A SOLDIER'S VIEW OF THE WAR IN VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 72
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 2003
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 3, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

A4280
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-APPENDIX August 3, 1965
sole in the maritime industry. But so long
,as the Government is involved-so long, for
tastance, a s" the Government is called upon
to pay 72 cents or more of every dollar in
wages aboard subsidized ships-the voice of
the Government must and will be heard.
Now, I think we can all agree that neither
higher subsidies nor higher rates could, by
themselves, enhance the fortunes of the
merchant marine. Much more is required.
As President Johnson said in exhorting us
to achieve progress in our maritime affairs:
"To do so will require much more than the
answer of just money alone. So in all the
fields of transportation, our future progress
depends upon the willingness of many dif-
Zerent groups and interests to cooperate in
a manner to which they are not always
accustomed."
Only with this kind of cooperation will the
national interest be served.
Only ' then, can each of us concerned with
the standing of our merchant fleet be able
to say he has done his utmost to shake off
the effects of neglect.
As men directly concerned, as officers of
the U.S. merchant fleet, you will bear high
responsibilities. In your hands will be the
security of your ship, your crew, your passen-
gers, and the million of dollars in cargo that
you carry. These are life-and-death respon-
sibilities assumed by few other Americans.
But your commitment does not end on the
bridge or in the engineroom. I urge you to
view your duties as far more than an exer-
'cise of professional skills. View them in the
perspective of national needs and national
:purposes
Pot only with that perspective can we truly
restore America to its proper place in the
high seas.
Thank you, good sailing, and godspeed.
stration while a chief of state is visiting the
"majority elect" President of the United
States of America, we cannot figure. We
know any true lover of peace, let them un-
derstand, would trade all them for one Cap-
tain Hackley, of Roanoke, my good friend
(killed in action in South Vietnam) in or-
der to return him to duty and family.
To the haters of non-lethal (clearly de-
fined in Webster) chemical agents, such as
tear and vomiting gas, which is self explana-
tory, doing what the names imply, and white
phosphate, used in screening and marking.
I've enclosed a picture of a bus. The bus
was filled with women and children and an
incendiary round fired from a Chinese rocket
launcher triggered the ambush in which Sgt.
Jerry Rose of Huntington, W. Va., left forever
a wife of only 9 months and family.
To you "Mothers of Peace," or whatever
you call yourselves, and the believers of only
the United States are aggressors in what
you call a civil war in Vietnam, there was
no regard for the civilians in the bus. This
attack in the central highlands of the south
was initiated by a hard core line unit of
North Vietnamese regulars.
To the providers of medical aid for the
Vietcong, the American soldier here really
has nothing but pity for you because of
how misled and uninformed you are. For
your convenience, I've enclosed a picture of
a young mother killed by small arms fire
from Vietcong weapons and her baby which
survived through a night alone before she
was picked up by what you call dowrongers
American soldiers and taken to Pleiku. We
are very happy to say the baby is much alive
today, but without a family. This medical
aid they wish to render, we cannot believe
here in South Vietnam would be put to its
best advantage by troops that would murder
a mother and run away in the night leaving
a baby to feed on a dead breast.
To all of the minority groups, as you re-
turn home tonight from your banner waving,
sit4owns, protesting, and all the other pitiful
demonstrating you have done today, as you
retire in front of your TV's with coffee and
family in your secure homes, I pray you'll
take a couple of minutes to think, We are
sure you'll say thanks for, above all, our
God, health, country; president Johnson for
carrying the weight of world problems and
your petty grievances on his shoulders while
you sleep; a powerful military of which over
400 already with such strong convictions
have died in Vietnam, and for democracy
whereby tomorrow you may return to your
demonstrations.
We here in Vietnam will pray for the
safety of our families and you, hoping that
you, your children, and our sons will never
see southeast Asia under any conditions other
than peace, and we will remain forever if
necessary to fulfill this goal-at any cost.
A Soldier's rI.M..0f. th War in Vietnam
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JOHN 0. MARSH, JR.
QF VIRGINIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 3, 1965
Mr.. MARSH. Mr. Speaker, there has
been brought to my attention a letter
written to the editor of the Richmond
Va., Times-Dispatch, some weeks ago,
which I should like to share with other
Members of this House.
It,presents with great energy and con-
viction, I believe, the factors which are
motivating our service personnel to dedi-
cated investment of their skills and cour-
-age in a conflict of many frustrations.
The letter follows:
MESSAGE FROM A SOLDIER IN VIETNAM
SOME ADVICE TO 7`HOSE WHO OPPOSEHE WAR
I'm *rlting this not because of the lack
of work-quite the contrary-but with the
,sincere hope you'll pass on our feelings here
on the ground with the people living and dy-
ing in South Vietnam.
Everyone is aware that it has long been
the policy of military men' 'to do the bid-
ding of the American people and the Com-
d,1iia dgr fn Chief at any cost, as history clear-
ly shows from' tie crack of the Liberty Bell
to the present. The U.S. military power in
South ietnam is not a clandestine organ-
Ization, but the direct representative of
America and all the believers of democracy
have ever stood for since our 4 birth.
'To the bearded sit-down "End the kill-
fng and "No more napalm" mob without
the oonunon decency to discontinue a demon-
CHARLIE C. SCEARCF, Jr.,
5th Special Forces, Vietnam.
DON MANG YANB,
South Vietnam.
(Eorroa's NoTE.-Sergeant Scearce is the
son of Mrs Emily Scearce of Richmond.)
Some Queries
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. GLENN R. DAVIS
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 3, 1965
"Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak-
er, Loyal Meek, formerly on the staff of
Senator JACK MILLER, of Iowa, did not
leave his keen perception of our Nation's
problems behind him when he left Wash-
ington to become the editorial writer on
national affairs for the Milwaukee'Sen-
tinel. In a recent editorial, he has pin-
pointed our basic inconsistency in prose-
cuting the war in Vietnam. I com-
mend Mr. Meek's penetrating queries to
the thoughts of my colleagues:
SOME QUERIES
America's commitment to the war In Viet-
nam is sharply and ominously escalated by
President Johnson's decision to double the
draft call.
This must be done, Mr. Johnson tells the
Nation. Whether the Nation Is convinced
of the necessity is by no means certain.
The President has endeavored to persuade
the people that the United States must make
the stand against aggression in Vietnam and
that he and his advisers are doing everything
that can be done.
Americans, with the exception of a few on
the wild left, generally agree that Commu-
nist aggression must be stopped. But seri-
ous doubts remain whether the United States
is doing all that can and should be done
to halt the spread of the Red evil. Partic-
ularly, the question remains whether the
United States has done everything it can
short of taking the drastic step of expending
more and more of "the flower of our youth"
in those remote jungles.
For example, has the United States done
enough to choke off the supplying of the
North Vietnam war machine by sea?
According to unclassified figures available
through Defense Department sources, 401
ships flying the flags of free world nations
called at North Vietnam ports during 1964.
Disclosure has slowed down this traffic.
Still, through June of this year, 74 free world
ships visited ports of North Vietnam.
Representative CHAMBERLAIN, Republican,
of Michigan, has pointed out that since
World War II, the United States has given
almost $41 billion in aid to the countries
that have been carrying on this trade.
Even more astounding, he says, is the fact
that the foreign aid authorization bill for the
coming fiscal year proposes to give aid to six
of the countries whose ships have been carry-
ing cargos to North Vietnam during the
first half of this year.
Before American young men are con-
scripted to risk their lives in Vietnam, at
poverty level wages at that, shouldn't the
United States forthwith stop putting money
into the hands that are feeding the enemy?
Also, while we are bombing North Viet-
nam, why do we spare the harbors through
which are passing thousands of tons of sup-
plies necessary to sustain the Communist
fighting forces?
Instead of listening to how grievous a de-
cision it is to send young men off to war,
we would like to hear the answers to these
questions.
Special Aloha Is Given Military on
Hawaii Stopovers
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
of
HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA
OF HAWAII
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday,_A.ugust 3, 1965
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, a bit
of Hawaiian aloha and hospitality is once
more being offered servicemen and their
dependents who are in Hawaii during
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX
ing the bow knife through the whitecaps.
To my mind, man's sense of mastery over the
elements cannot be equaled in any domain
as at sea. So in addition to my best wishes,
my heart is with you newly licensed officers
today.
I don't need to discuss with you the pur-
pose of the merchant fleet in war and peace.
Neither must I expound the history of our
country's oldest industry and the maritime
tradition that is engraved in our national
character. Nor is it necessary to elaborate
on the exciting challenges that lie in your
future.
You have been studying these things for
4 years, and if those years at this, fine Acad-
emy had not been productive you would not
be members of the class of.1965.
In the light of the maritime situation,
however, I do want to reassert the Nation's
interest in a strong, reliable merchant ma-
rine-and to emphasize the need for putting
the national interest first.
Events in southeast Asia remind us dra-
matically of how indispensable it is to have
a merchant fleet ready and able.
It is in time of peril that the sharpest
focus is on our merchant marine. National
survival has often depended upon our capa-
bility to move vast amounts of men and ma-
teriel to faraway places where freedom Is
challenged.
We have seen this urgency demonstrated
forcefully within the memory of many of us
here today, in the two World Wars, in Ko-
rea-and now in Vietnam. In that distant
but vital area of southeast Asia, the United
States is fulfilling Its commitment to protect
the right of people to live in liberty and
dignity, free from subversion and naked ag-
gression.
All of us are involved in the commitment.
The Maritime Administration already is re-
activating ships from the National Defense
Reserve fleets, at the call of the Military Sea
Transportation Service. MSTS is chartering
private vessels to supply our forces in Viet-
nam. The flow of essential materiel must
and will go on.
And the, requirements of Vietnam could
very well determine your initial billets. So
this to a crucial situation of distinct personal
meaning to all of you.
But it shouldn't be necessary to cite crises
In order to underscore the national interest
in a healthy merchant marine. The vital,
continuing function of the maritime in-
dustry is to transport people and products
in intercontinental and coastal commerce,
By all standards, this is a major Industry.
By Itself, the maritime industry accounts
for $1.5 billion of our gross national product.
It pays $75 million in Federal and State
taxes. It employs 100,000 workers, who
themselves pay $80 million in income taxes.
Moreover, the merchant marine is an
essential element of the transportation com-
plex which absorbs nearly 20 percent of the
spending which goes into our total output
of goods and srevices. In 1964 this added
up to $120 billion, an amount substantially
greater than the Federal budget.
This figure alone indicates just how much
the cost of transportation affects the cost of
everything we buy and just abouteverything
we do. And that Is why the Commerce De-
partment Is giving such high priority to
transportation research. We want to im-
prove the Nation's huge transportation sys-
tem-and this includes the merchant fleet-
in order to achieve significant economies in
time, money, and efficiency. When we do so,
we will be able to pour additional resources
into a steadily -growing economy and thus
raise the American living standards higher.
A strong, competitive merchant marine
also serves the national interest by helping
to overcome the deficit in our international
balance of payments, which in the last sev-
eral years grew to serious proportions.
As a national concern, the balance of pay-
ments cannot be overstressed. The. dollar
must and will be maintained at full value
and full strength.
Trade flows on confidence In. the. dollar,
and trade is as essential to our domestic
economy as it is, to the world economy.
Nearly 31/2 million American workers owe
their livelihood to exports. The role of the
merchant fleet in world trade is obvious.
And its direct benefit to our payments posi-
tion is substantial. The U.S.-flag fleet con-
serves millions in dollar exchange every year.
And conserve we must-in every channel
of business, banking, and commerce-for
there must never be a doubt about the dollar.
It is essential that we alleviate our payments
deficit in order to maintain the strength of
the dollar and curtail the drain in our gold.
Let's state the case unequivocally: the
strength of our national economy and our
defense posture rest squarely upon the
strength of the dollar. In solving our
balance-of-payments problem a healthy U.S.
merchant marine can make substantial con-
tributions,
We are making headway in easing the
strains on the dollar. As you know, Presi-
dent Johnson developed a program of volun-
tary cooperation among business and bank-
ing executives to bring our international ac-
counts into balance. Businessmen have
voluntarily exercised restraint on the invest-
ment of dollars abroad, stepped up exports
and taken other steps to improve their in-
dividual balance-of-payments ledgers. The
results so far are promising. But parentheti-
cally, I want to express regret that American
traders who voluntarily committed them-
selves to a key aspect of the President's pro-
gram have been thrown off stride by the ship-
ping tieup. They are the ones who agreed to
use U.S. vessels to keep their transportation
dollars at home-and who were compelled to
use foreign bottoms instead, or find their
cargoes immobilized in strike-bound ships.
The expansion of world trade and its
fabulous potential indicate the importance of
maintaining a strong merchant marine. To
fulfill that interest, we have a lot of ground
to make up. President Johnson made this
clear 2 weeks ago when he said our pros-
perity and safety through history have been
linked closely to our role on the seas of the
world, a role we can never neglect. The
President added this:
"I believe," he said, "we are all increas-
ingly conscious of the fact that as a great
nation we have been laggard and we have
been neglectful in many areas of our trans-
portation responsibilities and our transporta-
,.tion opportunities.
"I am hopeful-greatly hopeful," the Presi-
dent went on, "that we can in the next few
years shake off the effects of these neglected
years and move forward to acheive the pro-
gress that we are so clearly capable of in
every sector, from the highways on which we
travel to the high seas upon which we sail."
As Secretary of Commerce, I take that to
mean that you and I and everyone connected
with the maritime industry are under orders
to achieve the progress we are capable of in
revitalizing the merchant fleet and enhanc-
ing its competitive capability through tech-
nology and modernization.
Regrettably, we must admit that the
United States does not now rank where it
should in merchant seapower. We have
been neglectful. We have not acted to meet
the challenges of change and our competi-
tion. When the world's most active trad-
ing nation employs its own ships for only
9 percent of its seaborne commerce, we are
lagging behind our abilities as well as be-
hind our competition.
The present state of the merchant marine
requires this frank assessment of our mari-
time condition in view of an ever-increasing
contribution in the form of subsidies.
A4279
Since World War II operating subsidies have
added up to $1.7 billion. And since the
start of the fleet replacement program in
1955, construction subsidies have totaled
$600 million.
Clearly, subsidies, in themselves, do not
provide the answers to our maritime prob-
lems. We have witnessed a decline in our
maritime industry despite an increase in
subsidies.
President Johnson is determined to
strengthen America on the seas. In his
state of the Union message he promised a
new maritime policy. That policy is de-
veloping. About a year ago the President
appointed an advisory committee represent-
ing management, labor, and the public to
make recommendations to the Secretaries
of Commerce and Labor on matters of mari-
time concern. The recommendations are
taking shape.
In addition, we have created an interde???
partmental task force on maritime policy
'under the chairmanship of Alan Boyd, the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Trans-
portation. The task force is working closely
with the advisory committee, and on the
basis of their respective findings Secretary
of Labor Wirtz and I will soon be in a posi-
tion to make recommendations to the Pres-
ident.
