Communists than from the Soviet leader-
ship.
This lessening of many acute tensions
could lead, not to a firm peace (for the
political and economic systems of East and
West are still too far apart for that) but
to a kind of modus vivendi, an agreement to
disagree, that would permit a far more nor-
mal life for both superpowers, as well as
for the nations that live in their neighbor-
hood. 'But?there is also Red China.
Mao's China is all that the Soviet Union
was in the days when Stalin ruled over a na-
tion, victorious in war but gravely damaged
by it Peiping has ninny material wants,
plus the consciousness of having survived
a great ordeal, proud, secretive, suspicious,
aggressive. It proclaims permanent revolu-
tion, expands its einpire, and adds to this ex-
plosive mixture a racialist aspect that finds
appreciative echoes in many of the new
nations.
To this hungry predator, the Soviet
Union?whose people are intensely desirous
of enjoying the fruits of their own long and
bloody struggle?is linked by ideological ties.
The fact that Red China has made the
United States its great foe, the symbol of all
that is evil in the world, the enemy against
which it unites its people virtually from the
cradle, is Moscow's prime embarrassment in
seeking any accommodation on any subject
with Washington.
The Soviet leadership hopes to avoid a
choice; it would like the United States, by
bowing out of Vietnam, to make one unneces-
sary. But even that would not solve the
Moscow-Peiping problem. For sooner or
later the choice will be forced on Moscow?
perhaps not over Vietnam, possibly not over
any matter in which the United States is
directly concerned. Because it is really
Russia, not America, that China is contend-
ing with even now.
THE WHITE HOUSE FESTIVAL OF
THE ARTS, AND THE NATIONAL
FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS _AND
THE HUMANITIES ACT OF 1965
Mr. FELL. Mr. President, thanks to
the leadership and understanding of
President and Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson,
June 14, 1965, was a day deeply signifi-
cant to our Nation's cultural progress
and growth. On that day, the White
House festival of the arts was held. It
was a festival of unprecedented scope,
and demonstrated not only the great va-
riety of our country's artistic talent, but
also this administration's desire to help
foster, in every appropriate way, excel-
lence in the arts.
The program was most comprehensive,
and gave fitting emphasis to the broad
spectrum of the arts: poetry, prose,
drama, dance, mulc?both instrumental
and vocal?painting, sculpture, photog-
raphy, and the arts of the motion pic-
tures.
Mrs. Johnson was a particularly gra-
cious hostess to the more than 400
guests; and in her opening remarks she
set the tone for this remarkable event
when she called it a day of feasting for
the eyes, ears, and minds of those who
participated.
As the President said in his address
of welcome to the artists assembled:
You seek out the common pleasures and
visions, terrors, and cruelties of man's day
on this planet. You help dissolve the bar-
riers of hatred and ignorance which are the
source of so much pain and danger. In this
way you work toward peace which liberates
man to reach for the finest fulfillment of
his spirit.
Other great American Presidents have
spoken eloquent words 'in behalf of our
Nation's artists; but this was an occa-
sion of unusual depth and magnitude,
representing our past achievements in
the arts, as well as contemporary works
of importance.
As chairman of the Senate Special
Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities,
I pay special tribute to the President and
to Mrs. Johnson for so splendidly bring-
ing to the White House the wide diver-
sity of our creative talents; and I am
very happy to note that just 4 days be-
fore the festival, the Senate passed the
National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965.
This bill contains the President's pro-
posals for the Foundation. As I have
said before, I believe the bill is the most
comprehensive of its kind ever to come
before Congress. Thus, the concepts of
the festival and those of the Foundation
are in close and meaningful harmony.
Bath are, indeed, unique in the history of
our country.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had passed the following bills, in which
It requested the concurrence of the Sen-
ate:
H.R. 237. An act to make certain provi-
sions in connection with the construction of
the Garrison diversion unit, Missouri River
Basin project, by the Secretary of the Inte-
rior; and
H.R. 485. An act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to construct, operate, and
maintain the Auburn-Folsom south unit,
American River division, Central Valley proj-
ect, California, under Federal reclamation
laws.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (H.R. 3165) to authorize the
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13572 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 17, 1965
establishment of the Pecos National
Monument in the State of New Mexico,
and for other purposes.
HOUSE BILLS REFERRED OR
PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were each read
twice by their titles and referred or
placed on the calendar, as follows:
H.R. 287. An act to make certain provi-
sions in connection with the construction of
the Garrison diversion unit, Missouri River
Basin project, by the Secretary of the Inte-
rior; to the Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs.
H.R. 485. An act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to construct, operate, and
maintain the Auburn-Folsom south unit,
American River division, Central Valley proj-
ect, California, under Federal reclamation
laws; placed on the calendar.
EXCISE TAX REDUCTION ACT, OF
1965?CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent,_
I submit a report of the committee
of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendments of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8371) to
reduce excise taxes, and fog other pur-
poses. I ask unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING Ores.CER (Mr. FELL
In the chair). The report will be read
for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of June 16, 1965, pp. 13354-
13355, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I have the honor to bring before
the Senate the conference report on H.R.
8371, the Excise Tax Reduction Act of
1965.
This is the bill that only the day be-
fore yesterday was passed by the Senate.
I think you can see from this that the
conferees acted with expedition. In fact
I might take time to point out that the
whole handling of this bill, I believe, sets
some kind of a record for quick action.
It was exactly 1 month ago today, on
May 17, that the President first sent to
Congress his recommendations for excise
tax reductions.
This is an indication of the speed with
which Congress can act on tax legisla-
tion when there is a need to do so. All
oL us were aware of the fact that any
delay in action on our part might affect
the economy through the delay of pur-
chases of the taxed articles by consum-
erS. In my view, this demonstrates, and
demonstrates quite clearly, that when
there is general agreement in Congress
that a tax reduction is needed, this ac-
tion can be taken?in the regular legis-
lative manner In a very short period of
time.
The bill, as agreed to by the conferees,
does not depart to any appreciable ex-
tent from the bill as passed by the Sen-
ate the day before yesterday. This is
Indicated by the fact that the bill as
Initially passed by the Senate would, over
a 4-year period, have reduced excise tax
collections by $4,658 million. The bill,
as agreed to by the conferees, is a reduc-
tion of $4,676 million which con,stitutes
a difference of only $18 million from the
bill passed by the Senate 2 days ago.
Actually, there are 108 numbered
amendments in this bill. However, most
of these are in the clarifying or con-
forming categories. In terms of sub-
stantive amendments, I count 29 amend-
ments. However, of these, eight repre-
sent minor technical amendments recom-
mended by the Treasury staff and our
own technical tax staff. Apart from
these, of the remaining 21, the conferees
for the House receded on 13, 3 with sig-
nificant amendments. The Senate con-
ferees receded on eight.
Of all of the amendments. I would
classify five as the most significant.
Two of these dealt with the manu-
facturers' excise tax on automobiles. As
Senators will recall, the bill reduces this
tax to 7 percent this month and then to
6 percent on next January 1. On Jan-
uary 1, 1967, the Senate version of the
bill would reduce the tax to 5 percent
and then on the following two January
l's, 1968 and 1969, there would be two
additional reductions of 2 percentage
points. Thus, the Senate would retain
a tax of 1 percent at all times. The
House would remove this tax entirely.
This 1 percentage point under the Sen-
ate version of the bill would be set aside
by the Senate bill in a special fund to
aid in the disposal of old and wrecked
automobiles.
In addition, 4 percentage points of the
reduction in the tax on passenger cars
was made contingent, in the Senate ver-
sion of the bill, by the Ribicoff amend-
ment, upon cars meeting the same safety
standards as are required by the Gen-
eral Services Administration with re-
spect to cars purchased by the Federal
Government.
The House conferees, although we
urged them earnestly to accept the
amendment relating to car safety, re-
fused to do so.
The conferees debated the amend-
ment for more than an hour. We did
not agree. We took a recess and then
debated it again. We proposed a com-
promise. However, the House was abso-
lutely adamant on this amendment.
They made it clear that in resisting
this amendment they were not opposing
these standards of car safety as such,
but rather objected to their being made a
condition to a tax reduction. They
seemed to believe that if action was
taken in this respect, it should be taken
directly by the House Committee on In-
terstate and Foreign Commerce and the
Senate Committee on Commerce. For
that reason we had accede to the House
In this regard.
With respect to the 1 percentage
point set aside for old and wrecked auto-
mobiles, the House agree to retain this
1 percentage point of tax. They re-
fused, however, to earmark it in a fund
for the disposal of old and wrecked
automobiles. This, of course, does not
mean that this 1 percentage point?or,
for that matter, the other 4 points
not to be repealed until after 1967?can-
not be used to meet problems raised by
automobiles. This amount, for the pres-
ent, will remain in the general fund
revenue. This, of course, will not at
some future time foreclose the allocation
of this amount to the problems raised
by automobiles, whether for safety, for
the disposal of old cars, or other problems
related to automobiles.
It will be recalled that the Senate ver-
sion of the bill moved up the effective
date for the reductions which, under the
House bill, were scheduled for July 1,
1965. The Senate version of the bill pro-
vided that all of the retailers' taxes which
are repealed, all of the manufacturers'
taxes scheduled for repeal or reduction
on July 1. and the playing card tax, in-
stead of being repealed on July 1, are to
be repealed on the day after the day the
bill is signed by the President. The
House agreed to this amendment and,
therefore, the effective dates of these re-
ductions will be the day after the bill is
signed. I believe it is clear that this bill
will be presented for signature to the
President within the next few days.
Mr. President, I am somewhat embar-
rassed by a report that appears in the
press. I am not certain whether the
reporter who reported the statement
heard it accurately. He said that the
Senator from Louisiana said that the
President would sign the bill on Friday.
As a practical matter, a suggestion had
been made by the executive branch that
the conferees should undertake to tell the
President when he should sign the bill.
The conferees unanimously agreed that
It was none of our business to tell the
President when he should sign the bill.
That is his privilege. [Laughter.] He
does not even have to sign it; he can veto
It if he wishes to do so. That is purely
a matter within his discretion. But,
somehow the press misunderstood the
junior Senator from Louisiana. All I
said was that if the President wanted
to do so, he could sign the bill on Friday.
I hope that that will straighten out the
problem, because it has caused some mis-
understanding between the executive and
legislative branches of the Government.
I call the attention of the retail and
wholesale trades to the fact that these
reductions are about to occur and that
if they hope to obtain floor stock refunds
for their inventories on hand on the tax
elimination date, they must be prepared
to take these inventories as soon as the
President signs the bill.
That is perhaps the reason why the
President might delay signing the bill
for a few days, in order to give retailers
a chance to take inventory. It would be
fine with this Senator if the President
were to sign the bill on Friday so that
the tax cut would go into effect on Satur-
day. In that way, everyone selling cuff
links, cologne, men's perfume, or tele-
vision sets could advertise, "Buy a televi-
sion set for daddy on Father's Day."
[Laughter.]
It would seem to me that would be a
fine way to do it and to stop the buyer's
strike. .However, that is up to the Presi-
dent. One way would favor the retailer
and the other way would favor the kids.
The President will make that decision.