Secretary Wirtz has described the current
weeks in which we have an unfortunate
shipping strike as being crucial to the fu-
ture of this industry. I agree. But I also
want to assure you that, despite the enor-
mous problems and despite the skeptics, we
are moving toward the development of a
more vigorous and versatile, a more efficient
and competitive merchant marine.
Our goals must be to stabilize and then
improve our merchant fleet.
Now any plan for improvement must be
keyed to modernization. We possess the
technological know-how to send to sea the
mechanized ships so essential to compete
with the vessels of other nations. By apply,
ing our technology, we hope to cut the costs
of building, operating, loading, and unload-
ing our ships. Mechanization aboard ship,
of course, means a reduction in crews. But
this should not obscure the need. For one
thing, normal attrition already is reducing
the seagoing work force. We'll have to re-
cruit additional seamen. And for another
thing, as we become more competitive with
the ships flying the flags of other nations,
and as our international trade grows, we will
need more ships and thus more men-men.
building In the yards and sailing on the seas.
But isn't it the challenge of competition.
which has made this country the most pro-
ductive and prosperous in the history of
man? Isn't it the challenge of competition
which has enabled our system to demon-
strate its superiority, by allowing private en-
terprise to take risks and to exercise the
initiative, imagination, and ingenuity to
convert risks into success? Are we going to
continue to be complacent about the fact
that ships can be constructed and operated
so much more economically by other nations,
enabling them to take the shipping business
away from us?
In the maritime industry, as in any other,
private enterprise must bear the prime re-
sponsibilities for stability and progress.
As It is, these burdens are shared by man-
agement, labor, and Government. The im-
mediate interests of each party are not al-
ways identical. Management and labor,
quite naturally, are concerned with profit
and wages. The Government's lasting obli-
gation _ is to all Americans. But I want to
emphasize this point: The ultimate respon-
sibilities.of each party, one no less than the
other, are to the national interest.
In our system of free, competitive enter-
prise, I would prefer to see a diminishing
Government role and an, expanding private
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
INFLUENCE PEDDLING?
Privately, oilmen point to what they con-
sider influence peddling affecting the Phillips
decision. They see it as significant that
Puerto Rico was represented by the Washing-
ton law firm of Arnold, Fortas & Porter, al-
though Abe Fortas, a personal friend and con-
fidant of President Johnso i, denies he had
anything to do with it. Oscar L. Chapman,
an influential Democrat who was Harry S.
Truman's Secretary of the Interior, was at-
torney for Phillips.
Udall's decision evoked dissension even
within his own Department. Assistant Sec-
retary of the Interior John M. Kelly, an inde-
pendent producer and Udall's top oil adviser,
didn't see eye to eye with his boss. Sube-
quently, Kelly quit his post and went home
to New Mexico.
STATUS aEPOAT
Despite the opposition, including threats of
law suits by some companies, it was soon ap-
parent that Udall would stand his ground.
"Other companies will be a little bit un-
happy," he says, "but I'm willing to take the
criticism."
Then Udall's opponents in the oil industry
launched their counterattack. The com-
panies that began lining up at his door with
demands for foreign-oil-supplied complexes
of. their own were the same that had most
vigorously objected to the Phillips decision.
Besides those interested in Puerto Rico, a
sixth company proposed a petrochemical
complex to be run on foreign oil in Appa-
lachia, The company, Borg-Warner's chem-
ical division, Marbon, reasoned that West
Virginia has unemployment problems, too.
SERIOUS INTENT
While the companies are grimly serious
about their Puerto Rican applications, they,
as well as Udall, realize that he cannot ap-
prove them all without opening a wide breach
In import controls. Thus, any company that
has its proposal granted will be sharing rel-
atively exclusive economic advantages. On
the other hand, if a? request is turned down,
the threat of a court challenge would have
a basis for being carried out.
. Thus, the Secretary, still feeling his way
on uncharted seas, is moving with delibera-
tion. His staff points out that the Phillips
plan took 2 years to be approved, so there is
no need for hurry on the rest. Meanwhile,
one company official says with ill-concealed
glee: "I'm just waiting to see how Udall will
i-
wg gle out of thi one- ~ ,CC
/ .04
ETNA
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
in his Johns Hopkins address last April
7, President Johnson stated his willing-
ness to enter into unconditional nego-
tiations with North Vietnamese officials
seeking to end the war in Vietnam. His
hard-nosed militarist Ambassador to
South Vietnam at that time, Gen. Max-
well Taylor, when asked about proposed
unconditional negotiations, was quick to
say that our President did not suggest
unconditional negotiations, but only con-
versations. It would take a militarist
to make the distinction between uncon-
ditional negotiations and unconditional
conversations to try to end a war at a
conference table.
Fortunately, in his recent press con-
ference, President Johnson enlarged the
invitation that was the high point of
his Baltimore speech. He definitely
stated our ,willingness to enter "uncon-
ditional discussions" over. Vietnam. He
added in his letter to United Nations
Secretary General U Thant:
The United States is prepared to enter
into negotiations for peaceful settlement
without condition.
This is significant. It takes the ground
from under militarists and warhawks,
many of whom favor the bombing of
nuclear installations in Red China,
which is capable at this time of produc-
ing only the crudest sort of nuclear weap-
ons. In other words, some of our gen-
erals and warhawk leaders of the minor-
ity party in the House of Representatives
appear to advocate our waging preemp-
tive war' against Red China by destroy-
ing that nkttion's nuclear installations.
Furthermore, our President has stated
explicitly that he is willing to discuss
the four-point program of Hanoi which
was announced last April. In other
words, he has come closer to the demand
of Ho Chi Minh, the president of North
Vietnam, who has urged "free elections
in Vietnam."
President Johnson, in his latest press
conference, stated that we are willing to
include representatives of the Vietcong
in any negotiations and that this is not
an insurmountable problem at all. He
further indicated that we are willing to
agree to free elections in the south, or
throughout all Vietnam, under interna-
tional supervision and that the purposes
of the 1954 Geneva agreement on Viet-
nam "still guide our actions."
Notwithstanding this, he said that the
machinery for this was "tragically weak"
and that these agreements were "cruelly
shattered" by the Communists.
The Hanoi program, announced last
April, called for "observance by both
sides of the military provisions of the
1954 Geneva accord" and urged "recon-
vening of an International conference
along the pattern of the 1954 Geneva
Conference."
If this is still the position of the leaders
of -North Vietnam, and if the Vietcong
will select delegates to represent them
at the conference table, it appears that
an honorable peace or cease-fire In South
Vietnam is well within the realm of possi-
bility. Without a doubt, Ambassador
at Large, Averell Harriman has held
some fruitful conferences in Moscow
and elsewhere proposing a cease-fire in
South Vietnam. Now our President, by
his letter to Secretary General U Thant
and his instructions to our Ambassador
to the United Nations, Arthur J. Gold-
berg, has acted in a constructive manner
toward extricating the United States
from a commitment that was first made
in 1954 under General Eisenhower. This
action has proved by hindsight to be a
mistake and this mistake has been com-
pounded many times until now, instead
of 2,000 men of our Armed Forces being
involved in southeast Asia, 150,000 or
thereabouts are involved, and many lives
are being lost.
Here is an opportunity for the United
Nations to demonstrate that it is more
than a mere debating society and that
by exercising some initiative it can be-
come a real peacemaking force.
President Johnson has now made
some modest enlargement of previous
statements toward peace. His state-
18369
ments are so clear and unequivocal that
even militarists bent on preemptive war
cannot distort their meaning.
In negotiating for a withdrawal of our
forces we are presently able to negotiate
from strength. If Hanoi is willing to
have its delegates meet at a conference
table and discuss ending this fighting
and bloodshed on the basis of a stale-
mate, with election of a President of
Vietnam agreed on at an early date to
be supervised in the manner stated, then
there is real. hope for a cease fire, and
peace may be just over the horizon.
Mr. President, those Republican lead-
ers in the House of Representatives, in-
cluding GERALD FORD, MELVIN LAIRD, and
others, who urge that we unleash our
air power against all industrial plants,
installations, and cities in North Viet-
nam are in reality calling for all-out
war in southeast Asia. This would
bring North Vietnam and possibly Red
China directly into the conflict, and
could mean our involvement in a disas-
trous land war In southeast Asia. These
warhawks are really opposed to uncon-
ditional negotiations to end the war in
South Vietnam honorably.
To date, our bombing of North Viet-
nam has failed to weaken the Vietcong.
In all likelihood, increased bombing will
only stiffen enemy resistance. Our
military situation there has been going
from bad to worse. The only answer is
a negotiated settlement involving major
concessions by both sides which would
offer the Communists a reasonable and
attractive alternative to military vic-
tory.
President Johnson seems trapped
politically by Vietnam. When he and
others advocate negotiation so that we
may withdraw our Armed Forces, the
warhawks scream: "Appeasement. Send
in more ground troops." If we send in
more ground troops, they denounce this.
These armchair militarists say we ought
to win the war the easy way, by all-out
bombing, not only of Hanoi but also of
Red Chinese nuclear installations and
airfields. Then, were thousands of
American boys to be killed and this Na-
tion bogged down in 'a terrible land war
in southeast Asia, these presently war-
hawk Congressmen, including FORD and
LAIRD, would next year be terming it
"Lyndon's war."
THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING
INDUSTRY
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I
have spoken several times during recent
weeks about the sad decline of the Amer-
ican shipbuilding industry. The emer-
gency in Vietnam, requiring the reactiva-
tion of 15 ships from the mothball fleet,
has once again pointed up this continu-
ing and worsening problem.
An excellent and timely article on the
subject appeared in the Journal of Com-
merce dated July 22 of this year. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that
this article be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18370
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8`
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
[From the Journal of Commerce,
July 22, 1965]
SHIPPING OUTLOOK: U.S. SHIPPING TIEUP
- LIMELIGHTS PLIGHT OF AILING SHIPBUILDING
INDUSTRY
(By Charles F. Davis)
The U.S. shipping strike which has im-
mobilized a major portion of the U.S. mer-
chant marine could be serving a useful pur-
pose, ugly and sordid as the situation may
now appear. The tieup came, about over such
relatively narrow if thorny issues as Ship-
board automation. Already, however, it has
directly or indirectly raised some much
broader points. These include the purpose,
scope and execution of the Nation's shipping
laws and the objectives of the maritime sub-
sidy programs. All this needs a thorough
airing and, hopefully, it will get it in the
months ahead.
The airing may well. extend beyond the
problems of the shipping industry as such,
into the U.S. shipbuilding Industry, for ex-
ample, where the shipping tieup has brought
Into sharp focus an unhealthy state of
NEEDED IN A HURRY
The situation develops as a result of the
Defense Department's decision to break out
15 vessels from the reserve fleet to move
military cargoes to Vietnam in lieu of com-
mercial shipping halted by the strike. The
vessels are needed in a hurry and the dead-
line on reactivating the ships has been set
for early next month.
Reactivating these ships, mostly World
War II Victory-class vessels, Is a considerable
task to undertake in such a short time but
not one which would normally be beyond
the capacity of shipyards.
,However, in at least one 'instance a New
York yard has been forced to turn down
some of this business because of the shortage
of trained manpower.
PROBLEM NOT UNIQUE
Reports from Baltimore and other areas
indicate that this problem is not unique to
New York.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S.
shipbuilding industry, lacking new orders
and, as a matter of policy by the Defense
Department, allocated only a marginal share
of naval work, is withering on the vine.
It can't, moreover, wither much more be-
fore It will be unable to cope with the rou-
tine requirements of the ,S. shipbuilding
industry much less an emergency situation
such as has been brought about by the strike.
A score of yards have gone out of business
in the past decade and a number of big fa-
cilities owned by major shipbuilding firms
have been closed because of a lack .of busi-
ness.
The shrinkage of the industry has brought
with it a shrinkage of trained and skilled
Workers who, laid off or unwilling to con-
tinue In a precarious employment, have
turned to other trades.
PART AND PARCEL
Thus, it is all too apparent that the plight
of the U.S. shipbuilding industry is part and
parcel of the whole problem of the maritime
industry.
We submit, therefore, that this should be
considered in any realistic appraisal of forth-
eoming construction programs, immediate or
long range.
It certainly puts a new light on any pro-
posal to build American-flag shipping in for-
sign- yards, naval or commercial.
It miglit well be also considered in terms
of,the Navy's parsimonious assignment of re-
pafr work on naval vessels to private indus-
try in favor of naval yards.
In sum, the work capacity of American
shipbuilders is a vital part of the entire U.S.
maritime picture- and any realistic program
aimed at restoring the maritime Industry's
health should be drawn up with this in
mind.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, on
the same subject, an editorial appeared
in the July 30, 1985, issue of Life maga-
zine. The editorial discusses the present
strike in the maritime industry. I do not
wish to assess blame or take sides in the
strike. I do wish to emphasize the
problem we have in the American mer-
chant marine industry and that some-
thing must be done. American tax-
payers have hundreds of millions of dol-
lars invested in ships which are tied up
at the same time that cargoes are being
carried on foreign-flag ships because
American ships cannot carry them, and
also U.S. ships are flying foreign flags.
The editorial states:
No new maritime policy will make sense
until Washington solves this problem.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torial be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From Life magazine, July 30, 1965]
SINK OR ,.SWIM FOR U.S. SHIPS
The U.S. Government pays out some $350
million a year to subsidize a U.S.-flag, U.S.-
built merchant marine. But when the De-
fense Department needed to expand its
military shipments to Vietnam it had to hire
British and Danish vessels for some ship-
ments and then to mobilize some 30 U.S.
ships. The reason for this costly humiliation
of a traditionally great maritime nation was
that most of our best cargo vessels have been
tied up for nearly 6 weeks in one of the
industry's perennial strikes.
This one, kept going by the Marine En-
gineers' Beneficial Association, has been
termed "intolerable" and "against the pub-
lic interest" by the Secretary of Commerce.
Since U.S: taxpayers already get up 72 cents
of every maritime wage dollar, and would
normally pay 100 percent of any increase, he
can say that "public interest" again.
MEBA represents 16,000 seagoing engi-
neers who already average $1,500 a month.
It is known as the "head-kicking union" be-
cause at one session its president, Jesse Cal-
hoon, was charged with jumping on the ne-
gotiating table and kicking a shipper in the
jaw. Negotiations have since broken down,
the tough issues being retirement income
and automation. The owners have also lost
confidence in the arbitrator but are willing
to arbitrate almost, anything under a new
one, including any appointee of George
Meany's. MEBA says no.
Joe Curran of the National Maritime
Union, a third of whose sailors have been
beached by it, calls this "a political strike"
and "a threat to all other workers in the
maritime industry. Curran is gored be-
cause the strike plays into the hands and
treasury of the Seafarer's International
Union, which means unsubsidized tramps
and liners and whose chief, Paul Hall, has
been Curran's bitter rival for many years.
The fact that only part of the maritime In-
dustry is shut down also prevents the Gov-
ernment from invoking a Taft-Hartley
emergency and sending the engineers back
to work.
Chronic interunion feuding, extravagant
demands, and ruthless tactics have cost the
maritime industry 10 million man-hours
since World War II. The subsidy formula,
which offsets the fact that U.S. wage costs
are three to four times foreign costs, has
hitherto floated of the exorbitant settle-
ments. But not this time. This strike co-
incides with a more general crisis in the
U.S. merchant marine.
President Johnson promised last January
to introduce a whole new maritime policy to
replace the 1936 system. His lively young
Maritime Administartor, Nicholas John-
son, has not only been scaring the unions
and owners alike with boyish speeches but
has threatened to keep new wage increases
out of the subsidy formula and even dis-
allow increases of several years past. U.S.
shipowners, both struck and unstruck, are
therefore fighting for their lives against ris-
ing costs, foreign competition, and uncer-
tain Government policy. By tonnage, U.S.
shipping's share of U.S. foreign trade has
fallen from 50 percent to 9 percent since
1945. Large parts of the fleet have been
scuttling to Liberian and Panamanian reg-
istry or counting their last days as eldering
tramps carrying giveaway "food for peace"
at subsidized rates. The U.S. maritime pic-
ture is gloomy indeed-except in one
respect.
The authors of our 1936 subsidy policy,
chiefly F.D.R. and Joseph P. Kennedy, knew
what they were about. They wanted a first-
class, liner-type cargo fleet sailing established
routes-and thatwe have. It is second only
to the British in size; in quality, second to
none. The 15 leading U.S. lines (Grace,
Lykes. Moore-McCormack, United States
Lines, etc.) run their 300 vessels on a subsidy
contract which requires them to keep their
fleets modern; as a result, 80 percent of all
cargo vessels in the world capable of more
than 20 knots fly the U.S. flag. If U.S. fcr-
eign trade is measured by value instead of
by tonnage, U.S. ships carry 37 percent of it.
Nicholas Johnson would like to see tae
Government out of the shipping business
eventually. He sees no future in passenger
subsidies and would cut cargo subsidies by
relying on improved productivity through
technological change, including such futt r-
istic carriers as undersea pipelines and hy-
drofoils.
Undoubtedly great technological improve-
ments lie ahead of ocean shipping, the most
realistic being specialized bulk cargo ships.
The industry Itself has ordered 35 new "au-
tomated" freighters. But much of their au-
tomation is in the engine room, and ME13A
refuses to agree to any fixed manning sched-
ules in advance. This puts all savings from
automation in doubt-the more so since any
maritime labor settlement is subject to later
interunion whipsawing.
Some owners have suggested a "czar" to
save their industry from further strife and
stalemate. Czars seldom solve anything,
but this one might provide what U.S. ship-
ping desperately needs, a period of labor
peace while it adjusts to the throes of tech-
nological change. No new maritime policy
will make sense until Washington solves this
problem. The jobs at risk from automation
will either expand with an expanding indus-
try or sink with-a dead one.
...r
--.-' nftNAM J
((
F
~
Mr. MANSF'IEtD. Mr. Presdnent,
there have been comments on the floor
this morning relative to Vietnam. Em-
phasis, and proper emphasis, has been
placed on the military needs of the mo-
ment by the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], chairman of
the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee.
Others have made their views known, as
well.
I would reiterate that in the speech by
the President last Wednesday he ex-
tended both the arrow and the olive
branch. I endeavored to emphasize that
point in some remarks I made last week,
but due to the fact that they were not
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved Fo RRB~I ase 22003/111/04: CIA-RDP67B0p446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 C~ONU~RESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
inserted in the RECORD In the form that I
had requested. I ask unanimous consent
that the nine avenues of honorable ne-
gotiations offered by the President of
the United States in, that speech and
the press conference that followed be
included at this point'in the RECORD and,
that they be differentiated one from an-
other, either through the use of asterisks
or through the use of numbers.
I make this request because I think the
President has,just about covered every
conceivable possiblity in seeking to bring
about a negotiated settlement of the
situation now existing in South Vietnam
and it ought to be clear that he has.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Once the Communists know, as we know,
that a violent solution is impossible, then a
peaceful solution is inevitable. We are
ready now, as we have always been, to move
from the battlefield to the conference table.
I have stated publicly and many times,
again and again, America's willingness to be-
gin unconditional discussions with any gov-
ernment at any place at any time.
Fifteen efforts have been made to start
these discussions, with the help of 40 na-
tions throughout the world. But there has
been nq answer, But We are going to con-
tinue to persist, if persist we must, until
death and desolation have led to the same
conference table where others could now join
us at a much smaller cost.
2
I have spoken many times of our objec-
tives in Vietnam. So has the Government
of South Vietnam. Harlot has set forth its
own proposals. We are ready to discuss their
proposals and our proposals and any pro-
posals of any government whose people may
be affected, for we fear the meeting room no
more than we fear the battlefield. And in
this pursuit we welcome and we ask for the
concern and the assistance of any nation and
all nations.
s
And if the United Nations and its officials
or any one of its 114 members can by deed or
word, private initiative or public action,
bring us nearer an honorable peace, then
they will have the support and gratitude of
the United States of America.
4
I've directed Ambassador Goldberg to go to
New York today and to present immediately
to Secretary General U Thant a letter from
me requesting that all the resources, and
the energy and the immense prestige of
the United Nations be employed to find ways
to halt aggression and to bring peace in
Vietnam.
a .
But we insist and we will always insist
that the people of South Vietnam shall have
the right of choice, the right to shape their
own destiny in free elections in the South
or throughout all Vietnailr under interna-
tional supervision, and they shall not have
any government imposed upon them by force
and terror so long as we can prevent it.
- s s > t
6
As I just said, I hope that every member
of the United Nations that has any idea or
any plan, any program, any suggestion, that
they will not let them go unexplored.
And as I have said so many times, if any-
one questions our good faith and will ask us
to meet them to try to reason this matter
out, they will find us at the appointed place,
the appointed time and the proper chair.
? ,, t R V
s
I have made very clear in my San Francisco
speech my hope that the Secretary General
under his wise leadership would explore every
possibility that might lead to a solution of
this matter. In my letter to the Secretary
General this morning which Ambassador
Goldberg will deliver later in the day, I re-
iterate my hopes and my desires and I urge
upon him that he-if he agrees-that he
undertake new efforts in this direction.
Ambassador Goldberg understands the
challenge. We spent the weekend talking
about the potentialities and the possibilities,
our hopes and our dreams, and I believe that
we will have an able advocate and a search-
ing negotiator who, I would hope could some
day find success.
9
We have stated time and time again that
we would negotiate with any Government,
any time, any place. The Vietcong would
have no difficulty in being represented and
having their views presented if Hanoi for a
moment decides that she wants to cease ag-
gression, and I would not think that would
be an insurmountable problem at all. I think
that could be worked out.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I commend the
President for the frankness he has
shown In publicly making these pro-
posals. I only hope that those who are
interested in peace, who have eyes to see,
who have ears to hear, and who can rec-
ognize print when they see it will take in-
to consideration the nine choices, some
of them cumulative, which have been
offered by the President of the United
States to the peoples of the world in seek-
ing to bring about an honorable conclu-
sion through negotiations to this most
complicated conflict.
A FAIR AND REASONABLE PLAN FOR
APPORTIONMENT WHOLLY CON-
SISTENT WITH DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, last
week, speaking of the reapportionment
proposals now before the Senate, I
stated:
If the majority of the people of any State
decide that the majority shall each have less
than one vote in the selection of the mem-
bers of one of the bodies of their State leg-
islature, it is my firm conviction that they
should be permitted so to decide.. ,
Writing in the Washington Star last
night, August 2, 1965, in a column en-
titled "Dirksen's Apportionment Plan,"
James J. Kilpatrick thoughtfully and
clearly set forth a point-by-point analy-
sis of Senator DIRKSEN's reapportionment
amendment, stressing that it "is founded
surely and squarely upon the oldest prin-
ciples of republican government."
I ask unanimous consent that the arti-
cle by James J. Kilpatrick in the Wash-
ington Star for August 2, 1965, entitled
"Dirksen's Apportionment Plan" be
printed in the RECORD at the conclusion
of my remarks.
18371
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Star, Aug. 2,
1965]
DIRKSEN'S APPORTIONMENT PLAN
(By James J. Kilpatrick)
It is one of those marvelous ironies of
parliamentary life, that the merits of Ev-
ERETT M. DIRKSEN's amendment may yet be
obscured by the radiance of his charm.
The venerable senior Senator from Illinois
is struggling to win approval of a profoundly
significant resolution, intended to preserve
one of the great principles of American gov-
ernment; but the DiRKSEN enchantment is
such that he might almost as well be speak-
ing of his choice of the marigold to become
the national flower.
Which is to say that not many of the Sen-
ator's friends or foes seem actually to have
read what he proposes. They are enraptured,
ensorcelled, overcome with delight.
In the past few months, DIaKSEN suddenly
has emerged as an American institution, to
be ranked in the Nation's affections some-
where between Jimmy Durante and Casey
Stengel. ' *
As a consequence, people are not writing
about DIRKSEN's resolution; they are writing
about DIRKSEN's style. It is a terrible tempt-
ation. If the Senate has been long on abil-
ity in recent years, it has been woefully
short on color. Now, after all these years,
recognition has dawned that in DIRKSEN,
some genuine color has returned. And we
correspondents knock ourselves out to cap-
ture the charm of the guy; the face that looks
as if he had slept in 1t; the rumpled hair,
like an old Brillo pad; the rolling eye, the
eloquent hand, the sepulchral voice that
sadly sighs at the insensitivity of his Demo-
cratic friends.
But he can't get the Senate's attention.
The assumption is that his reapportion-
ment resolution would "thwart the Supreme
Court," or "nullify democracy." About the
most that ever is said is that the Dirksen
resolution, if it were added by amendment
to the Constitution, would permit the States
to apportion seats in one house of their legis-
latures by factors other than population.
There is much more than this to the Dirk-
sen proposal. It begins with that great and
forgotten noun with which the Constitution
itself begins-the noun that recurs four
times in the Bill of Rights. "The people," it
begins.
"The people of a State may apportion one
house of a bicameral legislature using popu-
lation, geography, or political subdivisions
as factors, giving each factor such weight
as they deem appropriate." Here DIRKSEN is
reaching to the very roots of sovereignty, to
the people themselves. He would let them
decide.
In the next phrase, he echoes the words.
Before such a plan of apportionment could
be adopted, it must have been submitted "to
a vote of the people and approved by a ma-
jority of those voting on the issue." But
this is not the only safeguard: When such a
plan of apportionment is submitted to a
vote of the people, "there shall also be
submitted, at the same election, an alterna-
tive plan of apportionment based upon sub-
stantial equality of population."
What could be fairer? This was precisely
what was done in Colorado, where the people
twice rejected by overwhelming margins the
bogus "democracy" one man, one vote.
The people are capable, DIEKSEN is saying,
of deciding their own destinies better than
the Supreme Court is capable of deciding for
them.
Yet the Dirksen proposal has still one ad-
ditional..safeguard. The indefensible mal-
apportionments of recent years cannot be
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R0003001`90001-8
 18372
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE August 3, 1965
permitted to recur, even in one chamber, as
q consequence of one decision, Shoe made.
Every 10 years, any apportionment plan
based on considerations other than popula-
tion "shall be resubmitted to a vote of the
people." There must be a continuing re-
newal of the people's consent to be governed
by legislators of their own choosing, and not
by "King Numbers."
This is what the Dirksen amendment pro-
vides. It is founded surely and squarely
upon the oldest principles of republican
government. We ought not to become so
mesmerized by the Senator's parliamentary
skill and by his beautiful basson voice that
we fall to heed what the Senator says.
STOP TIGHT MONEY-END THE RE-
STRICTIVE MONEY POLICY OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
Mx. HARTEE. Mr. President, last
week, business loans of the leading New
York banks fell for the fourth straight
week. The decline since the 1st of July
has now reached $394 million. Mere is
proof positive of the tight money policy
of the Federal Reserve System in action.
`Three months ago, the Federal Reserve
moved to place our banking system in a
negative reserve position. The result for
the last 3, months has been an average
weekly reserve position of minus $150
million to $175 million. Sooner or later,
as I and my distinguished colleague, the
Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCAR-
Tsyl, have consistently warned, this
pressure bti the banks would bring pres-
sure to bear on business. Furthermore,
the Johnson administration's basic fiscal
policy-which looks to an expanding
economy which can produce higher tax
revenues at lower tax rates-is being
placed in jeopardy.
I conferred with the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], and It is
with his entire concurrence that we call
for a reversal of the Federal Reserve's
tight money policy.
Dining the past month, it has become
the::stated policy of the U.S. Govern-
ment- ddciared so by Treasury Secretary
Fowler-to work toward expansion of the
International money supply by reforming
the intentional monetary _system. Soon
it will be possible for this policy to be
translated into progressive and enlight-
ened action. But this policy will be
meaningless, this action will be ineffec-
tive-If it Is not based upon a soundly and
continuously expanding American econ-
omy. It is now time for the funda-
mental and forward-looking revision of
international monetary policy an-
nounced by Secretary Fowler to be ac-
companied by a similar revision of do-
mestic monetary policy by the Federal
Reserve.
The foundation that exists today for a
continued expansion of economic activity
Is unprecedented-and should be unques-
tioned. But questions will continue to be
asked, both at home and abroad, until
all branches of the American Govern-
ment agree in deed as well as in word
that American prosperity is the No. 1 pre-
requisite for world prosperity. In order
that this agreement may be made known
to all the world, I once again call upon
the Federal Reserve to end Its tight
money policy before a squeeze on money
becomes a squeeze on activity, profits,
and jobs.
THE GROWING DANGER OF OUR
CONTINUING UNFAVORABLE BAL-
ANCE OF PAYMENTS
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
back in 1963, in a series of five Senate
talks, I presented my growing apprehen-
sion about the continuing unfavorable
balance of payments.
Since then there has been increased
discussion of this subject along, with Its
relation to such program as first, off-
shore military expenditures; second,
tourism; third, private investment and
lending abroad; and fourth, foreign aid.
Some years ago the two nations rep-
resenting the two power centers of East
and West achieved what might be termed
a "'nuclear standoff"; a position that has
been described in various ways: "Bal-
ance of terror," "two scorpions in a bot-
tle," and so forth; and since then it has
become increasingly clear that total vic-
tory, as known in the past, would be im-
possible in any future all-out war.
There is a sphere in which this Na-
tion could suffer total defeat; and that
is in the economic field.
For over 100 years various Communist
leaders, especially Lenin, have pointed
to that possibility; and I believe it could
become more than a possibility if we do
not face up to all the implications of
this continuing unfavorable balance of
payments.
This thinking has brought an in-
creased interest in reassessment of our
foreign economic policies; and it Is based
on that interest that I now present these
thoughts.
With the sole exception of 1957, the
United States has been running con-
sistent balance-of-payments deficits for
15 years-since 1950.