A fourth substantive amendment made
by the Senate related to the tax on lubri-
cating oil. The Senate bill would have
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For IWAteRZ_003/10/1,5 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
June 17, 19w ESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
IMF: Authorizes In inereap Of $1,035 mil-
lion. in the US. quota in the International
Monetary Fund, from $4.125 to $5.16 billion.
Public Law 89-31. (Presidential recom-
mendation.)
Inter-American Development Bank: Au-
thorized a $750 million incr,eaSe in the U.S.
contribution to the Fund for Special Opera-
tions of the Inter-American Development
Bank-over a 3-year period at the rate of
$250 million a year. This represents the
U.S. share of a planned $900 million increase
in the Fund which will serve ;to strengthen
multinational aid and the Alliance for Prog-
ress, Public Law 89-6. (Presidential Rec-
ommendation.)
International Cooperation Year: Expressed
the sense of Congress with respect to the
? 20th anniversary of the United Nations dur-
ing International Cooperation Year. -Senate
Concurrent Resolution 36. Senate adopted
June 16.
Peace Corps authorization: An_thorizes an
annual appropriation of $115 million for fiscal
1966; provides two additional associate di-
rectors; and provides that the Director of
the Corps shall hold no other additional
office of an equal rank while serving as Di-
rector of the Corps. S. 2054 passed Senate
June 2. Douse Calendar. (Presidential
recommendation.)
Religious persecution: Expresses the sense
of Congress against persecution of persons by
Soviet Russia because of religion. Senate
Concurrent Resolution 17 adopted by Senate
May 14.
Saigon chancery: Authorizes $1 million for
the construction of a chancery in Saigon.
Public Law. 89-22. (Presidential recom-
mendation.)
United Nations Charter amendments: In-
creases the membership of the Security
Council from 11 to 15 and the membership of
the Economic and Social Council from 18 to
27, to be elected on a geographic basis.
Executive A ratified June 3. (Presidential
recoMmendati011,)
Wheat agreement extension: Extends the
International Wheat Agreement to July 31,
1966. Executive la ratified June 15. (Presi-
dential recommendation.)
U.S. doMeatic fishery resources: Author-
izes the President, whenever it is determined
that fishing vessels of a foreign country are
operating to the detriment of U.S. conserva-
tion programs, to raise the duty on fishery
products of the offending nation. S. 1734
passed Senate May 19. Returned to Senate
May 20.
Junxcrsi
Illicit traffic in child adoption: Imposed
Federal criminal sanctions on persons en-
gaged in interstate or foreign commerce in
the illicit traffic of placing children for
adoption or permanent free care. S. 624
passed Senate March 22.
PRESMENcy
Presidential succession: Proposed consti-
tutional amendment fixing conditions and
procedures for succession of Vice President
to the Presidency in event of Chief Execu-
tive's disability; provides for filling vacancy
in the Vice Presidency. Senate Joint Reso-
lution 1 in conference. (Presidential recom-
mendation.)
REORGANIZATION
Bureau of Customs: Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1965 provides for the modernization
of' the Customs Bureau by abolishing the
Offices of all Presidential offices and estab-
lishing these positions on a career basis.
Offices abolished are 45 collectors of customs;
6 comptrollers of customs; and 1 appraiser
Of merchandise ,an 1 surveyor of customs.
Effective May 26, 1965. (Presidential reconl-
mendation.)
Reorganization Act_ extension: Extended
for 4 years to June 1, 1969, the authority of
the President to transmit reorganization
plans to Congress. S. 1185. Public Law
89-, (Presidential recommendation.)
RESOURCE AND RECREATION BUILDUP
Agate Fossil Beds National Monument:
Authorized $315,000 for the establishment
of the Agate Fossil Beds National Monument
in Nebraska. Public Law 89-33.
Assateague Island National Seashore: Pro-
vides for the establishment of the Assa-
teague Island National Seashore in the
States of Maryland and Viriginia. S. 20
passed Senate June 17. (Presidential rec-
ommendation.)
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area:
Authorized $355,000 to establish the Bighorn
Canyon National Recreation Area in Mon-
tana and Wyoming to provide for public
outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of
the proposed Yellowtail Reservoir, and for
the preservation of the scenic, scientific, and
historic features of the area. S. 491 passed
Senate February 10. (Presidential recommen-
dation.)
Federal Water Project Recreation Act:
Established prospective standard guidelines
on the allocation and reimbursability of
recreation, fish, and wildlife costs on Fed-
eral multiple-purpose water resource proj-
ects. S. 1229. Conferees agreed June 14.
(Presidential recommendation.)
Fisheries Loan Act: Extends for an addi-
tional 5 years the fishery loan program ad-
ministered by the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries; expands the scope of the present
program to permit a loan to be made re-
gardless of whether the vessel to be acquired
will replace an existing vessel; and removes
the present minimum annual interest rate
of 3 percent and substitutes a formula for
establishing the interest rate. S. 998 passed
Senate June 16.
Flood protection: Authorizes the Federal
Government to bear up to 5 percent of
costs of utility relocations on projects cov-
ered by the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act when the local organization
is unable to bear such costs or cannot do so
without undue hardship. S. 199 passed
Senate May 25.
Grand Coulee third powerplant: Au-
thorizes $364,310,000 for Federal construc-
tion of a third powerplant at Grand Coulee
Dam on the Columbia River in the State of
Washington, which will add 3.6 million kilo-
watts of generating capacity to the 2 million
kilowatts of the two existing plants, making
it the largest single hydroelectric develop-
ment in the world. S. 1761 passed Senate
June 16.
Kaniksu National Forest: Authorized up
to $500,000 from the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund to extend the Kaniksu Na-
tional Forest to include lands necessary for
the protection and conservation of the scenic
values and natural environment of Upper
?Priest Lake in Idaho. Public Law 89-39.
Mann Creek reclamation project, Idaho:
Authorizes an additional $690,000 to com-
plete the Mann Creek project in Idaho
which, upon completion, will provide a sup-
plemental water supply to 4,465 acres and
a new water supply to 595 acres. S. 1582
passed Senate June 16.
Manson irrigation unit, Washington: Au-
thorized $12.3 million for the construction
and operation of the Manson Unit of the
Chief Joseph Dam project. The Manson
Unit has an irrigation potential of 5,770
acres of land, with half of the costs reim-
bursable. S. 490 passed Senate February 10.
Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho:
Authorized $630,000 for the purchase of
1,500 acres of land to establish the Nez Perce
National Historical Park to commemorate,
preserve, and interpret the historic values in
the early Nez Perce Indian culture, the
tribes' war of 1877 with U.S. cavalry troops,
the Lewis and Clark expedition through the
area early in the 19th century, subsequent
13539
fur trading, gold mining, logging and mis-
sionary activity. Public Law 89-19.
Pecos National Monument, N. Mex.: Pro-
vides for the establishment of the Pecos
National Monument in the State of New
Mexico. MR. 3165.
Pesticides: Amends the act of August 1,
1958 by continuing 3 years a study by the
Secretary of Interior of the effects of insecti-
cides, herbicides, fungicides, and other pesti-
cides, on fish and wildlife for the purpose of
preventing losses to this resource. S. 1623
passed Senate April 29.
River basin authorization: Authorizes an
additional $944 million for fiscal years 1966
and 1967 for 13 river basin plans previously
approved by Congress. H.R. 6755. Public
Law 89-
River basin planning: Authorized Federal
grants of $5 million a year in matching funds
to States for State project planning over a
10-year period; sets up a Cabinet-level water
resources council to coordinate river basin
planning; and authorizes creation of river
basin commissions for regional planning. S.
21 in conference. (Presidential recommen-
dation.)
Saline water conversion: Provided for an
expansion of the Federal program of research
and development in the field of saline water
conversion through authorization of an ad-
ditional $200 million in appropriations for
the period ending fiscal year 1972. S. 24
passed Senate June 16. (Presidential rec-
ommendation.)
Southern Nevada water project, Nevada:
Authorizes $81,003,000 for the Federal con-
struction of the southern Nevada water sup-
ply project, a single-purpose municipal and
industrial water supply development to fur-
nish water from Lake Mead to the cities of
Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson,
Boulder City, and Nellis Air Force Base. S.
32 passed Senate June 17.
Tualatin project, Oregon: Authorized up
to $23 million for Federal construction of
the multipurpose Tualatin reclamation
project in Washington County, Oreg. S. 254
passed Senate April 1.
Water Resources Research Act: Amends
the 1964 Water Resource Research Act to
authorize grant, matching, and contract
funds for assistance to educational institu-
tions in addition to State land-grant col-
leges, to competent private organizations and
individuals, and to local, State, and Federal
agencies undertaking special research in wa-
ter resource problems. Authorizes $5 million
for fiscal 1966 and increases the authoriza-
tion by $1 million annually until the level
of $10 million is reached. The ceiling of
$10 million will remain thereafter. S. 22
passed Senate March 25. (Presidential rec-
ommendation.)
Yakima project, Washington: Authorized
$5.1 million for the extension, construction,
and operation of the Kennewick division of
the Yakima project with an irrigation poten-
tial of 7,000 additional acres (present irri-
gated acreage is 19,000). All but approxi-
mately $135,000 is reimbursable. S. 794
passed Senated February 10.
SPACE
NASA: Authorized a total of $5,190,396,200
to the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration for fiscal 1966 as follows: Re-
search and development, $4,536,971,000; con-
struction of facilities, $62,376,350; and
administrative operations, $591,048,850. H.R.
7717. (Presidential recommendation.)
TAXES
Motor fuel taxation compact: Grants the
consent of Congress to New Hampshire,
Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land and the District of Columbia to enter
into a compact relating to taxation of motor
fuels consumed by Interstate buses and to an
agreement relating to bus taxation prora-
tion and reciprocity. Public Law 89-11.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 17, 1965
Excise taxes: Reduced excise taxes by $4.7
billion. H.R. 8371. In conference, (Presi-
dential recommendation.)
TEAR
Uniform time: Establishes uniform dates
for commencing and ending daylight sating
time in the States and local jurisdictions
where it is observed. S. 1404 passed Senate
June 3,
TRANSPORTATION
Navigation: Increased authorizations for
the support and maintenance of the Perma-
nent International Commission of Congresses
of Navigation. S. 1501 passed Senate April 21.
Oceanographic vessels: Exempts oceano-
graphic research vessels from the application
of certain vessel inspection laws. S. 627
passed Senate April 29.
VETERANS
Reopened insurance fund: Authorizes the
Veterans' Administration to transfer up to
61,650,000 from the veterans special term in-
surance fund, for the purpose of providing
administrative expenses in connection with
the reopening of national service life insur-
ance. Public Law 89-40.
VA hospitals: Expresses sense of Congress
on increasing the authorized bed capacity for
all Veterans' Administration hospitals. Sen-
ate Concurrent Resolution 13 adopted June 4
WELFARE
Older Americans Act: Creates an Adminis-
tration on Aging, under direction of a Com-
missioner, within the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, to be a coordinat-
ing center for information and service to
State and local governments, administer
grants; promote research, gather statistics,
and prepare and publish other data. H.R.