Starting with 1958, these deficits be-
came disturbingly large-and remained
at a $3 to $4 billion level through
the 1958-64 period.
As a result, the Nation's gold supply
has dwindled some $10 billion. Our gold
stock now stands at less than $14 bil-
lion with our current liabilities to for-
eigners, redeemable in gold, totaling
over $28 billion-more than twice the
volume of our gold stock. That stock
is now lower than it has been since
August 1938.
Recently there has been a flurry of
publicity that, as a result of voluntary
actions, the balance-of-payments deficit
is now licked. Any jubilation Is prema-
ture. The President, In his press con-
ference of July 9, was wise in caution,
as evidenced by the following colloquy.
Question. Are the reports, sir, that the
balance-of-payments deficit is wiped out in
the last 3 months true, and, if so, what
about some worry among economists that
It will hurt the economy of Europe, that they
will not have the dollars that they had
before?
Answer. The reports I have read are high-
ly inaccurate. They cannot be confirmed.
We do not have the exact information.
I asked the Secretary of the Treasury to
give me even his speculation. He refused
to do that yesterday. After I read the wire
service stories and stories in other periodicals,
I asked the Chairman of the Economic Ad-
visers, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
Secretary of the Treasury.
All of-them were unfamiliar with it. They
said that the only thing they could say
was that it was premature, it was inac-
curate and undependable as far as the infcr-
mation to the President is concerned.
Now, in the days ahead, they may be exact-
ly on the nose, but they are unwilling to
say that in their position today, even to
me, or to the task forces.
How long can this development con-
tinue before the dollar is forced into de-
valuation?
The answer is clear-not very long.
There are those who ask about the im-
portance of a $3 billion deficit in an econ-
omy where the gross national product
approaches $650 billion; and ask also of
what real relevance is a foreign aid pack-
age of $5.7 billion. In this connection,
the 1966 fiscal year request for foreign
aid was $780 million for development
loans; $210 million for technical co-
operation and development grants; $580
million for Alliance for Progress; $369
million for supporting assistance; $271
-million for contingency fund; $206 mil-
lion for the Inter-American Development
Bank; $500 million for the fund for
special operations of the IDB; $104 mil-
lion- for the IDA, the soft loan window of
the World Bank; $125 million for the
Peace Corps; $1,658 million for foodfor
peace; and $1,170 million for military
assistance.
The answer is that our ability to con-
tinue our policies of lending and giving
away financial resources is dependent
upon first, the size of our gold stock;
second, our net annual foreign earnings;
and, third, liquid short-term assets
abroad, less our - short-term liabilities to
foreign holders. It is not dependent on
either our income, or our assets, in the
United States.
Any continuation of a $3 billion deficit
in our international accounts can only
mean that we will not be able to under-
take much of the planned foreign aid
and military expenditures programs.
Actually, and as I have presented previ-
ously, we are already borrowing from
foreign countries in order to carry out
aid and military programs for these for-
eign countries.
If we continue in this fashion, there
is real danger of a forced devaluation of
the dollar; and this could well set off
a chain reaction of diminished world
trade and serious domestic recession if
not actual depression.
With respect to foreign aid, never in
history has any nation so willingly
opened its purse to so many for so long.
In the early post-war period, we re-
sponded wholeheartedly to the needs of
economic reconstruction, pumping bil-
lions of dollars into European and Japa-
nese recovery. Of the $64.5 billion in net
foreign assistance provided between
July 1, 1945, and December 31, 1957,
$53.8 billion, or 83.4 percent, was in the
form of nonrepayable grants. Only $9
billion was in long-term, low-interest
credits, the rest being in sales of com-
modities under agricultural surplus dis-
posal programs.
Of the total $53.8 billion in foreign
military and economic grants during this
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Augur CONq1 SSIONAL RECORD SENATE 18375
Mr. THURMOND._? Mr. President, one
of the best editorial commentaries I have
seen on the President's address of July
28, 1965, to the Nation on U.S.
policies in Vietnam has been printed in
the Greenville News, of Greenville, S.C.
The editorial is entitled "LBJ Left
Much To Be Desired" and was printed in
the July 29, 1965, issue of the Greenville
News.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Presi-
dent, that this editorial be printed in
the RECORD at the conclusion of these
remarks together with my newsletter
dated August 2, 1965, and entitled
"Prospects in Southeast Asia."
There being no objection, the editorial
,,.,kand newsletter were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Greenville News, July 29, 1965]
LBJ LEFT MUCH To BE DESIRED
President Johnson's address to the Nation
and the world at his press conference yester-
day on the administration's "new" plans for
prosecuting the war in Vietnam left much to
be desired on the part of American families
directly affected and those who, as a matter
of national policy and welfare, hoped for a
definition of plans for victory.
It did not help at all in this respect for
the President to turn from his rather general
and even vague discussion of American battle
plans and goals in Vietnam to his hopes for
further extension of the benefits of the
Great Society.
is folksy personal references and his
declaration that he did not intend to see
the hopes and dreams of the people swept
away by war fell flat.
And against this backdrop his announce-
ment of the appointment of John Chancellor
df NBC to head up the Voice of America
and of Abe Portas to succeed Arthur Gold-
berg on the U.S. Supreme Court was sadly
out of place.
On the one hand the President flatly stated,
for the first time so far as we can recall,
that the conflict in southeast Asia is -a war
between freedom and communism.
But on the other he said no declaration
of war was needed because the Chief Ex-
ecutive had ample authority to do what had
been done up to now and that he had been
in constant consultation with the Congress
and had received unstinting cooperation and
support.
"This is war" Mr. Johnzon said, and the
United States positively will not surrender
or retreat, for that way lies hopeless disaster
and an invitation to further Red aggression
in Asia and elsewhere.
But the President did.not speak of victory
as the goal of that war.
Instead, he digressed to declare that the
United States not only intended to help the
South Vietnamese to reach the point where
they could set up their own government with
free elections; it also will render economic
assistance on a large scale.
Mr. Johnson announced that large num-
bers of additional troops will be sent to Viet-
nam, including specific units ranging from
special battalions up to the new "Air Mobile"
infantry division.
This outfit has been formed only this
summer by taking crack units from the Na-
tio's eomb4.t-ready divisions and training
and, equipping them to Inove entirely by air-
going into battle in planes, helicopters and
by parachute-drop.
But he said there were at present no plans
for calling up reserve units or individual
reservists, although recruiting efforts and the
draft will be stepped up.
The President Said he had asked Gen.
Wil'.am Westmoreland, the South Caro-
linian in' command of all American forces in
Vietnam what he needed to do the job as-
signed to him, although the General's mis-
sion has not been clearly defined to the pub-
lic's satisfaction, and these forces and the
necessary equipment were going to be sup-
plied.
In his formal address the President de-
fined the American goal in Vietnam as a lim-
ited one, although he didn't call it that.
The purpose, he said, is to convince the Com-
munists they cannot win, or rather that the
United States cannot be defeated, by mili-
ary force alone. The idea is to force the
Reds to the conference table.
But he did not say American forces would
be turned loose to do what is necessary to
convince the enemy of this fact by inflicting
on him a thorough defeat in and from the
air and on the ground.
In his speech and in answer to questions,
he emphasized that escalation of the war, es-
pecially a direct confrontation with the go-
viets and the Chinese Communists, will be
avoided if possible. More significantly he
said that the policy of having American
troops serve primarily as advisers to the
South Vietnamese, rather than taking over
and running the war themselves, would not
be changed.
He made no reference at all to the commit-
tal of larger air and naval forces to stepped
up air and coastal raids on the Vietcong
training centers and supply bases in North
Vietnam.
This is the crux of the matter. The United
States is committing more troops to the con-
fined battle area of South Vietnam. Their
mission, presumably, is to make the war so
costly to the Vietcong that they, instead of
the South Vietnamese and the United States,
will give up and ask for peace talks.
But the tactical and strategic problems of
maneuvering such a force against the Com-
munist guerrillas effectively on a battlefield
and in tactical situations created by the Viet-
cong are staggering. It is hard to see more
than a stalemate, at best, as possible in a
war fought under such conditions.
Perhaps the President has Issued orders he
did not disclose for security reasons, but his
emphasis on hopes for bringing "peace with
honor" by negotiating with the Communists,
hopefully with the full assistance of the
United Nations, indicates the contrary. And
he conceded that the war could continue
indefinitely.
Mr. Johnson emphasized the importance
of the war, and none can deny it. But the
apparent limitations on goals and tactics
are not in keeping with the gravity of the
situation.
Mr. Johnson emphasized the impor-
tance of the war, and none cany deny it.
But the apparent limitations on goals and
tactics are not in keeping with the grav-
ity of the situation.
[From weekly newsletter by Senator STaoM
THURMOND, Republican, of South Carolina,
Aug. 2, 1965 ]
PROSPECTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
The President's announced steps to meet
the crisis in Vietnam were significant. Even
more significant, however, was his statement
of U.S. objectives in southeast Asia, for these
objectives provide the basis from which the
prospects for the war can be measured.
Initially, the President rejected the alter-
native of surrender. He wisely pointed out
that surrender would not bring peace, for
"success only feeds the appetite of aggres-
sion."
Therefore, the President said, "We intend
to convince the Communists that we cannot
be defeated by force of arms or by superior
power." There can be little doubt that the
United States can, by committing large num-
bers of military personnel, avoid total mili-
tary defeat in southeast Asia. Conceivably,
we can occupy strong points in South Viet-
nam for decades, although the cost in casual-
ties and resources may well be high.
Next, the President said, "We are ready
now, as we have always been, to move from
the battlefield to the conference table."
The prospects for negotiations appear un-
likely. North Vietnam has rejected out of
hand all overtures advanced by the United
States and by other nations. Red China has
shown an equal unwillingness to negotiate.
Some hope that the Soviet Union will as-
sist in bringing about negotiations. Realis-
tically, this too appears most unlikely. The
Soviets have much to gain from U.S. Involve-
ment in a ground war in Asia. Against an
essentially guerrilla-type offensive, the United
States must confront the enemy with an
overwhelming numerical superiority in an
area 10,000 miles from the United States. In
this area, the Communists have almost un-
limited manpower in adjacent areas, and
supplies from all the Communist nations.
Largely unknown to the public, the United
States is already faced with a very serious
and severe shortage of equipment essential
to fight this type of war. Major resources
will have to be committed as the war con-
tinues. The Soviets can also logically reason
that the requirements for financing a ground
war in Asia will cause the United States to
increasingly divert resources away from its
strategic military forces, which is the
nemesis of Soviet expansion plans. In ad-
dition, the Soviets could and probably do
reason that U.S. involvement in a ground
war in Asia would make us less capable and
less willing to respond vigorously to Soviet
expansion efforts in other areas, such as
Africa and Latin America.
It is unrealistic to believe that the Soviets
would assist in bringing about negotiations
which would end the conflict. Indeed, they
are now supplying the Communist forces
with equipment and supplies, including mis-
siles, in order to assure that the Communist
aggression can be sustained. The one ma-
jor world power who has most to gain from
a major U.S. ground war in Asia is not the
United States nor Red China, but the Soviet
Union.
In any negotiations the President stated
that the United States would insist that the
people of South Vietnam shall have "the right
to shape their own destiny in free elections
in the south." The 1954 Geneva accord spe-
cified that elections would be held in Vietnam
in 1956. The elections were never held, be-
cause it was obvious that the Communists,
through the use of terror and intimidation,
could win any election. In 1956, the Gov-
ernment controlled 70 percent of the terri-
tory; now, the South Vietnamese Govern-
ment and the United States control less than
20 percent of the territory. The fact is, we
could not even hope to win an election in
South Vietnam. If we are negotiated out,
even under the guise of free elections, we will
lose Asia just as surely as if we pull out now;
and the casualties we incur in the meantime
will have been fought for naught.
To win the war in Vietnam, it would be
necessary to bring to bear our real power ad-
vantage-air and sea power. It may also re-
quire that we use troops from the Philip-
pines, Korea, and Nationalist China. Such
actions would involve a risk of confronta-
tion with all communism, including the
Soviets.
In the final analysis, however, there is no
realistic middle ground. We must either ap-
ply our power to win the war or get out,
either now by surrendering, or later, after
more casualties, through negotiations, if
they ever come to pass. We cannot escape
the immutable truth of General MacArthur's
warning, "There is no substitute for victory."
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R0Q0300190001-8
183W CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3 1965
AN AU
STRAL
ON Z
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, the
Reverend Alan Walker, the director of
the Central Methodist Mission in Syd-
ney, Australia, writing in the August 4,
1965, issue of the Christian Century
under the title "An Australian Looks at
Vietnam," states:
The world outside the contending powers
pleads: In the name of humanity, in the
name of God, stop. before it is too late.
Turn from the battlefield to the conference
table. Take risks for peace rather than
continue the risks of war. Accept military
disengagement now.
I echo his sentiments. I have ex-
pressed these views for a year and a half
on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere.
I reiterate the pleas of many here in
the United States for a cessation of the
est lation of the undeclared war in Viet-
naln before it is too late.
The Reverend Walker's words should
be heeded by all who would urge a fur-
ther military buildup of armed might
there. I ask unanimous consent that the
Reverend Alan Walker's article in the
Christian Century for August 4, 1965,
be printed in the RECORD at the conclu-
sion of my remarks.
The same issue of the same periodical
contained a thoughtful and thought-
provoking editorial entitled "Runaway
War or Deadlocked Peace" in which the
options facing not only the major powers
of the world but the world itself. The
editorial concludes with the question:
Will American Christians and Jews and
and all other men of good will have the
maturity and the energy to compel their
government to choose those next steps which
could lead from the brink of runaway war
to the long hard pull that-the best we can
hope for-is the deadlock of a peace in which
neither side has victory and neither is
destroyed?
Without such maturity and without
such energy to persuade this adminis-
tration to turn from the paths of war
to the paths of peace, the dangers of a
future thermonuclear devastation clearly
lies ahead.
I ask unanimous consent that this
editorial also be printed at the conclu-
sion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorials
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Christian Century, Aug. 4, 1965]
AN AUSTRALIAN LOOK$ AT VIETNAM
(By Rev. Alan Walker)
lxmese Christians have written to Presl- charge drew up a plan "to create militarv
dent Lyndon Johnson urging reappraisal of conditions for an honorable solution." Then
American policy. On July 20 a delegation came Dienblenphu and the end of French
of five Japanese Christians representing dif power in Indochina.
ferent denominations was to leave for the There is a fatal flaw in the argument that
United States to tell church and Government unless the United States stops communism
leaders how the Vietnam conflict looks in Vietnam all southeast Asia will "go Coin-
through Asian eyes, and to explore means munist." For communism cannot be con-
of peacefully resolving that conflict. Head- tamed by military might; it is an ideology
lug the mission is Isamu Omura, moderator that breeds in the kind of chaos and misery
of the United Church of Christ in Japan war produces. Asian countries will be made
and vice chairman of the East Asian "safe" from communism only through peace-
Christian Council. ful change and the expansion of social and
HOW STAY THE CONFLICT?
There are three ways by which the war in
Vietnam can be halted. One is by a full-
scale American military effort aimed at im-
posing peace through victory. But the price
would probably be war with China, certainly
a yearsiong policing by the United States
of a Pained and an embittered Vietnam,
north and south. Another way is by ne-
gotiation. That way fie difficulties, as the
cool reception met in Asia by the Common-
wealth nations' peace mission indicates.
Certainly if peace is to come through ne-
gotiation there must be a new spirit in
Hanoi and terms more specific than "uncon-
ditional negotiations" from Washington.
But the struggle for negotiated settlement
must go on; peacemakers must not permit
their patience to be exhausted by rebuffs.
The third way to halt the move toward
disaster is for the United States to accept
the Geneva Accords of 1954 and withdraw its
armed forces from Vietnam. Surely America
does not need to prove its opposition to
communism by prosecuting an unnecessary
war, a war condemned by great segments of
the world's people and opposed by atleast
40 percent of its own citizens. Surely with-
drawal would be preferable to continuance
of the agony of the Vietnamese people, to
great power confrontation leading to nuclear
catastrophe. The world outside the con-
tending powers pleads: In the name of
humanity, in the name of God, stop before
it is too late. Turn from the battlefield to
the conference table. Take risks for peace
rather than continue the risks of war. Ac-
cept military disengagement now!
A WAR IMMORAL, UNJUSTIFIED
Disengagement as a prelude to peace in
Vietnam is imperative. For one thing, the
conflict there is immoral and unjustified.
All war, says the Christian judgment, is in-
compatible with the mind of Christ. And
this war is to a greater extent than most
wars indefensible.
Vietnam has become a cockpit for the
cold war. Behind North Vietnam and the
Vietcong in the south stands the Com-
munist world; behind the South Vietnam
Government, the West. Competition for in-
fluence, desire to impress neighboring states,
a test of will-these are the vital elements
in the conflict. The United States and now
my own country are committed in Vietnam
to protect what they regard as their own
In rare consensus, the Christian churches interests; it is better, they hold, to engage
around the world are appealing for an end the enemy as far as possible from one's own
to the fighting in Vietnam. Through its in- shores. But though apparently unques-
ternationalaffairs section the World Council tioned, that assumption is immoral. The
of Churches has said: "The effort to solve idea that others' lives and lands may be
the problem of South Vietnam by military ravaged to protect one's own is a frank ex-
measures is bound to prove futile." The pression of power politics, a relic of imperial-
British Council of Churches "supports the ism. To the claim that Vietnam offers a
worldwide .plea for an end to the suffering time and place for confrontation between
of the people of Vietnam." Some weeks ago China and the United States, D. T. Niles,
the United Church of Canada called on the the Christian statesman from India, replied
Canadian Government not to support Ameri- simply: "Here we ask only one question: Is
can policy in Vietnam if the war there should human life cheap in Asia?" An Asian, he
be further escalated--and now the escala- spoke with the voice of Asia.
tion has occurred. Even in the United States The contention that escalation must occur
the National Council of Churches has asked so the United States can negotiate "from
for "persistent efforts to negotiate for a strength" is specious. To sacrifice countless
cease fire." lives for a bargaining advantage is expediency
On the other side of the world the Aus- at its most callous. And one cannot help
tralian Council of Churches has declared that recalling that when his country was still
"now is the time to strive for a -conference" master in the area the French general In
/JJ
~
~M
economic justice. By the time the United
States managed to "defeat" communism by
military force, the peninsula would be a
bloody shambles. Where then could a gov-
ernment be found that would be accepted
by the people? The United States Would
have to buttress some sort of puppet gov-
ernment for years on end.
How can a war be justified that is em-
barked upon unilaterally by nations that at
the same time are pledged to work thrcugh
the United Nations? The United States has
long contributed to the Ineffectiveness of the
world body by its irrational insistence on
the exclusion of mainland China. Now it is
further undermining its effectiveess by tak-
ing unilateral action without seeking com-
bined world action through the United
Nations.
All this has made millions of men of good
will throughout the world uneasy in con-
science; they know in their hearts that the
war in Vietnam is basically immoral and
without justification.
INTOLERABLE SUFFERING OF A PEOPLE:
It is almost impossible to estimate Viet-
namese loyalties accurately. That military
governments can "represent" any people is
questionable, and the present Government of
South Vietnam is a military despotism, as
were the eight regimes that preceded it
through the past 20 months. Certainly the
strength of the South Vietnam armed forces
and their persistence despite huge casualties
testify that a large body of opinion is op-
posed to the Vietcong. Yet it is hard to
believe that the Vietcong could exert virtual
control over about half the country without
the collaboration of people from village and
countryside. Neutral observers--the Com-
mission of the Churches on International
Affairs for one--report that there is among
the Vietnamese a deep-seated desire to be
independent. Certainly there is no doubt
that the suffering of the people is deep
and tragic. It has lasted for 19 long years.
Terrorized by action both sides, subjected
to atrocities, sniped at in the jungles, bombed
from the air, decimated by the dread napalm
bomb, one of the most hideous weapons yet
devised, the Vietnamese see no end to their
miseries. For the Communist and the
Western nations to prolong their suffering is
iniquitous.
As an Australian I was ashamed because
of all the nations represented at the Com-
monwealth prime ministers' conference it
was my country that by choosing to be a
combatant in Vietnam embarrassed Prime
Minister Harold Wilson's peace mission. Dis-
engagement would make it possible for Aus-
tralia to extract itself from a conflict into
which it has been led, without debate, by a
government that has been less than frank
with our citizens.
Australia's present policies run counter to
its own and its neighbors' long-range inter-
ests. For our future is irretrievably bound
up no~ with the West but with the 1,000 mil-
lion people of Asia, where the days of Western
dominance are numbered. We must learn to
live at peace with our neighbors. Meanwhile,
the presence of our soldiers on Asian soil
combined with our "white Australia" policy
at home gives us an ugly image throughout
Asia. From such an attitude as we now
display are enemies made. And the Bible's
Approved For Release- 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 20
0 11/04: RDP 68000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL REC - ~fftg 18377
warning still holds: They who sow the wind
reap the whirlwind.
While freedom of speech remains, before
casualties mount and emotions are danger-
ouly aroused, there is still time for Aus-
tralian troops to be withdrawn and an
example of disengagement to be set is a
prelude to peace.
AHEAD, NUCLEAR HOLOCA49T
Of one thing we can be certain: the world
today faces its 'greatest peril since World
War IT. ' Consider the pattern of escalation
thus far established. First, the United
States simply proffered) aid and advice to
the government in the `south. Then came
military support, with mounting numbers of
American troops engaged. Then retaliatory
bombing of military targets. Then Aus-
tralia's adding its quota to the flames by
sending troops. Finally, on June 10, Presi-
dent Johnson's announcement that American
troops would take the initiative in attack.
What are the later steps, unless arrested?
Crossing of the 17th parallel; accompanied
by bombing of the cities in the north, with
the inevitable slaughter of noncombatant
men, women, and children; then increased
and open Chinese intervention. The West
could have but one answer to the impossi-
bility of countering the military manpower
the 700 million Chinese can provide: nuclear
bombing. Then-one short step to complete
nuclear involvement and a third world war,
leaving the planet contaminated with radia-
tion for generations to come.
Imposible? Improbable? Hardly. Mental
attitudes so easily lead to overt action. And
there are forces, particularly powerful in the
United States, that would urge the atomic
bombing of China now as a means of keep-
ing it from becoming a nuclear power. Cor-
rupted by unreasoning fear of communism,
Public opinion in the United States, and to
a lesser extent in Australia, could depart
from rationality. The peril of all-out nuclear
war lies just beyond the Vietnam firing lines.
Right now the world may be offered its last
chance to pause and seek deliverance. The
search for a solution in Vietnam must move
from the battleground to the conference
table. And for that, no matter what the risk
or sacrifice involved, disengagements is a
necessity. There is still 'time to reverse the
tragic trend. I would hope that a ground
swell of opposition to our Government's
policies in southeast Asia might move across
my'own nation, that Australia might become
a reconciling, a peacemaking force in today's
splintered world. To seek peace, not to make
war, is the call our people-as well as those
in the United States-must hear. Let us
demand that our troops be recalled, that the
issues be transferred to the United Nations.
Above all, as Christians let us pray that the
miracls may take place, that the doors to
peace missions now closed may be opened.
[From the Christian Century, Aug. 4, 1965]
RUNAWAY WAR OR DEADLOCKED PEACE
SAIGON, July 14.-In the judgment of this
member of the clergymen's mission sent to
southeast Asia at the end of June by the
Fellowship of Reconciliation, a dangerous
turning point in the war in Vietnam is at
hand. As Henry Cabot Lodge returns to the
Embassy in Saigon and the White House
starts a sweeping reappraisal of Vietnam pol-
icy, the only real alternatives in Vietnam it-
self, it seems to me, are a runaway war and
a deadlocked peace. It is a shocking fact
that the choice, between these harsh alter-
natives is being made unilaterally, in this
20th anniversary year of the United Nations,
by the U.S. Government on the one hand
and the National Liberation Front (Viet-
cong) on the other. The destiny of millions
of people and perhaps of the whole world
is being decided by a small group of military
and political officers, with not much more
chance of broad citizen-participation in the
decisionmakng process in the United States
than in Vietnam, let alone among the many
other peoples who will bear the consequences
of the policies chosen.
All developments during this beautiful
rain-then-sunshine-again summer in Viet-
nam,indicate that on both sides those who
possess the power of choice are moving
swiftly toward runaway war: The Vietcong
has astonished even its Chinese mentors in
the art and science of revolutionary warfare
by moving directly from the first phase-
defense-to the third phase-offense-with-
out bothering with Mao's prescribed second
phase-a balance of forces. At Djakarta re-
cently, a spokesman for Peiping stated that
his government was studying the methods
and strategy of the Vietcong, who in their
20-year struggle have become unequaled
masters at effecting social transformations
through revolutionary warfare.
The Vietcong are everywhere in South
Vietnam. They have cut all major transpor-
tation arteries linking the several regions of
the country, making air transport the only
means of supplying either urban centers or
mountain villages with food produced in the
delta. They hold from one- to two-thirds
of the area of many provinces by day as well
as by night, leaving the Republic of Vietnam
forces, with their American advisers, in the
tense posture of beleaguered garrisons. By
night the -Vietcong hold this cakital city it-
self In a ring of terror. Last Sunday evening
about 10 p.m. my taxi driver missed the
house where I am staying at the edge of the
city-a bare 3 miles from downtown
Saigonl As the road led through the dense
tropical orchards toward the rubber planta-
tions, he became quite anxious. Soon we
were approaching the sources of some of the
artillery fire that is heard in the city
throughout the night, and we saw some of
the flares with which the army posts con-
tinually flood the forest area with light.
These are the measures by which the repub-
lican army tries to discourage the grouping
of Vietcong forces for terroristic forays into
the city itself.
But as everyone knows, the Vietcong is not
merely an insurrectionary movement in the
countryside, strongly supported by Hanoi,
but a politico-military force within Saigon
and the other cities of the south. There are
terrorist strikes, such as those against the
U.S. Embassy, the floating restaurant, the
Saigon Airport, and very seldom do the
passersby offer the authorities any evidence
to help apprehend the offenders. I have
.talked with city people who, as both patriots
and social progressives, are continually solic-
ited by the Vietcong to join the national lib-
eration movement to help overthrow the
latest of Saigon's junta governments and to
rid the country of the Americans, who are
viewed as the remaining vestige of'white im-
perial occupation. My interlocutors had re-
luctantly declined to enter the Vietcong only
because they could not stomach its wanton
violence. The Vietcong appear to sense that
their people are closer to the goal of an in-
dependent Vietnam, free of the last traces of
foreign domination, than they have ever been
since the French first arrived a century ago.
They smell victory and will stop at nothing
in their effort to grasp it firmly in their hard
and horny hands.
II
Meanwhile, North Vietnamese battalions
are taking up positions back of the guerrilla
warriors, ready to consolidate their gains.
The Foreign Minister of neutralist Cambodia,
Koun Week, warned me in an interview that
if these troops should prove unable to with-
stand the increasing number of U.S. para-
troopers and infantrymen, "the Chinese will
not hesitate to employ millions of soldiers in
a combat with the United States on the
ground in southeast Asia, and Peiping would
definitely use the nuclear arms at her dis-
posal."
There is no need here to recall in detail
the escalation of the American war effort in
South Vietnam from a few hundred military
advisers 10 years ago to more than 75,000 men
today, supported by bombing missions origi-
nating both from aircraft carriers off the
Vietnamese coast and from the Guam naval
base more than 2,000 miles away. There is
great need to hold congressional hearings and
nationwide debate on the wisdom and right-
ness of current Pentagon plans to turn the
large-scale American war effort into a mas-
sive land war in southeast Asia, whose im-
mediate objective might well be an independ-
ent and friendly South Vietnam but whose
ultimate goal would inevitably become-
once the armed might of the United States
became locked in mortal encounter with the
North Vietnamese and the Chinese peoples'
armies-the liberation of North Vietnam
from the Communist rule of No Chi Minh
and the overthrow of the imperialist Chinese
Communist government of Mao Tse-tung.
Since every Western military expert be-
lieves that the United States possesses weap-
onry more than sufficient to balance the sheer
numbers of the Asian Communist armies,
the crucial question would then be the re-
sponse of the Soviet Union. I have met no
one in southeast Asia who believes that in
such a showdown the Soviet Union could
avoid giving modern military support to the
poorly equipped armies of sister Communist
nations. This feeling that such a situation
would close the rift between the Soviet
Union and China is based not on sentimental
factors but rather on the sober surmise that
a Pentagon which was allowed to destroy
Chinese power would be expected by the
Soviets to turn its sights at once on the
Kremlin itself-the only logical outcome of
the chain of reasoning that begins with the
attitude of "Why not victory?" The Soviet
Union too has to worry about falling domi-
noes. The likelihood is that, as this fear
begins to dominate the planners who con-
trol the levers of command at the heart of
both the vast affronting blocs, the brush-
fire on the Mekong delta will blaze into a
runaway conflagration.
The Cambodian foreign minister termi-
nated our conversation by saying: "The world
is at an extremely dangerous turning point
In the Vietnamese war. The peace efforts
of the American clergymen';; committee are
laudable but, I fear, doomed like all others
to failure. The world is headed straight
toward nuclear war."
III
The peace movement on the American
campuses and in the American churches has
long been aware of the sinister character of
the war in Vietnam. It has reminded all who
would listen that the struggle there is ba-
sically political and must eventually be re-
solved by a political settlement, that military
power alone cannot obtain any end that
could be termed victory. And it has pointed
out the very real and perilous possibility
that one-sided concentration on military
force will end in general war.