3708 passed Senate amended May 27.
National Foundation on the Arts and Hu-
manities: Establishes a National Founda-
tion on the Arts and Humanities to develop
and promote a broadly conceived national
policy of support for the arts and humanities
throughout the United States. S. 1483
passed Senate June 10, 1965.
SILTSCELLANE OIIS
Bank Merger Act Amendments, 1065:
Amends the Bank Merger Act to require that
future bank mergers should not be consum-
mated until 30 days after the date of ap-
proval by the appropriate banking agency.
S. 1698 passed Senate June 11, 1965.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished junior Sena-
tor from South Dakota such time as he
may wish.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Sena-
tor from n Oklaho
AM
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President I be-
lieve that the war in Vietnam has taken
a dangerous new turn with the commit-
ment of large American land forces to a
combat mission. Seventy-five thousand
American soldiers are now committed to
Vietnam and every indication points to
a total of at least 100,000 by next WI.
This in itself is a highly dangerous
development for it will inevitably invite
a greater commitment of forces by the
other side. The large North Vietnamese
array which has thus far remained
largely on the sidelines may be increas-
ingly drawn into the fighting in the
south. If that should happen on a
large scale, it is clear that we would either
be required to send in an arfriy of several
hundred thousand men or face a dis-
astrous defeat or bloody stalemate out of
all proportion to our interest in this
corner of the globe. Nor does this
prospect rule out the possibility of a con-
frontation with the huge armies of
China backed by Russian air power and
modern military equipment.
Mr. President, let us be clear on one
point before we take this course. Our
present commitment of U.S. combat
forces on a sizable scale in South Viet-
nam is a radical departure from the ad-
visory and assistance role which has
heretofore been enunciated by Presidents
Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson and
by Secretary of Defense McNamara.
In his original statement of U.S. aid
to South Vietnam, President Eisen-
hower said on October 23, 1954:
The purpose of this offer is to assist the
Government of Vietnam in developing and
maintaining a strong, viable state, capable
of resisting attempted subversion or aggres-
sion through military means. The Govern-
ment of the United States expects that this
aid will be met by performance on the part
of the Government of Vietnam in undertak-
ing needed reforms.
On September 2,1963, President Ken-
nedy said:
I don't think that unless a greater effort
Is made by the Government to win popular
support that the war can be won out there.
In the final analysis, it is their war. They
are the ones who have to win or lose it. We
can help them, we can give them equipment,
we can send our men out there as advisers,
but they have to win it?the people of Viet-
nam?against the Communists. We are pre-
pared to continue to assist them, but I don't
think that the war can be won unless the
people support the effort.
On August 12, 1964, President Johnson
said:
The South Vietnamese have the basic re-
sponsibility for the defense of their own
freedom.
In February 1964, Secretary of De-
fense McNamara told congressional com-
mittees:
I think we must recognize that success in
the counterinsurgency campaign in South
Vietnam depends primarily upon the South
Vietnamese themselves. It depends upon
their ability to construct a stable govern-
ment. It depends upon their willingness
to fight. It depends upon the competency
with which they are led. It depends upon
the extent to which their government de-
serves and receives the loyalty of the people,
and the support of the people. All of these
conditions are conditions that additional men
and equipment from the United States are
not likely to advance.
These statements make it perfectly
clear that we did not go into southeast
Asia to fight a major war with American
forces. We are now following a course
which is sharply at variance with the ad-
visory and supporting role previously
spelled out by three Presidents.
Yet, dangerous as this prospect is, an
even more foolish course is now emerging
as the recommendation of certain Re-
publican spokesmen who seem to be can-
ing for victory over the Vietcong guer-
rillas by massive U.S. bombing attacks
on China and North Vietnam.
Mr. President, how long will it take for
some people to realize that bombing
Hanoi or Peiping will have little or no
effect on the guerrilla forces fighting a
thousand miles away in the Jungles
around Saigon? These guerrillas have
lived for 20 years largely off the country-
side. They have fought largely with
captured weapons. Their strength is
that they are a part of the people and
the terrain in which they fight. They
live with the villagers and the peasants
and in many cases are farmers by day
and fighters by night. To bomb them is
to bomb the women and children, the vil-
lagers and the peasants with whom they
are intermingled. To destroy their crops
and jungle foliage is to destroy the coun-
tryside on which the general population
depends. Thus, our bombing attacks
turn the people against us and feed the
fires of rebellion that strengthen the
guerrilla cause.
In a recent U.S. bombing attack aimed
at the guerrillas, newsmen reported that
three out of four people seeking treat-
ment after the raid for the cruel burns
of napalm bombs were village women
and children.
How much more ineffective it would
be to start dropping bombs on the
masses of humanity piled up in the cities
of North Vietnam and China. This
would not slow down the Vietnamese
rebel forces thousands of miles to the
south. It would simply destroy the moral
and political influence of the United
States in Asia. It would turn Asia into
a seething sea of hatred against
America from which we might never re-
cover. It could insure a Communist
takeover in southeast Asia and perhaps
all of Asia and the utter collapse of
American influence in that part of the
world.
Instead of this futile course, I would
urge that we take advantage of the forth-
coming Afro-Asian Conference in Algiers
to encourage discussions with the Viet-
cong leaders in South Vietnam. Perhaps
the Algerian hosts of this Conference
could provide a useful contact with the
National Liberation Front that speaks
for the Vietcong. President Johnson has
very wisely offered to enter into nego-
tiations leading to an honorable settle-
ment of the war without preconditions.
The administration has, however, ex-
cluded the Vietcong from such negotia-
tions. That exclusion may be unwise and
may be the chief barrier to negotiations.
After all, the principal antagonists in
this struggle are the government in Sai-
gon which remains in power with U.S.
backing, and the Vietcong rebel forces
which enjoy the support of Hanoi and
Peiping. For us to insist that only Hanoi
and Peiping can negotiate for the Viet-
cong is to presume a Communist mono-
lithic bloc in southeast Asia that may be
a creature of our own misconceptions.
Nor do we have any claim to be the
principal negotiator for South Vietnam.
That Is the function of Saigon. I some-
times think that the Government and
the people of South Vietnam have been
lost sight of in this strange and tragic
war.
In any event, to refuse to include the
National Liberation Front of the rebel
forces in negotiations would be similar
to King George III insisting 185 years
ago that he would negotiate with our
French ally but not with Gen. George
Washington and his rebel American
forces.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
June 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 13541
I am told that the administration ob-
jects to discussions with the Vietcong
because this might undermine the South
Vietnamese government. But govern-
ments have been falling in Saigon with
regularity every few weeks for the past
2 years, Furthermore, the government
In Saigon has repeatedly expressed the
fear that the United States is taking
over the war so completely that it has
the effect of undercutting the Saigon
government in the eyes of its people.
If we are concerned about discussions
with the Vietcong undermining the
South Vietnamese Government and I
, think that is a legitimate concern?
there are two safeguards we could fol-
low. First, we could encourage the
South Vietnamese Government to initi-
ate such cliscnssions with the Vietcong,
or second, we could and should give as-
surances to Saigon that any negotiations
in which we are involved will be in co-
operation with our South Vietnamese
ally.
As one respected American editor put
it:
The administration's mistake hitherto has
been to point to a door marked "uncondi-
tional discussion," which has also been
marked, "no admittance for the Vietcong,"
thus inhibiting a response from any quarter.
To take down that inhibiting sign calls
for political courage by President Johnson?
almost as much as was displayed by General
de Gaulle when he proposed entering into
peace talks with the Algerians. But the
alternatives now seem reduced to two:
American withdrawal without parley as de-
manded by Peiping and Hanoi, or the com-
mitment to South Vietnam of several
fighting divisions which will bear the brunt
of 5 or 10 more years of jungle war.
Mr. President, before we drift or plunge
into either of these unfortunate alter-
natives, I hope and pray that the Senate
will engage in long and painstaking de-
bate about the essentials of our present
foreign policy. to we intend to rush
Into every revolutionary situation in the
world on the theory that we have a man-
date to impose an American solution?
Do we intend to work with or against
the powerful nationalistic and social
forces now convulsing Asia, Africa, and
Latin America? Do we assume that all
Communist or Socialist states are "one
ball of wax- and that we must resist
them all down to the last American sol-
dier, or can we live in peace with "Tito-
1st" type regimes, including, perhaps,
even Ho Chi Minh? Will we forever in-
sist on denying the existence of a gov-
ernment on mainland China?the most
populous nation in the world? What is
the role of the United Nations and oth-
er peacek6eping agencies in the trouble-
spots of the world? How effective is mil-
itary power in areas of overriding hu-
man misery, hunger, and disease? Do we
understand the aources of Communist
appeal to the neglected peoples of the
world? 4cre we using our own strongest
moral, political, and economic weapons
including Our food and technical know-
how to the best advantage in our com-
petition with the Communists? Is south-
east Asia so vital to our interests that
it is sufficient cause for us to undertake
world war4 III in that part of the globe?
110--11
These are some of the many questions
that I hope the Senate will debate be-
fore we are committed so irrevocably to
a course in southeast Asia that all de-
bate and discussion is stilled by march-
ing feet and exploding bombs.
Mr. President, I add one final thought:
Recent announcements that U.S. forces
will engage in ground combat in Vietnam
if requested by the Government of South
Vietnam, comes at a particularly bad
moment because of the continuing in-
ability of that Government to get a grill
on the situation.
If it were a question of the United
States responding to a request for help
from a government which was moving to-
ward stability and control, that would be
one thing. But the political standing of
the Government of South Vietnam has
grown weaker rather than stronger in
recent weeks.
It is ironic that one newspaper--the
New York Times?care d the story of the
U.S. decision to allow 1.. 3. troops to fight
at the request of the South Vietnamese
Government right next to a story about
the expected fall of the South Viet-
namese Government. This juxtaposition
reemphasizes the fact that the problem
in South Vietnam is first and foremost
a political one. Military measures are
also necessary at this time, but until a
satisfactory political solution is reached
in South Vietnam, military measures
alone?bombings of North Vietnam, in-
creased numbers of U.S, advisers, more
modern equipment, or actual combat by
U.S. troops?will not solve the problem.
There is a great contrast between the
direction of U.S. policy in Latin America
and in Asia. In the Dominican Republic,
for instance, what began as a unilateral
intervention is becoming more and more
multinational and the responsibility of
the Organization of American States.
Yet, in South Vietnam, what began as a
multinational enforcement of Geneva
commitments is becoming more and more
a unilateral intervention, in which even
the South Vietnamese Government is
playing a smaller role while the U.S. role
continues to escalate.
I think we would be wise in Asia, as
well as in Latin America, to avoid uni-
lateral intervention and to work for
multilateral support for our efforts. If it
is impossible to get effective multilateral
backing, I think that should be a clue to
us that our policies and objectives may
need reevaluation.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
yield 1 minute to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Wisconsin.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I com-
mend the Senator from South Dakota
for his very thoughtful speech. I was
not able to be present throughout the
entire speech. I did not have the op-
portunity to read the speech prior to its
delivery. Therefore, I am not prepared
to say whether I agree with everything
that was said. I believe that the speech
was an extremely thoughtful contribu-
tion to the dialog on this very serious
situation confronting us in southeast
Asia.
All too frequently lately, I have noticed
- , , ?
that the columnists, editorial writers,
radio and TV commentators keep insist-
ing that any discussion of our involve-
ment in southeast Asia will somehow
or other be misunderstood over there,
and, therefore, we should not talk too
much about it over here.
My comment about that is that I do
not believe that we should qualify our
freedom and our freedom of speech in
this country based upon what might be
thought by people who never had any
freedom or freedom of speech.
We should not give up our freedom or
our freedom of speech in this country
merely because they do not understand
what it is about since they have never
experienced it.
I commend the Senator for a thought-
ful and courageous contribution to this
dialog, which should continue in a free
society such as the one in which we live
and hope to continue to live for all time
to come.
APPOINTMENT OF GEN. WILLIAM F.
McKEE TO THE OFFICE OF AD-
MINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL
AVIATION AGENCY
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 7777) to authorize the
President to appoint Gen. William F.
McKee (U.S. Air Force, retired) to the
office of Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President,
when President Johnson learned of the
intention of Najeeb E. Halaby, Adminis-
trator of the Federal Aviation Agency, to
resign, he began searching for a man to
fill this high post?a relatively new post
In terms of Government agencies?yet a
post which requires the highest skill and
knowledge of the art of aviation, the tact
and diplomacy of an ambassador in deal-
ing with and melding the interests of
general aviation, commercial aviation,
and the military, and the experience in
Government in order to work with the
various other government agencies,
State and Federal, on aviation affairs
and to carry out the desires of the
Congress.
In selecting men and women to hold
high and responsible positions in our
Government, President Johnson has
chosen well. His search to find the best
person for the,job and his refusal to ac-
cept anything less, whatever the pres-
sures upon him were, have set new stand-
ards for the quality of leadership in
government.
The man President Johnson has se-
lected to be the next Administrator of
the FAA, is, as much as any other Pres-
idential appointee, a tribute to the Pres-
ident's wisdom and firm adherence to his
rule?"the best man for the job."
Because of a provision in section
301(b) of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 requiring the Administrator to be a
civilian, it was necessary for the Presi-
dent to ask the Congress to authorize
him to appoint William F. McKee, a re-
tired Air Force general, to be the Ad-
ministrator of the FAA.
Approved ,For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
13542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE dune 17, 1965
As a former Member of both Houses
of the Congress the President is respect-
ful of the prerogatives of the Congress
and has conscientiously given great at-
tention to the wishes of the Congress.
The bill to authorize the appointment
of General McKee has been considered
carefully by the Senate Commerce Com-
mittee and the House Interstate and For-
eign Commerce Committee. Public
hearings were held by both committees
and every interested person and organi-
zation were afforded an opportunity to
testify. Both committees have registered
their approval of the bill.
In substance, the bill waives in this
one instance the requirement in section
301(b) that the Administrator of the
FAA be a civilian. It permits General
McKee to serve as Administrator and
retain his rank as a retired Air Force
general. General McKee would be en-
titled, as are all retired regular military
officers, to receive a portion of his mili-
tary retirement pay under the Dual
Compensation Act in addition to re-
ceiving the full civilian salary as
Administrator.
The bill expressly states:
[That General McKee] shall be subject to
no supervision, control, restriction, or pro-
hibition (military or otherwise) other than
would be operative with respect to him if
he were not an officer on the retired list of
the Regular Air Force
The bill also expressly states the in-
tent of the Congress that this is a one-
time waiver of the requirement that a
civilian serve as head of the Agency.
Any further action or waiver of this
provision would require the passage of
an act of Congress. Congress has done
this, so far as the House is concerned.
It is now up to the Senate to take some
action.
I yield to the distinguished Senator
from Washington.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I rise
In support of the pending legislation to
authorize the appointment of Gen. Wil-
liam F. McKee. I do not support this
legislation because General McKee is a
military man. I support the legislation
because General McKee is an able ad-
ministrator.
On June 23, 1964, I made certain re-
marks in the Senate Chamber concern-
ing General McKee on the occasion of
his forthcoming retirement, which took
place on July 31, 1964. I read from my
remarks about General McKee on that
occasion as follows
I wish to use this opportunity to take note
of General McKee's able work and construc-
tive contribution in the Nation's service.
An outstanding management man, Gen-
eral McKee's assignment as commander of the
Air Force Logistics Command, and then as
Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, brought
to fruition many improvements in the sup-
port system of the Air Farce which he had
planned and directed.
The activities supervised by General Mc-
Kee included both personnel procurement
and training, and the complex materiel pro-
curement and supply operation required to
support our combat air forces.
General McKee stated his objective for the
modern Air Force as follows:
"As we move farther into space, there will
be no room for error?mechanical or human.
Our efforts today are aimed at the flawless
support systems of tomorrow."
During his duty with the Air Force Logis-
tics Command, management improvements
resulted in a reduction in manpower from
224,000 to 147,000 and requirements for spare
parts were reduced by some $7 billion.
These increases in efficiency were not made
by sacrificing support to the combat units.
High-speed movement of priority and high-
value material has reduced the inventory in
the pipeline: use of electronic data processing
equipment and improved communications
can make requirements from the field quickly
known; and maximum use of aircargo de-
livery methods and equipment can promptly
provide the necessary equipment.
As vice commander of the Air Materiel
Command, and later as commander of the
Air Force Logistics Command, General McKee
played a major role in eliminating the vast
Air Force logistics complex overseas, which
included large depots in Africa, France, Eng-
land, Japan, and the Philippines. On his
recommendation, a depot program for Spain,
at a cost of many millions, was never built.
As the oversea lOgistics complex was phased
out, the Air Force went to a concept of direct
support from the Zone of Interior. This re-
sulted in very sul3stantia1 savings in dollars
and people. Perhaps more importantly, the
combat effectiveness of our oversea units
was significantly improved.
That is the end of the quotation from
the statement I made on the Senate
floor on June 23, 1964, in connection
with the then pending retirement of
Gen. William F. McKee from the Air
Force.
He is an outstanding administrator.
He is a man of great integrity. He has
the confidence of the people of this
country. He administered procurement
programs in the Air Force running into
billions of dollars without a word of
doubt as to his able, dedicated, and out-
standing performance in those critically
important programs.
Mr. President, I support the legislation.
I intend to support the nomination of
General McKee. He is a man of great
ability and I am convinced he will make
an excellent Administrator of the Fed-
eral Aviation Agency.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JACKSON. I yield, with the per-
mission of the Senator from Oklahoma
I Mr. MONRONEY], who has the floor.
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. HARTKE. Assuming for the
moment what the Senator has said is
correct, without contradicting the high
opinion that the Senator from Washing-
ton has concerning General McKee, does
the Senator feel, in all fairness to the
general himself and to the Senate, that
before the rest of the Senate should pass
judgment on this man he should not go
through the customary and regular pro-
cedures of the Senate by coming before a
committee and having an open hearing
as to his qualifications rather than hav-
ing only individual testimony of persons
who know him personally? No such
hearing has been afforded in this case.
Mr. JACKSON. I do not think that
is the issue. It is only a matter of time.
He will be required to appear before the
Commerce Committee in connection with
his nomination.
This bill simply makes-it possible for
the President to submit his nomination.
Mr. HARTKE. That is the very
essence of the proposition. This is no
general purpose bill. The bill is directed
to General McKee. Before the Senate
passes the bill, it must pass judgment
upon whether the man is qualified. The
very essence of the question involved is
that we are asked to pass a bill and to
accept the judgment of some persons
without being afforded the ordinary
course of a hearing. In other words,
we are asked to pass judgment on the
Senate floor, then to have a hearing, and
at that time pass judgment on the man
for the second time.
Mr. JACKSON. I would not Question
for one moment the necessity of having
General McKee appear before the Com-
merce Committee, however, I see no rea-
son to require him to appear twice?par-
ticularly since he has not yet even been
nominated.
Mr. HARTKE. Does the Senator
want me to accept his statement as au-
thority? I have respect for him, but I
d not believe that, under similar dr--
cumstances, the Senator from Washing--
ton would want to dispense with hear-
ings on the nomination of a certain
person merely because I thought he was
of the highest quality.
Mr. JACKSON. I only say that I stand
an my statement. If the Senator does
not subscribe to it, obviously, he does not
have to do so. I notice that the Senator
circulated a letter questioning whether
General McKee is an administrator. I
think what I have said is quite pertinent
to the letter the Senator sent to every
Senator. I was speaking only to this is-
sue which the Senator raised in his letter.
Mr. HARTKE. That is correct.
Mr. JACKSON. The Senator said that
1 week ago he was speaking an this bill,
and the distinguished majority whip
asked him what unusual qualifications
General McKee has which make him the
only person capable of holding the job
of Administrator. He stated that he did
not know, inasmuch as the Commerce
Committee had not had an opportunity
to question General McKee.
I am not saying he is the only man.
The point is that not only was he a great
officer in the Air Force of the United
States, but he has been one of the out-
standing administrators in the Pentagon.
I know that of my own knowledge. He is
a_man of great integrity.
I am trying to answer the question
raised in connection with the letter.
Mr. HARTKE. I am not denying the
authorship of the statement or the letter.
The only question is whether the Senate
is entitled to do away with organic law
for one man. That is the first point.
The second point has to do with the reg-
ular procedures of the Senate which
would require the man to come before
the committee and state his qualifica-
tions, and at the same time give mem-
bers of the committee an opportunity for
examination.
Mr. JACKSON. The bill before the
Senate is a Condition precedent to taking
Up his nomination. It simply enables
the President to submit his nomination.
We cannot nominate him. The Presi-
dent makes the nomination does he not?
This is exactly what was done in the case
of General Marshall. There is a prece-
dent for it.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003110/15': CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
June 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 13515
Committee. It 41091c1 be noted that the
project has an excellent benefit-cost
ratio of 1,5 to 1 or the initial phase and
1.6 to 1 for the ultimate phase.
The cost of this undertaking?some
$49 million for the initial phase?is com-
pletely reimbursable from revenues de-
rived from the delivery of water to
southern Nevada users, with interest.
The Nevada State Legislature granted
authority 2 years ago to the State's Colo-
rado River Commission to contract with
the United States for the repayment and
to operate and maintain the project
when it is in service.
This project has full and unhesitating
support from every level of State and
local government in my State and also
from all responsible civic and business
groups.
I urge support for this vital project
so that the Congress can complete action
on it as quickly as possible and hasten
the day it can benefit the robust econ-
omy of southern Nevada.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I join
my distinguished senior colleague from
Nevada c,fr. BIBLE] in urging the Sen-
ate to act favorably on passage of S. 32
to authorize the southern Nevada water
supply project.
My colleague has done yeoman's work
in pressing for the enactment of this vital
legislation and has eloquently outlined
the need for the authorization of this
Vital project.
The growth and prosperity of Nevada
and the entire Southwest is irrevocably
tied to adequate water development.
There is no doubt in my mind that the
Congress realizes the critical need to
move and move rapidly to meet the
Nation's demand for water for the
future.