Most of those Americans who have urged
President Johnson to stop the war in Viet-
nam have responded to his question "How?"
by calling for negotiations. When pressed
for more detail they have envisaged the re-
convening of the Geneva conference or some-
thing similar and have insisted on a return
to the 1954 agreement for a reunified Viet-
nam in which a national government would
be established on the basis of free elections.
These elections, the withdrawal of foreign
armed forces and the integrity of the total
territory of Vietnam would be guaranteed by
some kind of international peacekeeping
police power.
I am sorry to have to report that in the
course of innumerable conversations held by
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18378
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
the I2 members of our clergymen's mission
in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand,
we heard no knowledgeable person call for
reunification of the two Vietnams. Not only
does no one we met believe it to be a pos-
sible political objective at present, but most
would seriously question its desirability now
or for years to come.
We were astonished at the cfepth of the
antagonism between the North Vietnamese
and the South Vietnamese. whatever their
individual political coloring-particularly be-
tween the Tonkinese, who predominate In
the north, and the Cochinchinese, who con-
stitute 90 percent of the population of the
south. When the Chinese exercised their
1,000-year suzerainty over the area that now
comprises the two Vietnams, they were al-
ways obliged to handle them separately, and
the French did likewise during their cen-
tury of colonial rule. One reason for the
governmental instability that has charac-
terized South Vietnam for the past 10 years
is that many of the top posts have gone to
able and aggressive men among the refugees
that came from the north in 1954. No Co-
chinchinese has yet been Prime Minister or
President of South Vietnam. In university
circles and among religious groups-e.g., be-
tween the two main Buddhist reform move-
ments-this same regional tension obtains,
rendering unified action all the more diffi-
cult.
Iv
In a word, a deadlocked peace-one in
which continuing division of the country Is
the only reasonable and perhaps the only
realizable basis for political settlement-is
the true option to a runaway war. But a
separate South Vietnam can be achieved only
it the National Liberation Front participates
In its government. And here lies a formida-
ble obstacle to all negotiations. There have
teen 'indications that the "unconditional"
discussions suggested by President Johnson
might countenance Vietcong representation
in the delegation of North Vietnam. But the
people with whom I talked unanimously de-
clared that this arrangement would never be
accepted by the National Liberation Front,
arguing that the N.L.F. and its Vietcong war-
riors, while quick to utilize Ho Chi Minh's
skilled personnel and his material support,
have no intention of turning over to him
aiid the detested northerners the fruits of
24 years of struggle and suffering. The N.L.F.
will insist on being represented at the con-
ference table in its own right, and a good
share of the cabinet posts in any coalition
government must go to it.
What kind of society would this coalition
government offer the continuing Republic of
South Vietnam? It would have as its base,
ray respondents answered, a planned econ-
omy in which landlords would have a dimin-
ishing,part-a "national socialism" such as
Algeria and other new nations are trying to
establish. But as for foreign policy the
country would be nonalined, on the model
of neighboring Cambodia-swinging toward
China if pushed too hard by the West but
swinging toward the United States and
France if pushed too hard by China. Like
much of the "third world," most South Viet-
namese Who think in geopolitical terms
aspire to national independence, economic
development under a socialist type of gov-
Arnmeri.t and elemental security from hunger
and violence.
v
Could such a small neutralist state remain
independent against new pressures from
North Vietnam and eventually from China?
It is clear that the viability of such-a South
Vietnam could be guaranteed only by the
continuing presence of an international
peacekeeping force. But from all sides I
have heard it affirmed that no whites, be
they American or Swedish, Russian or
French, would be acceptable for this task.
Only an international police force composed
primarily of representatives of the armies of
India, Burma, Indonesia, and the smaller
countries of the area--and quite possibly
Africa as well-would have a chance of being
accepted as essentially different from colonial
powers.
This vision of the future will not please
many Americans, and it may, seem to be an
entirely inadequate reward to many of our
military leaders for all the risks run, mate-
rials consumed, lives lost. But will our Con-
gress reassume its constitutional authority
to control the warmaking machine? Will
our President restore to the State Depart-
ment the role of supreme adviser in the mak-
ing of foreign policy? Will American Chris-
tians and Jews and all other men of good
will have the maturity -and the energy to
compel their Government to choose those
next steps which could lead from the brink
of runaway war to the long, hard pull that--
the best we can hope for-is the deadlock of
a peace in which neither side has victory and
neither is destroyed?
HOWARD SCHOMER.
BIG BROTHER: FEDERAL SNOOPING
Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi-
dent, my Big Brother item for today con-
sists of two unusually good editorials.
One is from the Miami Herald, of July 21,
1965, and the other is from the Times of
Corpus Christi, Tex.
I ask unanimous consent that they 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 Miami Herald, July 21, 1965]
CASE OF FEDERAL SNOOPERY
Some of us who fuss about big government
and bureaucracy often are set down as lowly
beaters of dead horses. But look what big
government and bureaucracy begot in the
Internal Revenue Service.
A Senate subcommittee which has been
looking into charges of invasion of privacy
by revenue agents has uncovered some exam-
ples of unrestrained folly.
Wiretapping is practiced so widely that
there are government schools where agents
are trained in its niceties. A recruit can also
learn how to pick a lock, plant a microphone,
set up a two-way mirror and operate gadgets
that see in the dark.
All of this is not only illegal; it's even for-
bidden by departmental regulations. Thus
these invasions of privacy make a hypocrite
of the law itself, which is perhaps their worst
offense.
Of course, it is all done in a good cause.
Many a hoodlum would have gone tax-free
as well as scot-free but for some kind of
surveillance on which the law frowns. The
temptation is to write off this activity as a
necessary evil in the complicated process of
doing good.
We think, however, that the law ought to
be observed or repealed.
In practice, it is not considered illegal to
tap a wire or bug a room unless conversations
which are picked up are in turn disclosed
officially. Yet evidence of this sort cannot
be used In court.
So the law becomes not merely hypocritical
but inconsistent and thus ridiculous.
Privacy, like water, is ignobly polluted in
the United States today. The Senate hear-
ing may have the effect of cleaning up some
of the sources if a shocked public opinion
becomes the detergent.
[From the Corpus Christi (Tex.) Times,
July 3, 1965]
PRIVACY
Quite a little attention has been focused
lately on invasion of privacy by units of the
Federal Government. The public has been
made aware that thousands of Government
employees are given "lie detector" tests or
psychological tests featuring intimate per-
sonal questions, that the post office pries into
who gets mail from whom, that there is a lot
of authorized and unauthorized listening in
on phone talk in Government offices, and so
on.
Congressional committee probes have
brought most of these disclosures. That is
the first half of a pattern that has emerged.
The second half, more often than not, is a
promise by the offending agency that it will
be less snoopy-less in violation of the basic
American right to privacy-than in the past.
The State Department, for example, has
been reviewing use of psychological tests, and
may modify its practices. Postmaster Gen-
eral Gronouski, after admitting that the so-
called mail covers "do to some degree invade
individual rights," has issued new adminis-
trative rules intended to keep this extralegal
practice under better control.
This is an unsatisfactory way to deal with
a problem that touches closely on a constitu-
tional right we should be zealous to pre-
serve-the right to live our private lives
without Government prying. The pattern of
disclosure followed by promisesto do better
in the future is not adequate. What is
needed is congressional action to reaffirm the
principle of individual privacy, and to keep
the actions of Government agencies firmly in
check.
THE HUNGER EXPLOSION
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, last
week I spoke to the Senate on the danger
of the world's -hunger explosion, and the
urgent need for the United States to do
more in order to save millions from star-
vation and crippling malnutrition. I was
gratified to read, in the Sunday news-
papers, two articles which illuminate
the dimensions of this crisis and discuss
what can be done to cope with it.
In the Washington Post, Jean M.
White gives a graphic picture of the de-
veloping situation in her article, "The
Poor Are Engulfing the Earth."
In the New York Times, an article by
Felix Belair, Jr., gives a detailed discus-
sion of an important new program ;lust
launched by our Agency for International
Development to combat malnutrition in
preschool children in developing nations.
His article is entitled "U.S. Acts To Raise
World Nutrition."
I ask unanimous consent these two
articles be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 1. 1965]
THE POOR ARE ENGULFING THE EARTH; THE
POPULATION EXPLOSION-ACTUALLY, A HOLI-
DAY FOR DEATH-Is OCCURRING WHERE IT'S
LEAST SUPPORTABLE
(By Jean M. White)
In just 35 years-when many of us still
will be around-it is very likely that there
will be twice as many people on earth as
there are today.
The time to do anything about that, if
we had wanted to, was yesterday. The popu-
lation problem is here and now and grows
bigger by at least 11/4 million people each
week.
Population projections used to be inter-
esting mathematical exercises enabling
demographers to predict when a standing-
room-only sign would be posted on a
crammed earth. But today we are finding
that runaway population Is bound up with
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
ington, there is constant need for re-
freshment of the soul in beauty and
harmony.
Such notes were struck on July 26 and
28 with the beginning of a series of out-
door concerts at Washington's National
Cathedral. The "Summer Festival of
Chamber Music," as it is called, began
with a program of trios by Mozart,
Haydn, and Schumann. It will extend,
in the coming weeks, to vocal, choral,
and other Instrumental presentations.
. The scene of the concerts is the Steps
of the Pilgrims, which lead upward to
the south transept of the Cathedral,
where floodlights silhouette the gothic
spires against the darkening blue sky.
The listeners are surrounded by the orna-
mental shrubbery of the Cathedral gar-
dens, where birds accompany the per-
formers from time to time.
In the words of music critic Irving
Lowens of the Evening Star newspaper,
these concerts have been a sensational
success from many points of view. One
indication was the overflow, first-night
audience estimated at between 1,500 to
2,000. Mr. Lowens further observes that
although many cities have long enjoyed
classical music during the summer, this
new venture in Washington should pro-
vide encouragement and an excellent
precedent.
Although the names of those respon-
sible for the festival do not appear on
the program, I understand that it was
conceived and planned by Mr. Richard
Dirksen, who also plays a leading part
as the keyboard artist, in Its execution.
Werner Lywen, the concertmaster of
the National Symphony Orchestra, and
John Martin, its first-chair cellist, head
the list of the other outstanding per=
formers.
Mr. Dirksen, who has been with the
cathedral for the past 20 years as its
associate choirmaster and organist, now
occupies the position of director of ad-
vance program. This office was estab-
lished a year and a half ago for the
purpose of expanding the institution's
ministry by presenting events such as
the festival as free offerings from the
catherdral to the community.
In my judgment, the cathedral and
these individuals have enriched life in
Washington by providing pleasant en-
tertainment in an inspiring setting.
I would thus like the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD to reflect the appreciation of
one member of the Senate District Com-
mittee and undoubtedly many grateful
citizens.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the schedule of future con-
certs, together with reviews from the
Washington Post and Evening Star, be
printed following my remarks:
There being no objection, the schedule
and reviews were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
WASHINGTON CATHEDRAL ANNOUNCES A SUM-
MER FESTIVAL OF CHAMBER MUSIC
Monday, July 26 and Wednesday, July 28:
Trios of Mozart, Haydn, Schumann, and
Mendelssohn; Werner Lywen, John Martin,
Richard Dirksen.
Monday, August 2 and August 9: A cham-
ber chorus, music of Gesualdo, Vecchi, Hinde-
mith, Thomson and Van' Delden; David
Koehring, conducting.
. Wednesday, August 4: A Lieder program,
Diana Beveridge, soprano; Thomas Beveridge,
baritone; Norman Scribner, piano.
Wednesday, August 11: Music for flute and
oboe; Carl Tucker, flute; Ernest Harrison,
oboe; Richard Dirksen, harpsichord.
Sunday, August 15 (in the cathedral) : The
festival chorus; masses of R. Vaughan Wil-
liams and Poulenc, David Koehring, conduct-
ing.
All concerts are free beginning at 8 p.m.
in the amphitheater, south of the pilgrim
steps, and will last about an hour and 15
minutes each.
Each program preceded by a carillon recital
beginning at 7:30 p.m., Ronald Barnes, caril-
lonneur.
Few chairs or benches are available in this
area. A grassy slope is the main provision
for our guests, who are urged to provide their
own campstools, blankets or other "sitzen"
materials. In case of damp ground, recitals
will be in the cathedral.
Parking is extremely limited on the cathe-
dral close. Come early and by Massachusetts
Avenue, Wisconsin Avenue, or Woodley Road
bus if at all possible.
The cathedral will remain open until 10
p.m. on each of these evenings, but no aids
will be on duty. Your quiet postconcert
visit is most cordially invited.
CATHEDRAL CONCERT OFFERING PRAISED
AS "FESTIVAL" EVENT
At last Washington has the makings for a
unique and glorious summer festival of
music. On the basis of last night's first con-
cert of a series this week and next month,
Richard Dirksen's organization of outdoor
musical events on the grounds of Washington
Cathedral should easily grow into something
that would attract visitors from far and wide.
It was by far the most engaging and de-
lightful summer music that has come my
way in Washington for a decade. Dirksen,
Werner Lywen, concertmaster of the National
Symphony, and John Martin, first-chair
cellist of the same joined forces as they have
many times in the past, and brought us trios
of Mozart, Haydn and Schumann.
Aside from the relaxed and gracious music-
making from the players, the cathedral
grounds proved to be spectacular as a setting.
A small platform, backed and angle-roofed,
was open on three sides and placed near the
bottom of the wide steps leading to the newly
completed south entrance to the cathedral.
About 300 chairs were at the foot of the
stairs, not nearly enough to hold the crowd
which brought blankets, chairs, baby car-
riages, books and children to hear the music.
Boxwood, magnolias, dogwood and holly
banked the staircase. As darkness closed in,
the lights in the boxwood, those in the arch-
way of the door above and on the tower
created a scene around the musicians at once
both peaceful and exciting ? ? 0 the sort of
atmosphere best described as majestic.
But for the newness of the edifice it might
well have been the Baths or Basilica of Con-
stantine in Rome, a Cathedral Square concert
in Spoleto, or a concert in the Mirabel Gar-
dens in Salzburg. And it must be said that
had the concert been given with any less
than such perfect planning and care for de-
tails, things would not have been so rare and
so thoroughly enjoyable.
The crowd sat on the lawns for at least
another 50 yards out from the chairs. No
amplification system was used but with the
spell cast by the scene and the music, only
the occasional zoom of a locust (which man-
aged a close rythmic pulse in the second
movement of the Haydn) and a goodnight
chirping of a cardinal interrupted the calm
of listening conditions.
It was a very special evening. The three
musicians, longtime friends and playing part-
ners, were in fine form. They will take the
same spot over again Wednesday night, this
time with other trios of Mozart, Haydn, and
the Mendelssohn D minor. A half hour of
carillon music will be played by Ronald
Barnes before concert time at 8 p.m. See
you there.