This was illustrated just yesterday,
Mr. President, when the Senate gave its
wholehearted support to the passage of
S. 24 to greatly increase the commitment
of this Nation to accelerated research in
the field of desalinization. I feel that a
massive effort to advance desalting tech-
? nology, the support of the Congress for
various water development projects such
as the project now before the Senate,
and programs to finance research in
weather modifications will help allevi-
ate the water shortage problems that will
face this Nation in the very near future.
The southern Nevada water supply
project is designed to meet the very
immediate needs of southern Nevada and
on its passage rest the aspirations of an
area of my State in which nearly 50 per-
cent of the population resides.
All costs would be allocated to munici-
pal and industrial water users and would
be reimbursable by the beneficiaries over
a 50-year period. It is important to point
out, Mr. President, that the project has a
first-stage benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1,
and a favorable ratio of 1.6 to 1 for the
ultimate phase.
There is pritical water supply prob-
lem-in solithern Nevada anci- the southern,
Nevada water supply project is vital to
protect and conserve the dwindling
ground Water resources of Clark County
and to provide a" sure additional supply
of water to serve one of the fastest grow-
ing areas in the 'United States. In less
'southern
Nevada
15 years the population of
Nevada has grown from approximately
50,000 to more than a quarter of a mil-
lion, and it is expected that nearly 1 mil-
lion persons will reside in southern
Nevada by the year 2000.
Thousands upon thousands of persons
have invested their lives and fortunes
in southern Nevada and they need?and
must have?water if they are to survive
and continue to prosper.
It is important to point out, Mr. Presi-
dent, that authorization and construc-
tion of the southern Nevada water sup-
ply project will in no way interfere with
the orderly plans for other Water devel-
opment projects in the arid Southwest-
ern States. Financially and technically,
the southern Nevada water supply proj-
ect has independence and feasibility.
The project enjoys the support of all
interested parties in the State?the Gov-
ernor, the congressional delegation, and
all municipalities and city groups lo-
cated in the area.
The Nevada State Legislature recently
designated the Colorado River Commis-
sion of Nevada as the State agency to
contract with the Federal Government
for the repayment of project costs and
to operate and maintain the project after
construction.
If adequate water supplies are not de-
veloped for southern Nevada in the very
near future, there will be grave damage
to our economy and our underground
water supplies. Southern Nevada has
reached the point in its development
where the underground artesian basin
can no longer support its population, its
industry, and the large Government in-
stallations which - have invested so
heavily in the area.
The Senate Interior ,Committee recog-
nized the critical need for this project
by acting with speed and vigor and re-
ported the bill with very minor amend-
ments.
The bill enjoys widespread support.
The project is needed; it is timely and
reasonable; and it does not interfere with
the larger plan for the Southwest.
Its passage is absolutely mandatory
for the survival, growth, and prosperity
of the people of southern Nevada and I
ask the support of the Senate in making
the dreams of full water resources for
southern Nevada a reality.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there bp 110_ amendment to be proposed,
the question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill (5. 32), was ordered to be en-
grossed for a third reading was read the
third time, and passed.
Mr. BIBLE: Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. KUCHEL. ?Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to, lay on the table was
agreed to.
STATE DEPARTMENT ADVICE RELA-
TIVE TO AMERICAN STUDENT IN-
FORMATION SERVICE
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, last
summer, one of my young constituents,
a college student, had an unhappy ex-
perience with a 'Luxembourg-based or-
ganization known as the American Stu-
dent Information service. In looking
into her complaint, I obtained infor-
mation which may be helpful to other
American students who may contem-
plate employment of the type which she
obtained last summer in Europe. The
State Department has prepared a form
letter in response to many inquiries it
has received concerning the activities of
ASIS.
I ask unanimous consent -that the let-
ter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
BUREAU or EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL
AFFAIRS.
DEAR -: Thank you for your recent
communication about the American Student
Information Service (ASIS). The Depart-
ment of State has received numerous in-
quiries concerning the activities of this or-
ganization.
ASIS was established in Luxembourg in
1961 after having operated from Denmark
and, subsequently, Germany. It is a pri-
vate organization with no U.S. Government
connections. To the best of our knowledge,
ASIS is not organized under the laws of any
American jurisdiction, although it is our
understanding that the two principal officers
are Americans. Most students traveling to
Europe under ASIS auspices find employ-
ment in countries other than Luxembourg.
The American Embassy in Luxembourg re-
ports that it has received numerous com-
plaints about the organization from stu-
dents. On several occasions the Embassy has
tried on the students' behalf to discuss these
complaints with the directors of ASIS but
has found the latter to be "totally uncoop-
erative." In view of this situation, the De-
partment cannot recommend that American
students participate in the ASIS program.
For information on summer employment,
travel, or study programs abroad, you may
wish to write to well-established, nonprofit
agencies such as the Institute of Interna-
tional Education, 800 Second Avenue, New
York, N.Y., 10017, or the Experiment in In-
ternational Living, Raney, Vt. our informa-
tion indicates, however, that the majority of
temporary job opportunities overseas call for
volunteer service rather than for paid em-
ployment.
We enclose a copy of "Opportunities for
Summer Employment Abroad," which sug-
gests additional sources that may be helpful.
Sincerely yours,
HUGH B. SUTHERLAND,
Director, Public Information and Re-
ports Staff.
SMALL BUSINESS VICTORY
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, Mr.
George J. Burger, vice president of the
National Federation of Independent
Business, issued a statement with refer-
ence to a recent Supreme Court ruling
which is of considerable interest to small
business. I ask unanimous consent that
it may be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was Ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
George J. Burger, vice president, National
Federation of Independent Business, today
hailed the decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court in sustaining the decision of the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Chicago,
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B0044614000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 17, 1965
Ill., April 24, 1964, in the Federal Trade Cont-
mission v. Goodyear-Atlantic Refining case as
a signal victory for small business.
The Court held the Federal Trade Com-
mission has found an agreement between
Atlantic Refining and Goodyear Tire & Rub-
ber Co. under which the former sponsors the
sale of tires, batteries, and accessory products
of the latter to the wholesale outlets and
retail tire service dealers is an unfair method
of competition in violation of the Federal
Trade Commission Act.
This action of the Supreme Court, Burger
stated, will free the Nation's 300,000 inde-
pendent service station operators to purchase
their tire, battery, and accessory products
from suppliers of their own choice on a com-
petitive price-quality basis.
He further advised these rubber company-
oil company tie-in arrangements were Iftrst
exposed in Senate Small Business Committee
print No. 3, 1941, on facts presented by Mr.
Burger to the committee.
This June 1 Supreme Court decision may
well be looked upon as one of the most im-
portant actions under the antitrust laws in
a quarter of try, as it will apply to
small busin Nation.
.4 4,4.4k
Fr
"MOR ALISM" AND THE
311 VIETNAM
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Tyra:Ncs in the chair). Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the chair-
man of the Foreign Relations Committee
made a significant and widely reported
speech in the Senate Wednesday on our
Vietnam policy.
I regret that I was not on the floor at
the time he made the speech.
I did not know that he was planning
to Make the statement; otherwise I
would have adjusted my schedule in a
manner that would have permitted my
presence.
I am in wholehearted accord with
many of the points made by the chair-
man in his statement. But there are
Portions of his statement which I found
confusing and contradictory and danger-
ous in their implications.
The Senator from Arkansas spoke for
all of us when he said that he was op-
posed to an unconditional American
withdrawal from South Vietnam. He
said:
Such action would betray our obligation
to people we have promised to defend * * *
would weaken or destroy the credibility of
American guarantees to other countries * *
and would encourage the view in Peiping and
elsewhere, that guerrilla wars supported
from the outside are a relatively safe and
Inexpensive way of expanding Communist
power.
I commend the Senator from this
cogent statement on the consequences
of an unconditional American with-
drawal.
The chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee also performed a distinct
service in reviewing the many efforts
that have been made to persuade Peiping
and Hanoi to come to the conference
table in an effort to terminate the fight-
ing in South Vietnam. He dealt frankly
with the stubborn Communist rejection
of all the approaches that have thus far
been made to them. He stated?and I
am in complete accord with this state-
ment?that, despite the rebuffs we have
suffered, we must be patient and persist-
ent in our efforts to bring about a negoti-
ated settlement.
All this is to the good.
But there are portions of the Senator's
speech which, as I have already indi-
cated, trouble me deeply because they ap-
pear to contradict the intent of the sev-
eral passages to which I have already
referred.
The Senator from Arkansas, for exam-
ple, said that we encouraged President
Diem "to violate certain provisions of the
Geneva accords of 1954." And at a later
Point in this speech he urged a return to
the Geneva accords, "not just in their
essentials, but in all their specifications."
I have the distinct impression?and I
believe the Senator from Arkansas will
confirm thisthat the portion of the
Geneva agreement to which he was re-
ferring above all was that clause which
called for the holding of free nationwide
elections in, 1956.
It is completely true that President
Diem refused to go through with nation-
wide elections in 1956, and that we im-
plicitly supported him in the stand he
took.
But he refused to go through with
these elections for the perfectly valid
reason that the Communists had set up
a totalitarian police state in the northern
Balt of the country, that there had been
no freedom of press or expression or
political organization north of the 17th
Parallel since the control of the area was
surrendered to Ho Chi Minh, and that
the Communists had been guilty of basic
violations of human freedom and of the
spirit of the Geneva accord which made
it senseless to talk about "free nation-
wide elections."
This is a point that cannot be empha-
sized too much.
By way of establishing the facts for
the record, I want to quote from a col-
umn by Max Lerner in the New York
Post on January 24, 1955, written after
an interview with President Diem:
Southern Vietnam will take part in the
meeting to be held in June to discuss prepa-
rations for the 1956 elections.
Southern Vietnam, since it protested the
Geneva agreement when it was made, does
not consider itself a party to that agree-
ment, nor bound by it.
In any event, the clauses providing for the
1956 elections are extremely vague. But at
one point they are clear?in stipulating that
the elections are to be free. Everything will
now depend on how free elections are de-
fined. The President said he would wait to
see whether the conditions of freedom would
exist in North Vietnam at the time sched-
uled for the elections. He asked what would
be the good of an impartial counting of votes
if the voting has been preceded in North
Vietnam by a campaign of rulthless propa-
ganda and terrorism on the part of a police
state.
The scope and the degree of the totali-
tarian terror instituted by the Commu-
nist regime in North Vietnam from the
day that it was established in 1954, can
be documented from many sources.
Among other things, they can be docu-
mented from the official Communist
press itself.
Thus, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the
North Vietnamese military commander
and the military genius behind the Viet-
cong insurrection, made a statement, re-
markable in its candor, to the 10th Con-
gress of the Communist Party Central
Committee in October 1956. Let me
quote a few excerpts from General Giap's
statement as it was printed in the official
publication, Nhan Dan, on October 31,
1956:
While carrying out their antifeudal task,
our cadres have underestimated or, worse
still, have denied all antiiinperialist achieve..
ments, and have separated the land reform
and the revolution. Worse of all, in some
areas they have even made the two mutual-
ly exclusive.
We have failed to realize the necessity of
uniting with the middle-level peasants, and
we should have concluded some form of al-
liance with the rich peasants, whom we
treated in the same manner as the land-
lords.