[From the Washington ( D.C.) Evening Star,
July 27,1965]
NEWS OF MUSIC: CONCERT AT CATHEDRAL A
SUCCESS IN THREE WAYS
(By Irving Lowens)
NoTE.-Werner Lywen, violin; John Mar-
tin, cello; Richard Dirksen, piano. Outdoor
amphitheater, Washington Cathedral. Pro-
gram: Piano Trio No. 5 in B flat, K 502,
Mozart; Piano Trio No. 16 in D, Haydn; Piano
Trio No. 2 in F, Op. 80, Schumann.
The first of seven free summer chamber
music concerts presented by the Washington
Cathedral in its outdoor amphitheater took
place last night, and from many points of
view, it was a sensational success.
For one thing, there was the size of the
audience. It was a bit difficult to estimate,
since the amphitheater has no chairs or
benches, and people were pretty widely scat-
tered. However, my guess would be some-
where between 1,500 and 2,000, which is
roughly three to four times the capacity of
the Coolidge Auditorium. Not bad for piano
trios.
And those on hand did not come just be-
cause it was a nice evening, although the
weather may have helped to increase the
crowd. They came to listen to Mozart,
Haydn and Schumann. They acted as if
they were at a concert as indeed, they were
and they gave the excellent performers full
attention.
For another thing, there was the loveliness
of the setting. The three musicians played
from a tiny, wood-frame shell perched on
the steps approaching the southern facade
of the Cathedral. As dusk fell and the
shadows deepened, the thrust of the Gothic
spires against the deep blue sky was awe-
inspiring. It would be difficult to think of
a European festival that takes place in a spot
more visually attractive.
It would seem that the potential of a sum-
mer series of outdoor cathedral concerts is
limitless, but it would not be fair to those
who conceived this inspired idea to leave
the impression that perfection has been
achieved at one full swoop.
The one big difficulty at the moment-and
it should not be understimated-is that bug-
aboo of all outdoor music: bad acoustics.
The musicians play from a spot well above
their listeners, and the slope of the grass
from the base of the steps is downward. If
you think about the architecture of all
theaters (indoor and outdoor), you will
recollect that the audience Invariably looks
down upon the performers-that is, the slope
of the seats from the edge of the stage is
upward.
The reason for this was plain yesterday-
sound, like smoke, rises. As a consequence,
what one heard down below was a pale
echo of the three Instruments, lacking both
highs and lows and with middle tones faint
and dull.
Thus, John Martin's cello (even were he
not handicapped, in the Haydn D major
trio, with a line which doubles the piano
more often than not) . was barely audible;
Werner Lywen's violin sounded more like a
cigarbox fiddle than a fine instrument; and
Richard Dirksen's piano reminded me of the
"practice uprights" I used to avoid on cam-
pus in my student days.
This was most unfortunate, because from
the evidence, the Messrs. Lywen, Martin, and
Dirksen were playing extremely well.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
I was following proceedings score in hand,
so I feel confident in saying so. They sim-
ply were not getting through in aural tones.
The program, although featuring familiar
composers, consisted of rather unfamiliar
works. Only some 4 years separated the B
flat Mozart (one of the finest of his eight
piano trios) from the D major Haydn, but
there is a world of difference in the manner
in which the two men handle the combina-
tion. Mozart looks forward to Beethoven;
Haydn looks back to the trio-sonata.
The Schumann F major trio, the least per-
formed of his three is characteristically
romantic and impetuous, while it does tend
to be a little verbose, it contains some re-
markably eloquent pages.
Tomorrow, the Lywen-Martin-Dirksen
combination returns with a completely fresh
program: Mozart in E; Haydn in A; Mendels-
sohn in D minor. At 7:80 p.m., half an
hour before the concert begins, the Cathe-
dral's carilloneur, Ronald Barnes, plays a
short recital.
If the Cathedral's advance program com-
mittee can get. the acoustics straightened
out, Washington will get a present of a
superb outdoor series of fine concerts.
Bring your folding chairs, camp stools, and
blankets; sit in close; applaud loudly. The
least the city's music lovers can do is to
testify to the fact that Washington wants
more than the service bands, the pickup
orchestras, and the Carter Barron lollipops
during the long, long summer.
[From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C.,
Thursday, July 29, 19651
CATHEDRAL TRIO DRAWS THRONG
(By John Haskins)
NOTE.-Werner Lywen, violin; John Mar-
tin, cello; Richard Dirksen, piano. At Wash-
ington Cathedral Amphitheater. Program:
Trio in E, K. 542, Mozart; Trio in A, Hayden;
Trio in D Minor, Op. 29, Mendelssohn.
There may have been as many as six or
seven hundred persons attending the sec-
ond in Washington Cathedral's series of out-
door chamber music concerts last night, but
it was hard to tell. They sat in seats provided
on the cinder roadway below the south en-
trance, they clustered on the dripping steps,
they gathered on soaked slopes, and they
just stood around.
One would have 6 ected the concert to be
moved indoors, but Richard Dirksen listened
to the strong though inaudible vox populi,
and seeing them gathering outside] changed
his mind for the third time and decided to
go ahead with the original schedule of place.
It made trying conditions for everyone, not
least of all the players, but it was cool,
though dank, and the only audience loss dur-
ing the concert was accounted for by cranky
children who had to be removed when dark-
ness fell.
Sound, though not focused, was adequate
for anyone who could take up a position
within a couple hundred feet. In the pecu-
liar acoustical situation, the Mendelssohn
trio came off best, because of its restlessness,
its sweeping romantic character, and because
the cello was kept in its high range most of
the time. A close second was the Haydn, its
natural strength asserting itself through
seoring not so heavy as the Mendelssohn.
There was better ensemble in the Haydn,
also.
Least successful was the Mozart, its pa-
trician grace designed for surroundings more
intimate, its open writing designed to be
undertaken only after rather more rehearsal
than this performance suggested it might
have had,
Two things can be said for chamber music
in what the Cathedral chooses to call an
amphitheater. There is no more magnifi-
cent backdrop in the area for music of any
kind, with the thrusting Gloria in Excelsis
Tower dignifying all that falls within its
shadow. And if hundreds of persons will
gather for chamber music under conditions
far less than adequate, the need is un-
arguable.
Substitute a proper shell for that junky-
looking plywood hut, even located where it
is, and Washington will have something spe-
cial in the way of summer chamber music--
better than MgrJ:ct#t-nRili, Park 25 years ago.
VIETNAM
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I turn
to the subject of the war in Vietnam.
In the course of my remarks, I shall ex-
press some respectful disagreements
with the Senator from .Wisconsin [Mr.
PROXMIRE] in regard to a speech that he
delivered on the floor of the Senate on
July 28, which I did not have the
privilege of hearing because I was en-
gaged in committee work. I have sup-
plied the Senator from Wisconsin with
an advance copy of my remarks this
afternoon.
On July 28, the Senator from Wis-
consin [Mr. PROxMIRE] spoke in the
Senate on the subject of why the United
States has not followed the procedures
of the United Nations Charter in con-
nection with Vietnam. In general ex-
planation of administration action, the
Senator said:
We cannot turn to the U.N. for practical
reasons. Use of the U.N. Assembly and use
of the U.N. Security Council are both blocked.
Yet a few sentences later, the same
Senator said:
The President also said that if the United
Nations can by deed or word bring us nearer
to an honorable peace, it will have Ameri-
can support, and that Ambassador Goldberg
has been directed to tell the United Nations
that we want all resources of the United
Nations used to achieve peace.
I assume the Senator from Wisconsin
was quoting with approval those state-
ments of the President. He is in the
position that so many administration
supporters are in of saying that we can-
not turn to the U.N. but if the President
turns to it, fine. Over the weeks and
months since early 1964, there has been
an amazing chronicle of American policy
spokesmen explaining why one avenue
for action in Vietnam was closed to us,
only to be followed by a turn down of
that very avenue 'within a short time.
This has been true of statements on
escalation of the war, and it has been
true of statements on use of the United
Nations. If we know anything for cer-
tain about the conduct of American
policy in Vietnam, we know that just be-
cause an alternative is rejected today
does not mean it will not be used to-
morrow.
And I know that the vast majority of
those defenders of the administration
will support the administration if it
should place the whole matter before the
U.N., just as they now support the ad-
ministration in not placing the matter
before the U.N. This is the real mean-
ing of the opinion polls which are so
often cited to prove public support of the
policy in Vietnam. They prove that the
Public is still putting its trust in the
President, not that they believe any one
given policy is the best or the soundest.
I do not doubt for a minute that if Am-
bassador Goldberg were to ask for an
immediate meeting of the Security Coum-
cil to consider the threat to the peace in
Vietnam-an action we are duty bound
to take under the terms of the charter-
the American people would continue to
say they have confidence in the handling
of the Vietnam situation by the Presi-
dent.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. What the Senator
is saying, as I understand, is that if in
the judgment of the President the time
appears to be propitious, if the time ap-
pears to be right, if the situation has
changed or has become modified, if under
those circumstances the President pro-
poses to take a different course with
regard to the United Nations, he might
receive the supphrt of many Senators,
including the Senator from Wisconsin.
In reply to the Senatorfrom Oregon,
the position of the Senator from Wis-
consin is that the situation does change.
There are many reasons that might bring
about a change, many of which are with-
in the knowledge of the State Depart-
ment and the President of the United
States, and are not available, at least to
the Senator from Wisconsin. It seems
to the Senator from Wisconsin that, if
the President of the United States wishes
to follow a different course in the future
than he has in the past, that does not
mean that he was wrong in the past.
It does mean that the President of the
United States has information that
might be persuasive. I am not saying
that I give him a blank check because I
do not. But I do say that the President
of the United States, under new or dif-
ferent circumstances, might be' able to
make a case which would convince the
Senator from Wisconsin and other Sen-
ators that his course was correct.
The situation changes. It is very
subtle. Often the changes are behind
the scenes. For perfectly obvious rea-
sons, they might not be available to the
general public. They cannot be. I say
under those circumstances it makes
sense for the President to change his
policy as time goes on. The worst kind
of policy is one which would freeze his
feet in concrete and never permit change.
Mr. MORSE. I should like to say
good-naturedly and out of love and af-
fection that by the same argument it
does not show that the Senator from
Wisconsin was right in the past.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Oh, I agree.
Mr. MORSE. I have been expressing
the point of view for the last 2 years
that the Senator has been dead wrong
for the past 2 years.
Mr. President, I do not doubt for a
minute, either, that the politicians and
the newspapers who are now defending
our refusal to live up to the charter
would be the first to defend our resort
to it if that became the policy of the ad-
ministration.
What we have from the Senator from
Wisconsin and from the Washington
Post, which he quotes, is a defense of
the President. Do either of them mean
to say they would express public opposi-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04 :`'CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
tion to laying Vietnam before the Secur-
ity Council if the President decided to
do it?
Of course not. They would be the first
to explain the advantages of such a move.
The great, basic flaw in the line pre-
sented by the Washington Post and the
Senator from Wisconsin is that they set
up a strawman which they proceed to
knock down. It is nothing but a straw-
man to say that supporters of the United
Nations indicate that going to the U.N.
would put an end to the whole struggle.
I do not know of anyone who has held
out the promise that the United Nations
could or would eliminate the problem of
Vietnam.
The problem would continue to exist,
but it would be considered in a new con-
text and a new forum and not solely in
the context and forum of a confronta-
tion between the United States alone on
one side and Communist powers in Asia
on the other side.
Second, it is a great, and glaring as-
sumption of their presentation that the
United Nations. Charter is no more to us
than it is to Communist powers-a device
.to be used when convenient and ignored
when it is not convenient. The direc-
tives of the charter on what to do when
a threat to the peace occurs are not con-
tingent on whether they are practical
for any particular nation. There are
many times when any constitution is not
practical. But if we are to have a rule
of law either in one nation or among
nations, the procedures designed in the
calm of an international deliberation to
cope with threats to the peace must be
followed.
Fifty years ago, . Americans were
shocked when Kaiser Wilhelm referred
to a treaty obligation of the German Em-
pire as "a scrap of paper." The treaty
was not convenient and not practical for
the needs of the German Empire at that
hour, so that was the end of the treaty.
Today, we have an American policy
that views the United Nations Charter
not as a solemn national obligation but
as impractical and inconvenient. Where
Is our national honor as pledged by our
ratification of the United Nations Char-
ter? Where is our word as a nation that
we will submit to the Security Council
any dispute to which we are a party and
cannot resolve by peaceful means?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I feel certain that
the Senator from Oregon knows that the
Senator from Wisconsin has never been
a rubberstamp for the President of the
United States, who, when he was the
majority leader, had great power in the
Senate. The Senator from Wisconsin
was the first on the floor of the Senate
to attack procedures under which the
Senator from texas was operating, The
Senator from Oregon strongly supported
the Senator from Wisconsin In that posi-
tion. But I took the initiative and criti-
cized the major leader on many issues.
I shall do so in the future now that the
former Senator from Texas Is the
President.
I do not criticize him in this area
because I agree with him. However, I
invite the attention of the Senator
from Oregon to the fact that any nation,
under article 35 of the United Nations
Charter, can bring any dispute or situa-
tion to the attention of the Security
Council or of the General Assembly; yet
they have not done so. Why? Does this
mean that all the.nations of the United
Nations are wrong, and that only the
senior Senator from Oregon, in this par-
ticular case, is right?
Mr. MORSE. Ninety of them receive
our foreign aid.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Oh, yes, they re-
ceive our foreign aid; but a number of
them do not get it. Some of them that
receive our foreign aid have been very
quick to criticize the United States for all
kinds of factions adverse to the United
States. And certainly those 90 nations
are not so corrupt that they would sell
their moral obligation for foreign aid.
No, the time is not ripe. The other
nations in the world know that to bring
this matter before the Security Council
now would not make sense.
First. They know that there is a likely
veto in the Security Council.
Second. They know that the United
Nations Assembly is paralyzed and has
been able to move only on procedural
matters, and barely that, as a matter of
fact, in the past 4. or 5 months. There is
no prospect that the United Nations As-
sembly will be able to take action in the
near future.
It is hopeful that Ambassador Gold-
berg and President Johnson may be able
to change the situation. The situation
may change in the future. I hope and
pray that it will. But the fact that they
have not acted to date has the affirma-
tion and support of the other nations
in the world. Yes, a hundred other na-
tions could bring up the matter. Why
have they not done so?
Mr. MORSE. May I say two or three
things before I proceed with my speech?
Many of the comments of the Senator
from Wisconsin are answered In the
speech.
Many of the nations that are not now
receiving foreign aid have never given up
hope.
I do not charge the Senator from Wis-
consin with being a rubberstamp. He
will not put words either in my mouth
or in my speech. I merely say that I
believe the Senator from Wisconsin has
followed bad judgment and reasoning in
following the President in his unconstitu-
tional and, therefore, illegal war in Asia.
The senior Senator from Oregon does
not intend to follow "the President in
fighting a war, which the President now
admits is a war-he started his admis-
sion last Wednesday-that has not been
declared.
As I said in my reply to the President
last Wednesday, he is conducting an-il-
legal war. He is without the slightest
authority to conduct that war, under
the Constitution. The Members of the
Senate and House who voted to seek to
delegate power to the President to de-
clare war cannot resolve their action un-
der the Constitution, for they have no
right to delegate the power to make war.