We attacked the landowning families indis-
criminately, according no consideration to
those who had served the revolution and
to those families with sons in the army. We
showed no indulgence toward landlords who
participated in the resistance, treating their
children in the same way as we treated the
children of other landlords.
We made too many deviations and executed
too many honest people. We attacked on too
large a front and, seeing enemies everywhere,
resorted to terror, which became far too wide-
spread.
Whilst carrying out our land reform pro-
gram we failed to respect the principles of
freedom of faith and worship in many areas.
General Giap's admissions take on all
the more significance when it is realized
that the date on which he made the
statement coincides roughly with the date
of the "free nationwide elections" called
for by the Geneva Convention.
I think?I hope?the Senator from
Arkansas would agree that it makes no
sense to talk about free nationwide elec-
tions in a country that has been cut in
two when one portion of the country has
been governed by a merciless dictatorial
regime for several years.
I think he would agree that such an
election could only be held if certain
basic preconditions were met, including
complete freedom of press and political
organization, in both parts of the coun-
try, for a period of at least 1 year before
the election; and also including a provi-
sion that the elections should be held
under the auspices and control of some
international body like the TJnited Na-
tions.
I hope he does not mean that Diem
erred in not going through with the
elections despite the political terror in
the north, because it is clear as A B C
that such an election could only have re-
sulted in turning over the entire country
to communism.
Let Me point out here that at the Ge-
neva Conference of 1954 the U.S. delega-
tion at one point came out for free elec-
tions in North Vietnam under U.N. super-
vision, and that it was partly because of
the rejection of this proposal that the
United States decided against becoming
a signatory to the Geneva accord.
In another portion of his statement the
Senator from Arkansas said:
It may be that the major lesson of this
tragic conflict will be a new appreciation of
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved ForRelease 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
'June 17, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL 'RtCORD ? SENNA
the power of nationalism in southeast Asia
and, indeed, in all of the world's emerging
nations.
And he went on to say that "largely
in consequences of our own errors, the
nationalist movement in Vietnam be-
came associated with and largely sub-
ordinate to the Communist movement."
To suggest, as this clearly does, that
the Vietcong movement is a nationalist
movement is to completely twist the
the facts.
No one in Vietnam believes the charge
that Americans have now come to their
coimtry in large numbers and are sacri-
ficing their lives in its defense, because
the U.S. plans to impose some kind of
neocolonial regime on South Vietnam,
for the purpose of exploiting its people
and its resources.
On the contrary, the overwhelming
majority of the people of South Vietnam
look upon the Vietcong movement as an
instrument of terror and oppression,
seeking to subjugate them to the new
Imperialism of Peiping and Hanoi.
The true nationalists in South Viet-
nam are fighting on the side of the Gov-
ernment. They know that we have in-
tervened at the request of the Govern-
ment, and that our only purpose there
Is to help them defend their freedom
against the antinationalist forces of the
Vietcong.
But the portion of the Senator's speech
which disturbed me the most was 'a para-
graph which seemed to blur and confuse
the truly fundamental moral differences
between our side and the Vietcong, be-
tween freedbm and communism.
I want to quote this paragraph to the
Senate so that no one will be able to
argue that I have pulled words or sen-
tences out of context in my remarks:
A great nation?
Said the Senator?
is one which is capable of looking beyond its
own view of the world, of recognizing that,
however convinced it may be of the benefi-
cence of its own role and aims, other nations
may be equally persuaded of their benevo-
lence and good intent. It is a mark of both
greatness and maturity when a nation like
the United States, Vrlthout abandoning its
convictions and commitments, is capable at
the same time of acknowledging that there
may be some merit and even good intent in
the views and aims of its adversaries.
I am for seeking a negotiated Settle-
ment to theVietnarn war.
But, I do not concede the Senator's
contention that "there may be some
merit and even good intent in the views
and aims of our adversaries."
I consider communism to be one of the
most totally evil regimes ever devised by
man for the subjugation of his fellow
man?a regime whose utter amorality
- and disregard for human life has perhaps
only been equaled by the Nazi regime in
Germany.
The Fascist regime in prewar Italy
made the trains run on time. But I was
!'nelier. Prepared to concede any merit or
'evidence of good intent to the Mussolini
dictatorship because Of this accomplish-
ment.
Nor was I ever prepared to concede any
merit or evidence of good intent to the
No. 110?B
nazi regime in Germany heeause it 'suc-'
ceeded in eliminating unemployment,
building some working-class houses, and
producing 'a Prototype of the. modern
Volkswagon.
Despite their purely mechanical ac-
complishments, the Nazi and Fascist re-
gimes were evil in terms of every mean-
ingful criterion. They were evil because
of their total denial of human freedom,
because of their complete disregard for
human life, and because they were com-
mitted from the outset to the course of
aggression.
In the same way, I believe that com-
munism, whether of the Soviet variety or
the Chinese variety or any other variety,
Is evil by any meaningful criterion and
that men of good will, once they have
understood its nature, cannot remain
morally neutral on the issue of Commu-
nist expansion.
I can see no merit in a regime which,
whatever its mechanical or statistical ac-
complishments, has wiped out every
vestige of human freedom, persecuted
all religions alike, and sought to convert
Its subjects into brainwashed robots.
can see no merit in a regime which
has inflicted more suffering and cost
More human life than all the wars of this
century combined.
I can see no merit in a movement
openly committed to the conquest of the
world, which practices expansion through
subversion, through stealth and through
fraud, and through so-called "wars of
national liberation."
I can see no merit in a regime whose
terror has since the close of the war pro-
duced a flood of refugees?in Europe, in
Asia and in the Americas?which by now
Must number some 15 million.
I can see no merit in a Vietcong move-
silent organized and supported and di-
rected by Hanoi? and seeking to impose
its dictatorship by means of a terror that
has, since 1961, resulted in the assas-
sination or kidnaping of more than 35,-
000 South Vietnamese civilians.
The refusal to recognize the funda-
mental moral differences between free-
dom and communism, this moral neu-
trality for lack of a better expression, is
not a new phenomenon. It has existed
in every decade since the Bolshevik Rev-
olution, especially among the intellec-
tnals and in the academic community.
Each generation has apparently been
obliged to pass through its own period of
Illusion and disillusionment, of confusion
and enlighten:h.-lent. Thus, during the
thirties, despite the Stalinist terror and
the several millions who died during
forced collectivization and the mass
purge trials, some of the greatest writers
and noblest spirits of our times were
counted among the "friends of the Soviet
Union."
One by one, they had to pass through
their own private process of enlighten-
ment, and the private ordeal of breaking
with a thing in which they had believed
profoundly.
To those who have forgotten the his-
tory of this period, I would recommend
that they go back and -read a drainatic
'-book entitled "The God"Who railed," in
which men of the stature of Arthur
13517
Itostier and " Andre Gide and Ignazio
Silone and Stephen Spender and many
other prominent names in the world of
letters, set forth the personalconfessions
of their experiences as "friends of the
Soviet Union."
But perhaps the most eloquent and
damning confession of all was written
by a Jewish Lithuanian refugee, Dr. Ju-
lius Margolin, who had also regarded
himself as a "friend of the Soviet Un-
ion"?until the Soviets occupied his
country and deported scores of thou-
sands of Lithuanians to slave labor camps
in Siberia, and gave Dr. Margolin an
opportunity to see the real Soviet Un-
ion?and not the phony Soviet Union
that was shown to all the tourists who
visited Moscow during the thirties and
came away enraptured by what they saw
and what they were told.
Dr. Margolin wrote:
Until the fall of 1939, I had assumed a
position of benevolent neutrality toward the
U.S.S.R. * * * The last 7 years have made
me a convinced and ardent foe of the Soviet
system. I hate this system with all the
strength of my heart and all the power of
my mind. Everything I have seen there has
filled me with horror and disgust which will
last until the end of my days. I feel that
the struggle against this system of slavery,
terrorism, and cruelty which prevails there
constitutes the primary obligation of every
man in the world. Tolerance or support of
such an international shame is not permissi-
ble for people who are on this side of the
Soviet border and who live under normal con-
ditions. * * *
Millions of men are perishing in the camps
of the Soviet Union. * * ? Since they came
into being, the Soviet camps have swallowed
more people, have executed more victims,
than all the other camps?Hitler's included?
together; and this lethal engine continues
to operate full blast.
And those who in reply only shrug their
shoulders and try to dismiss the issue with
vague and meaningless generalities, I con-
sider moral abetters and accomplices of
banditry.
These are cogent words. But, as the
case of Dr. Margolin Mints up, the trag-
edy is that each new generation of in-
tellectuals appears to be incapable of
learning from the experience of the pre-
ceding generation. Each generation has
Its quota of party members and fellow
travelers?and a much greater quota of
moral neutralists who are not supporters
- of communism or even friends of the So-
viet Union, but who simply believe that
we must be operuninded?both about
the bad points in our own society and
about the good points in Communist
society.
So, while we seek a settlement in Viet-
nam,- let us be under no illusions about
the nature of the enemy or about the
cost, in terms of human life and human
suffering, as well as in terms of our own
security, if we should fail to hold the line
against Communist expansion in South
Vietnam.
Let us seek an agreement that will put
an end to the fighting. But let us avoid
any agreement where our principles are
so compromised and the free Vietnamese
so weakened that a Communist takeover
at an early date is bound to emerge.
Above all, let us avoid the trap of coali-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671?00446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 17, 1965
tion governments, which led to disasters
in all of the central European countries.
Such a solution might provide us with
a formula which saves face for us very
briefly. But on the day that it is realized
that the formula was no more than a
face-saving device, and that it had led,
as it was foreordained to do, to a Com-
munist takeover in South Vietnam "the
credibility of American guarantees to
other countries, would have been de-
stroyed as effectively as an uncondi-
tional withdrawal would destroy it; our
obligation to help the Vietnamese people
defend their freedom would be construed
as a sham; and Peiping could not help
but be convinced that its so-called wars
of national liberation are a relatively
safe and inexpensive way of expanding
Communist power."
The Senator from Arkansas has said
that the situation demands "major con-
cessions from both sides." I do not know
whether he was suggesting the possibil-
ity of a coalition government. I hope he
was not. But certainly his words carry
the implication that we are being too
stiff necked, that we are demanding too
much and offering too little.
I challenge such a contention.
President Johnson has made the Amer-
ican position crystal clear. We seek no
further expansion of the war.
We seek no territories and no bases
and no realm of colonial exploitation.
We seek only the acceptance of one
condition?that Peiping and Hanoi call
off their aggression against the govern-
ment and people of South Vietnam, that
the fighting and killing stop, and that
the South Vietnamese people be per-
mitted to live their lives in peace and
as they see fit.
In return, we have offered to include
North Vietnam within the scope of the
multibillion-dollar Mekong River devel-
opment program, with the untold bene-
fits that it would bring to all the peo-
ples of southeast Asia.
This, in my opinion, is a wise and
reasonable posture.
Less than this we cannot ask for
More than this we cannot offer.
In closing, I again want to compli-
ment the Senator from Arkansas on his
forceful presentation of the case against
complete withdrawal from Vietnam.
Whatever criticism I may have made of
certain parts of his statement which I
considered unfortunate in their impli-
cations, I want to emphasize that we
apparently see eye to eye, not only on
the question of immediate withdrawal,
but also on the need for continuing to
seek a peaceful settlement of the war in
Vietnam, despite the obdure which the
Communists have thus far exhibited.
Fr-04
THE WAR IN VIETNAM
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the de-
bate in Congress on Vietnam which is
beginning to heat up shows signs of be-
ing the type of constructive, intelligent-
criticism that I hope can be useful to the
executive branch.
In view of the comments made yester-
day by the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Mont] and the Senator from Virginia
[Mr. ROBERTSON], and a minute or so ago
by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Dom] , I should like to make the follow-
ing six points:
First, in my judgment, we must nego-
tiate with the Vietcong. We shall never
get peace without doing so. The way to
do it is to tell Hanoi that it can bring to
the negotiating table anybody it wants
to, and that we will talk with whomever
they bring. This inevitably will include
representatives of the Vietcong.
Second, I agree with the Senator from
Oregon and the Senator from Idaho [Mr.
CHuscil] that we ought to look toward
bringing the United Nations into the
Vietnamese situation.
Third, the sooner we can get an in-
ternational police force into Vietnam to
maintain a cease fire and help to keep
the peace, the better.
Fourth, I agree with the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] that we
should give serious consideration to re-
turning to the 1954 Geneva accords and
try to reinstate them.
Fifth, I agree with the Senator from
Oregon that we cannot wait for Com-
munist China. We must act without
Communist China. She is not an enemy
at the moment. Communist China has
no military commitment in South Viet-
nam. ?
Sixth, the problem will not be solved
by military measures. It will have to be
done through diplomatic measures,
hopefully with the aid of international
institutions.
Having said that, I agree with the Sen-
ator from Arkansas that until we can
bring the other side to the negotiating
table, we shall have to stand fast on the
ground. I do not want to escalate the
war. I do no want to see the United
States turn tail and run. I believe that
a sound solution for the problem in Viet-
nam can be found.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at the end of my
remarks a column entitled "Whom We
Support," written by Walter Lippmann,
and published in the Washington Post
for today, June 17. I am in complete
accord with the position taken by Mr.
Lippmann.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, one fur-
ther item in connection with Vietnam
gives me deep concern. It is an article
entitled "Saigon Orders Profiteers and
Terrorists Executed," written by Sey-
mour Topping, and published in the New
York Times of June 17. The article
states that the new leadership commit-
tee which is running the South Viet-
namese Government, has stated:
Vietcong terrorists, corrupt officials, specu-
lators, and blackmarketeers would be shot
without trial if there was tangible proof of
guilt.
In the central marketplace of Saigon,
soldiers erected sandbag emplacements that
would permit tiring squads to carry out pub-
lic executions with maximum publicity.
This is Fascist, this is Communist, this
is totalitarian action. I hope_ that Am-
bassador Taylor and our State Depart-
ment will lodge the strongest possible
protest against this barbaric action by
the South Vietnamese Government and
will indicate that unless it is promptly
changed, we will withdraw our support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article to which I have re-
ferred may be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD
as follows:
SAIGON ORDERS PROFITEERS AND TERRORIST.E
EXECUTED
(By Seymour Topping)
SAIGON, SOUTH VIETNAM, June 16.?The
military rulers of South Vietnam imposed
1;tringent measures on the population today
to enforce discipline and curb war profiteer-
ing. Senior officers of the National Leader.
ship Committee stated that Vietcong terror-
ists, corrupt officials, speculators, and black-
marketeers would be shot without trial 11
there was tangible proof of guilt.
In the central marketplace of Saigon,
soldiers erected sandbag emplacements that
would permit firing squads to carry out
public executions with maximum publicity.
Thousands of city residents and peasanti,
in their conical hats milled about staring
curiously at the sandbag walls.
As work progressed, a terrorist detonatec.
a 10- to 20-pound explosive charge in the
busy civilian passenger terminal at the Sai-
gon Airport. A ILS. spokesman reportec,
that 48 persons had been injured, including
34 American servicemen, but none seriously.
LABOR CAMP TO BE SET UP
Vietnamese officers said places of execu-
tion would also be set up in other centers
of the country as reminders that the regime
Intended to act vigorously. A forced-labor
camp for persons accused of lesser crimes
against the state is also being opened, on Re
Island, off the coast of Ruangngai Province.
The new measures reflect the feelings ex-
pressed by Maj. Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu,
chairman of the 10-man leadership commit-
tee, which formally took power Monday, thal.
a stern revolutionary regime is required to
organize an effective national war effort
against the Communists.
It was obvious that the measures were
designed also to discourage political dissen-
sion or wavering if the military situation con-
tinues to deteriorate.
The militant Buddhist faction, small po-
litical groups in Saigon and students a:
Saigon University are already manifesting
dissatisfaction with the restoration of mili-
tary rule.
1.1.5. officals were uneasy about the tough
line and by the reactions it might bring from
volatile political factions.
TAYLOR CONFERS
Maxwell D. Taylor, the U.S. Ambassador,
conferred at the Defense Ministry with Gen..
eral Thieu and Air Vice Marshal Nguyen
Cao Ky, the Air Force commander, who has
been designated by the leadership committee
as the country's Commissioner General fa.
Administration. The conference did not re-
solve the dispute over the committee's tents.
tive nomination of Vice Marshal Ky as chair-
man of an executive council, a post thit
would make him, in effect, Premier in direc
charge of the Government.
U.S. officials feel that the inexperience 35.-
year-old officer would be a poor choice at this
critical time.
The Buddhist faction, which would prefe.!
a civilian executive council, is also blocking
Vice Marshal Ky's appointment.
The Air Force commander stalked angrily
out of the meeting with General Taylor and
later, in conversation with friends, com-
plained about the Ambassador's attitude.
Students at Saigon University have asked
Vice Marshal Ky to speak at a meeting lateT
this week to explain why it was necessary
to reinstitute military rule after the resig-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300180024-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
It is not going to be decided there, and it is
not going to be decided in any other single
place. Thus, for example, we must prepare
mir Minds even now for the possibility that
Britain will not be able to carry much longer
the whole burden of her responsibilities from
Adpn and the persiari Gulf through the In-
dian Ocean to Singapore. There looms ahead
of us the prospect of having enormous new
responsibilities thrust upon us, responsibili-
ties which do not begin and will not end
with our entanglement in Saigon.
That is why, though we cannot and must
not scuttle and run, we must use our re-
sources and our wits to avoid becoming
bogged down in a large land war on the Asian
mainland.
nation of the civilian Government of Pre-
mier Phan Huy Quat last Friday.
Malik= 1. .
[Prom the Washington Post, June 17, 1965]
1;ttnom Wz 'SUPPORT
/ (By Walter Lippmann)
Whether we are dealing with Vietnam, the
Dominican Republic, or with the foreign-aid
program in general, there is one common
problem which is crucial and central for all
the many things we are undertaking. It is
to find governments that we can support
which are reasonably honest, efficient, and
progressive, and are trusted by their own
people.
We are learning in Vietnam how difficult it
Is to defend a country in which there is no
government which can rally its own people.
WS are learning in the Dominican Republic
what happens when there is no recognizable
legitimate government to receive our mili-
tary backing and our economic help.
The same difficulty is at the root of the
disappointment, which is so great in this
country today, at the results of the foreign-
aid programs. We are, to be sure, much more
vividly conscious of spectacular incidents
like the burning of a library, than we are of
the quiet successes. Nonetheless, there are
disappointments, so many of them that the
Senate has now voted Another installment
of foreign aid with the proviso that there is
to be a radical reexamination of the whole
policy within the next 2 years.
Without attempting to guess what conclu-
sions Will be reached in, these 2 years, it is
already quite evident that trouble arises
when aid is funneled through corrupt, reac-
tionary, or highly incompetent governments.
It is not easy to find enough good govern-
ments in all the emerging and underdevel-
oped countries, and, if we are philosophical
about it, we must not be surprised at the
difficulty of finding them. The condition is
baffling, but that is a concomitant of inex-
perience and backwardness.
biloreover, American officials who have to
administer the programs are frequently in
a quandary. As a general rule the most
impeccably anti-Communist governments
are more often than not reactionary, stupid,
and corrupt?al, for example, the Batista
government in pre-Castro Cuba, or the Tru-
jillo government in the Dominican Republic.
On the other hand, the more progressively
minded parties or factions include almost
inevitably not only the left but the Com-
munists on the left of the left. It takes a
lot more acumen And political courage for
an American official to back a progressive
faction than it does for ,hira to embrace a
rightist faction. This dilemma confronts us
continually in our role as champion of the
free world in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
Nevertheless, in the task of containing the
expansion of communism there is no substi-
tute for the building up of strong and viable
states which command the respect of the
Mass of their people. The President, of
course, knows this and has frequently said
it. But the tragedy of our entanglement in
Vietnam is that we find ourselves fighting
what is in fact an American rear guard action
to stave off the collapse and defeat of the
Saigon government. In this cramped posi-
tion, there is little opening or opportunity
for us to use our power and our resources
Ceatruetively in southeast Asia.
WP Inay leave It to the historians to say
how and why we are painted into a corner.
Our task is to bring up our resources of
power and wealth, which are intact, in order
to cut down our unavoidable losses to the
lowest possible cost in lives and in influence.
In our predicament it is a disservice, I
think, to inflate and,. emotionalize the stakes
in Vietnam, to inkite_it appear that the whole
fittlXre Of America and of the western world
In Asia and the Pacific is going to be fought
out and decided in the Vietnamese jungle.
CHANGE OF TIME FOR CONSIDERA-
TION OF DAUGHTERS OF AMERI-
CAN REVOLUTION RESOLUTION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to change the
time for the beginning of the debate on
the Daughters of American Revolution
resolution from 1 o'clock to 12:30. The
debate will then run from 12:30 until 1
o'clock, with the time to be equally di-
vided between the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CLARK], or whomever he
may designate, and the chairman of the
Committee on Rules and Administration
[Mr. JORDAN Of North Carolina].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I did not
hear the complete statement by the ma-
jority leader. Is he now bringing up
Senate Resolution 107?
Mr. MANSFIELD. No; it will be taken
up at 12:30 p.m.
Mr. CLARK. I thank the majority
leader.
MANN CREEK FEDERAL RECLAMA-
TION PROJECT, IDAHO
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs be
discharged from the further considera-
tion of H.R. 6032, to amend the act au-
thorizing the Mann Creek Federal recla-
mation project, Idaho, in order to
increase the amount authorized to be
appropriated for such project. This is a
companion bill to S. 1582, which passed
the Senate yesterday.
I ask unanimous consent that H.R.
6032 be laid before the Senate and move
its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs is discharged from
the further consideration of HR. 6032.
H.R. 6032 will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
6032) to amend the act authorizing the
Mann Creek Federal reclamation proj-
ect, Idaho, in order to increase the
amount authorized to be appropriated
for such project (act of August 16, 1962;
76 Stat. 388).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Senate will proceed to
consider the bill.
The bill (H.R. 6032) was considered,
ordered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the vote by
13519
which S. 1582 was passed yesterday be
reconsidered and that S. 1582 be indefi-
nitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the vote by which S. 1582
was passed is reconsidered; and, with-
out objection, S. 1582 is indefinitely
postponed.
.01/
COMMENT ON STATEMENT BY SEN-
ATOR FULBRIGHT ON VIETNAM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator FULBRIGHT,
spoke on Tuesday on the subject of Viet-
nam. His remarks constituted a most
constructive contribution to the con-
sideration of this critical issue and were
in the best traditions of the Senate.
With calmness and deliberativeness, he
outlined the dimensions of the difficul-
ties which exist in policy respecting Viet-
nam and the restoration of peace in that
region. It will be, I am sure, of great
help to the President and it is of great
help to all of us in our understanding of
this issue. The speech received very wide
press coverage and editorial reaction, as
it warranted.
I ask unanimous consent that several
editorials commenting upon Senator
FULBRIGHT'S statement be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorials
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the New York Times, June 17, 19651
A LIMITED OBJECTIVE IN VIETNAM
Decisions in crises determine the direction
of nations more often that the philosophies
of tranquil times. But a clear course set in
advance is essential, nevertheless, in the kind
of crisis that now seems to be looming in
Vietnam.
The Vietcong's annual monsoon offensive,
sheltered against American airpower by in-
termittent cloud cover, is straining the fiber
of the South Vietnamese Army this year and
is leading to a further buildup in American
forces to over 70,000 men.
As the ground war intensifies, as American
as well as Vietnamese casualties rise, there
will be Inexorable pressure on Washington
this summer to throw American troops into
the ground battle in increasing numbers, a
step-up that under present unfortunate cir-
cumstances appears inevitable. Before this
typhoon begins to whip about our ears and,
while the possibility of orderly debate still
exists, it is essential for the Nation to dis-
cuss its true ends and the means that should
be employed to serve them.
Senator FULBRIGHT has taken this discus-
sion forward to a new clarity after a long
conversation with the President. His views
should be read by every American?and we
hope they will be read abroad as an authori-
tative statement. The chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee argues cogently
against both "unconditional withdrawal"
from Vietnam or an attempt, through esca-
lation, to achieve complete military victory
attainable "only at a cost far exceeding the
requirements of our interest and our hon-
or"?a cost that could rise to include ground
combat with the North Vietnamese Army
and even "massive Chinese military interven-
tion * * * or general nuclear war."
The American aim this summer, in Senator
FULBRIGHT'S view?a view which agrees closely
with that often expounded on this page and
over a period of many months?must be a
"resolute but restrained" holding action.
The hope is that the Communists will see
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180024-4
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4
13520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 17, 1965
the futility of trying to win military victory
and will at length agree to a "negotiated
settlement Inecesaarily1 involving major con-
cessions hy both sides.'
At a time when some military men and
some Republican leaders, including Repre-
sentative Lenin, of Wisconsin, are returning
to the Goldwater objective of total victory
and calling for stepped-up bombing of North
Vietnam, this restatement of aims is invalu-
able. The country and its allies abroad can
only welcome Senator PULSRIGHT'S assurance
that the President remains committed to
ending the war at the earliest possible time
by negotiations without preconditions. As
we have previously noted here, there can be
no such thing as military victory in Vietnam
by either side, except at a cost so fearful it
would not be worth the price?and even then
would not be a victory in anything but name
Yet the continued American troop buildup
in South Vietnam, which shortly will triple
the forces that were there in March, makes it
vital for the President to speak out publicly
himself. In recent months there has been a
kind of ambiguity in administration policy
that seems to have won the President as
much support among Goldwaterites as within
his own party. Only the President can lay
this concern to rest.
The issue has been crystallized by Mr.
LAIRD, who claims that the country will ac-
cept the troop buildup in South Vietnam
and the casualties that lie ahead only if the
objective is total victory, not if the outcome
is a negotiated settlement. It is our con-
viction that Congressman LA/RD has mis-
judged the temper of the Nation as badly as
Senator Goldwater did last fall.
The country will support the Vietnamese
effort only as long as it remains convinced
that it is a limited effort aimed at limited
objectives. It will not accept unconditional
withdrawal. But neither will it pursue the
win o' the wisp of unconditional surrender.
As Senator PULBRIGHT pointed out, "We must
continue to offer the Communists a reason-
able and attractive alternative to [a] military
victory" that neither we nor they can win.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, June 17,
1965]
THE RIDDLE OF VIETNAM
Senator P'ULBRIGHT'S carefully worded ad-
dress on American policy in South Vietnam,
and Defense Secretary McNamara's an-
nouncement that about 20,000 more 'U.S.
troops are being sent to that wartorn south-
east Asian country, point up the enormity of
the problems confronting -the United States
In trying to save the South Vietnamese from
Communist conquest.
There is no easy solution to the puzzle,
regardless of whether the emphasis in U.S.
strategy is on negotiation or military action.
As Chairman Fm.saroirr, of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, sees it, there
is almost no likelihood of achieving a com-
plete and unconditional military victory
over the Communist guerrillas in South
Vietnam?not because the United States
lacks the resources to achieve such a vic-
tory but because the tremendous cost in
American lives and resources would be out
of all proportion to whatever gains could be
won by insisting on total and absolute ca-
pitulation by the enemy.
The Senator also believes?and gives equal
emphasis to the point?that unconditional
withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Viet-
nam would have disastrous consequences.
His conclusion is that neither total victory
nor unconditional surrender is in prospect
for either side in Vietnam and the war there-
fore must be ended, sociner or later, by ne-
gotiated settlement which will need to in-
volve concessions of some kind by both sides.
There is much logic to 'Senator Firrailimmx's
views. What he says, in his own fashion,
is in line with what President Johnson has
been trying to achieve for some time. The
President has offered repeatedly to enter
into negotiations without preconditions to
achieve a settlement in Vietnam. He has
extended to the Communists in North Viet-
nam an invitation to participate in a mas-
sive program of economic development aid.
Senator Fumnimirr's use of the word "con-
cessions" will arouse alarm among many
Americans and may have been an unfortu-
nate choice in semantics. Perhaps "mutual
agreements" or "two-way bargaining" or
some such term would be more appropriate.
Call it what you will, it is obviously neces-
sary for successful negotiations to include
a giving up of something by one side or the
other in exchange for each gain won at the
conference table.
There can be no hope of getting negotia-
tions started, however, unless U.S. military
forces in southeast Asia are maintained at
sufficient strength to prevent Communist
conquest of South Vietnam by force of arms.
The immediate and urgent need is to stop
the Red offensive and convince the enemy
that it has no choice but to negotiate. It is
In recognition of this need that more U.S.
troops are being sent to Vietnam.
[From the Baltimore (Md.) Sun, June 17,
19651
EPULBRIGITE CONTRIBUTES
Senator PULBRIGHT does not know the
answer for Vietnam, and unlike some other
Members of the Senate and the House he
does not pretend to. But Mr. PULBRIGHT IS In
the true sense a thinking man. When he
speaks, after carefully marshaling his
thoughts, he always contributes something
to a dialog or a debate. He did so, after a
long public silence on Vietnam, in a Senate
speech on Tuesday.
The gist of the address was that in Senator
FULBEIGHT'S opinion we must persist in our
support of the South Vietamese Army, con-
tinuing our efforts to persuade the Conarnu-
nista that full military victory is unattain-
able; persist in our hope that such persuasion
will lead to negotiation?despite the total
absence so far of a sign on the other side
of willingness to negotiate?and not escalate
the war to the point of inviting such counter-
escalation as might threaten general ex-
plosion, a point which he believes may be
very close.
Mr. PULSRIGHT praised President Johnson
for "steadfastness and statesmanship," and
"patience and restraint," in resisting pres-
sures to expand the war still more. This,
along with his statement that we must not
desert the South Vietnamese Army, serves as
strong support of the President's funda-
mental position. All the more because the
Senator speaks not for the administration
but for himself, it helps the President in his
resistance to those on the one hand who de-
mand American withdrawal and those on
the other who seem eager to expand the war
further, regardless of the dangers.
As to solutions, Mr. PULBRIGHT proposed
as a general proposition that the United
States might offer to base a solution on the
Geneva accords of 1954, which divided the
old Indo-China, and which have not been
strictly honored by anybody. This might
be a way, and it might not. Mr. PULSEIGHT
is trying to think of all the possibilities, and
this particular speech at this partciular time
should help many others try to think, too.
THE PROPOSED MEXICO-UNILED
STATES SALINE WATER. CONSER-
VATION PROGRAM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
purpose of S. 24 is to provide for expan-
sion and acceleration of this Govern-
ment's program of research and de-
velopment in the field of salt water con-
version. This bill, passed by the Senate
yesterday, will extend the authority for
the research through 1972, and appro-
priate an additional $200 million to carry
on our activities in this promising area.
The existing program has progressed
to a stage where it shows promise of con-
verting salt water to fresh water at a
rate which will be economically competi-
tive.
The adequate supply of fresh water is
not only a national problem, it is a
worldwide problem. This has been
pointed up acutely in recent years.
Especially in our great Southwest is
there an awareness of the magnitude of
the problem. The threatened loss of
supply has worked a distinct hardship
not only in the States of our country, but
also in Mexico, our friend and neighbor
as well.
It is my sincere hope that acceleration
of our desalinization research program
will contribute to relieving the strain
brought about by water shortages. I
can think of no better way to apply mod-
ern technology to peaceful and humani-
tarian purposes.
I note that the Republic of Mexico
either has in operation, or is considering
the construction, of four desalting proj-
ects. One of them, a small pilot project
on the Gulf of California, marks a mu-
tual effort between the University of
Arizona and the University of Sonora.
It is my hope that the benefits of the re-
search resulting from this bill, and those
resulting from the projects of the Re-
public of Mexico, can be shared for the
mutual benefit of mankind.
I make this statement on the basis of
conversations, conferences, and recom-
mendations made at La Paz, Baja Cali-
fornia, during the fifth reunion of the
Mexico-United States Parliamentary
Group.
At that reunion, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Arizona [Mr. FANNIN], the dis-
tinguished Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Anc.ml, and I made a suggestion that it
might be a good idea to develop, on a
cooperative basis, a Mexican-United
States program in the desalinization of
water. We know not only that it would
be of great benefit to our own great
Southwest, as well as other parts of the
country, but also that, if a program of
this nature could bring about a conver-
sion of salt water to fresh water, and
thereby irrigate more of our land and
furnish more in the way of sustenance to
our people, it would be a demonstration
of real and needed friendship between
our two great countries on a humani-
tarian basis.
Mr. President, I would hope, therefore,
that the solid example set by our col-
league, the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
Famuttf] while he was Governor of Ari-
zona, by means of which a cooperative
water research project in the field of
desalinization was undertaken between
the University of Arizona and the Uni-
versity of Sonora, would be given proper
attention by the appropriate agencies of
our own Government?the Department
of the Interior, the AEC, and others?to
the end that we would be able to under-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000300180024-4