All that Congress can do is to declare
war.
18415
The senior Senator from Oregon in-
tends to continue to take the position
he has taken, calling either for a declara-
tion of war or for our stopping the mak-
ing of war and the taking of American
boys to their slaughter in South Viet-
nam.
Many persons are disturbed because I
said last Wednesday-and I repeat it
today-that when life is taken illegally,
those who take it become guilty of homi-
cide. In my judgment, we cannot justify
the homicides for which the President, or
Rusk, or McNamara, or Bundy, or Lodge,
and the rest of them are responsible in
conducting an unconstitutional war in
South Vietnam.
So far as the other nations are con-
cerned, they have the same legal obliga-
tion under the United Nations Charter
as has the United States. Their failure
to have the Security Council convened
does not make our failures to do so
right. Furthermore, the United States
is a major belligerent; we' are a party
to the dispute. Therefore, more provi-
sions of the charter apply to us than to
others, and we have an even greater
moral responsibility to live up to our
obligations under the United Nations
Charter. That is why, for 2 years, I have
been pleading from this desk, and I shall
continue to do so, short of a declaration
of war, to do what I can to get my
country to start living up to its obliga-
tions under the United Nations and to
stop being an outlaw Nation, which we
are so long as we violate our obligations
under the United Nations Charter.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield once more on that
point?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Does it not make
sense that the President of the United
States, before he takes this issue to the
Security Council, should do everything
within his power to create a situation
in which he can obtain affirmative ac-
tion from the Security Council to try
to dissuade Russia, and perhaps France,
from acting adversely toward us? Does
not the Senator from Oregon conceive
that this may take a great deal of time,
and that weeks, perhaps months or even
years may be needed to cause a change
in the situation? There has perhaps
been a change in the attitude of the
Soviet Union recently. This is the kind
of a situation into which the President
would be wrong in blundering at any
time, regardless of the situation. He
must work carefully with the State De-
partment, with his ambassadors, with
those who are talking with the Russians,
people who are competent and have good
judgment concerning the situation.
Should he not permit the new Ambas-
sador to the United Nations to have an
opportunity to observe the situation and
uae his enormous ability in this regard?
It seems to me that to urge the Presi-
dent to act impetuously, without regard
to what the other members of the
United Nations may do, may be techni-
cally correct, according to the words of
the charter; but it seems to me that it
could be a most unwise policy, and not
the way an effective, successful policy
is achieved.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
18416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
The Senator from Oregon recalls, I
feel certain, how effective the former
Senator from Texas was as majority
leader. He was very careful, before he
moved, to make certain that he had his
"ducks in a row." He worked for a
consensus. He made sure that all his
bases were touched. All this takes time;
it cannot be done immediately. Not
only does it take time, but-and I feel
sure the Senator from Oregon will dis-
agree-it takes a display of power and
takes a demonstration of our resolution
to act militarily. These are the ingre-
dients that must be woven into the
fabric.
Does the Senator from Oregon really
believe that the President, should be re-
quired to, act impulsively, suddenly, or
automatically?
Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Wis-
consin has asked me a question; I shall
be glad to answer it. The question is:
Do I, in essence think it makes sense
for the President to follow the course of
action he has been following in South
Vietnam?
My answer is: No. I have seen no
sense in the President's course of con-
duct in Vietnam. To the contrary, I have
seen the President write one of the most
sorry, sordid pages or chapters in Amer-
ican history by his course of conduct in
Vietnam.
"Time," pleads the Senator from Wis-
consin. During that period of time, boy
after boy has been taken to his slaughter
in the escalated war in South Vietnam.
If it is time the President' has needed in
order to take this matter to the United
Nations Security Council, he should
have stopped killing boys in South Viet-
nam. By escalating the, war, he has
been clearly in violation of all his powers
as President of the United States.
The course of conduct that the Presi-
dent has followed in South Vietnam is
completely unjustified with regard to,
his violations, in my judgment, of one in-
ternational law obligation after another.
It would not have taken any time to
live up to the treaty. If we have pledged
ourselves to obligations under the treaty,
then we have no right to continue for
months and months to violate that
treaty on the basis of the rationalization
that time is needed to get "ducks in a
row"; that, time is needed to get the
matter before the United Nations Secu-
rity Council. No time was needed other
than to lay the matter before the Secu-
rity Council and tell it that we were
willing to support the Council's taking
jurisdiction.
I know what is going on, in part, in
regard to this position. The President
is aware of 'a rising opposition to him
at the grassroots of America for his fail-
ure to take the problem to the United
Nations.
Now he is talking, in his press confer-
ence of last Wednesday, about sending
Ambassador Goldberg to the United Na-
tions with a letter to U Thant. That is
merely a lot of semantics. He should
have sent the Ambassador to the United
Nations with a resolution in behalf of
the United States, and Instructed the
Ambassador to lay the matter before the
Security Council, That is what the
President needs to do.
There wl be plenty of time after we
get that resolution formally before the
Security Council, for all the negotia-
tions alluded to by the Senator from
Wisconsin. There will be plent of time
to consider, as I shall say later in my
prepared manuscript later this afternon,
for the negotiations and discussions to
Some other nations may then come
forward with different proposals, and
out of the various offerings, I believe
they will hammer, pout a final resolution
that I pray to God will result in the
United Nations taking jurisdiction in
South Vietnam and ordering a cease-fire
and bringing about the steps that I sin-
cerely hope will bring this affair to an
end.
I yield now to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. President, does
not the Senator also overlook the fact
that, as the President said in his speech
on July 28, that on 15 occasions, working
through 40 nations, we have sought to
negotiate with the North Vietnamese,
with the Communists? We have tried
again and again, We have agreed to
negotiate any time, anywhere, with
anyone.
We are still persisting in that en-
deavor. As the President said, we are
asking that all of the resources of the
United Nations be used in this endeavor.
The President may have decided that it
would be Ineffective and impractical at
the present time to go to the Security
Council. That decision is concurred in
unanimously by every member of the
United Nations. Any nation could go
to the Security Council. However, none
of them do.
It would seem to me that it is wrong
to say that the President has not taken
such action as he could in an effort to
try to bring an end to this tragic situa-
tion and try to negotiate.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, my re-
ply to the Senator from Wisconsin is
that every so-called semantic offering of
the President of the United States is
accompanied by other language which
rebuts his offer. All that the President
has ever had to do with to send up a
formal resolution and lay the matter be-
fore the United Nations Security Coun-
cil in accordance with the procedures of
the United Nations Charter.
Starting with the President's speech at
Johns Hopkins, every public professing
that he has made and all the peaceful
overtures concerning Vietnam have been
made while, at the same. time, he has
been killing, as a result of his orders, boy
after boy, and thousands of civilian peo-
ple in South Vietnam. He has attached
to every one of his semantic offers, terms,
conditions, and qualifications that made
any hope of a United Nations jurisdic-
tion fly out the window.
The only way in which we can lay this
matter, under the law, before the United
Nations would be to submit a resolution.
That is what I have been pleading for
for 2 years. I do not intend to haveany
of the verbalism of the President of the
United States fool me as to the fact that
we have not formally and officially and
in keeping with our obligations presented
this matter to the United Nations.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Oregon completely overlooks the fact
that, while the President of the United
States has again and again sought nego-
tiations, he has most recently said that
we will discuss the situation in Vietnam
even on the conditions which have been
implied or suggested by Hanoi-on their
own conditions. Not a single time have
the North Vietnamese or the Chinese
Communists agreed to negotiate on any
conditions, anywhere with us or anyone
else. Their answer has been "No, No,
No".
It would seem to me, under these cir-
cumstances, that the President of the
United States is not killing boys out
there, and the Senator from Oregon
knows it. We should recognize the fact
that we are there at the request of the
South Vietnamese Government, to help
defend against Communist aggression.
The North Vietnamese are doing the
killing. They are engaged in aggres-
sion. We are trying our best to defend
the people of South Vietnam, and to
negotiate.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, they are
killing under the invitation of a group
of puppet corruptionists, crooked polit-
ical tyrants financed by the United
States. That is the sordid chapter of
the history that we are writing.
I cannot imagine a greater non sequi-
tur policy than the position of our Gov-
ernment that we are there at the invita-
tion of the South Vietnamese Govern-
ment. That is a group that we have
set up. That is what history will re-
cord.
I love the Senator from Wisconsin.
However, he and I could not be further
apart then we are in respect to this great
public issue. We are as far apart as
opposites can be.
Mr. President, I shall go back and re-
peat a couple of paragraphs of my text,
because I believe they should be empha-
sized.
Today we have an American policy
that views the United Nations Charter
not as a solemn national obligation, but
as impractical and inconvenient. Where
is our national honor as pledged by our
ratification of the U.N. Charter? Where
is our word as a Nation that we will sub-
mit to the Security Council any dispute
to which we are a party and cannot re-
solve by peaceful means?
It is the policy of ignoring those obli-
gations that is destroying the good word
and the international honor of the
United States.
We are not obliged to find out first
what the U.N. may do in Vietnam. We
are not obliged to find out whether the
interests of the United States will be ad-
vanced in Vietnam by the United
Nations. We are simply obliged to lay
the issue before the U.N. That we have
not done, and it is not being done by the
various letters between U Thant and the
American administration.
The only letter to U Thant that will
fulfill our treaty obligation is a letter
asking him to lay the Vietnam issue be-
fore the Security Council. It can be do ce
that way. The Korean aggression was
done that way. Once it was made the
business of the Security Council, t tie
United States had something to say
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/1
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL
about what action the Security Council
should take in Vietnam.
There are many possible courses for
the U.N. to follpw. It could ask for a
reconvening of the Geneva Conference
of 1954. I have been asking for it for 2
years. It could ask for the jurisdiction
to be taken by the SEATO nations. I
have asked for that course to be followed
for 2 years. It could ask the belligerents,
including the Vietcong, to meet in con-
-ference. It, could prescribe some precon-
ditions or not. There is a great variety
of courses open to the U.N. But most of
them are not open to the United States
acting alone. We are the sole belliger-
ent, for all practical purposes, on our
side. The Government of South Viet-
nam is our creature, and it rises or falls
according to the support it receives from
the U.S. Treasury. The men who run
it live off American economic and mili-
tary aid, without which they would all
disappear from view. As President
Johnson well knows, it is often not pos-
sible for one element in, a conflict to
impose its will on its opponent. Settle-
ment more often. comes by the work of a
third party who is able to arrange and
negotiate and suggest alternatives and
exert a third party opinion upon both
sides.
That is what the United Nations is
supposed to do. That is why disputes
that the parties cannot settle themselves
are supposed to be put before the Secu-
rity Council. Do we set up the United
States above the interests of world
peace? Do we believe that we have some
security interest in Vietnam' so vital to
our- national existence that the_ machin-
ery mankind devised at the end of World
War II to save future generations from
the scourge of war deserves to be
s, uttled?
Speaking on television Sunday, the
Nation heard the most respected figure
in American military affairs, the senior
Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL],
point out that we have no vital American
security interest at stake in Vietnam.
That is a contention that many of us
have been making here in the Senate for
a long time. It is not a popular theme
down at the Pentagon, but the Senator
from Georgia knows it to be true, none-
theless, and I am satisfied that the great
bulk of the American people, also, know
It to be true.
What we are scorning the United Na-
tions Charter for is not a vital strategic
interest of the United States. We are
'scorning it because we think we have to
save face. We are scorning it because
we believe that once we have put our
American stamp upon a government in
Saigon, we must send as much money
and as many American boys as may be
necessary to keep it going. We have al-
ready shifted our policy from one of
helping the Vietnamese to save them-
selves to one of doing the job for them.
What President Kennedy called a war the
South Vietnamese must win for them-
selves is now` overtly transformed into
a war the United States must win for
itself. And President Johnson's , warn-
ing of last summer that we must not
send American boys to do what Asians
must do for themselves is repudiated by
RECORD - SENATE
his own announcements of 125,000 troops
to be sent to Vietnam.
We think we are saving face in Viet-
nam, but surely we are not saving free-
dom. Again, as the Senator from Geor-
gia stated to the Nation, the people of
South, as well as North, Vietnam would
probably elect a government headed by
Ho Chi-minh if given a chance. He
pointed to another obvious but unpopu-
lar truth, which is that no leadership has
developed in South Vietnam despite our
10 years of massive financial and mili-
tary support and that the United States
,is better off out of such a country than
to continue to fight with its own people
for its existence.
I note the Secretary of State felt
obliged to deny the conclusion of the
Senator from Georgia about sentiment
among the people of South Vietnam. No
doubt he feels all that money we have
spent there must have produced at least
some favorable result.
Let me say f or the RECORD that I would
rather have the opinion of the Senator
from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELLI on the situ-
ation in South Vietnam than that of 10
Rusks, 10 McNamara's, 10 Bundy's, 10
Lodge's, 10 of each of those responsible
for the blueprint who have gotten us
into this shocking, embarrassing situa-
tion in southeast Asia.
Why not hold the election and find
out?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Come on, Senator,
does the Senator agree-really feel-that
North Vietnam, a police state, will per-
mit an unrigged vote or even could?
North Vietnam is completely dominated
and controlled by the Communist Party.
The people of North Vietnam have avail-
able to them only such information as
the government wants them to have.
They see the world strictly through
Communist eyes.
There are more people in North Viet-
nam than in South Vietnam. We know
that there are Communists in South
Vietnam who might vote for Ho Chi-
minh. And under present circumstances
North Vietnam would vote as they do in
Russia and China-unanimously. Would
not the kind of election the Senator from
.Oregon is proposing result in a sure,
predictable, grossly rigged takeover in
South Vietnam by the Communist Party?
Would this not result in virtually un-
precedented genocide and destruction of
the people of South Vietnam?
Mr. MORSE. I shall reply briefly now,
and at greater length later. There are
so many false premises in that list of
pretty interesting premises laid down in
the question of the Senator from Wis-
consin that I must reply briefly to a few
of them. The Senator from Oregon says
North Vietnam is a different kind of
Communist country from. Red China or
Red Russia, The Senator from Wiscon-
. sin is talking about communism, as so
many people do, in blanket terms. The
type of appeals to the inhabitants of
North Vietnam, the type of municipal
governments they are allowed to operate
in many of the towns and cities of North
.Vietnam, would lead me to characterize
1 /04 .: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
that part of the regime more as approx-
imating a Socialist government than
Chinese or Russian communism. Ho
Chi-minh, who was, not long ago, a hero,
is a paradox of contradictions and po-
litical ideologies. He has a surprising
amount of procedures within his gov-
ernment that the Senator and I would
call democratic procedures. But the fact
remains that North Vietnam is a Com-
munist country, and I despise it, as I de-
spise all forms of communism. But I am
not going to be a party along with the
Senator from Wisconsin in agreeing to a
blanket characterization of North Viet-
nam as a Communist state, leaving the
implication that it is the same as other
Communist states.
Next, the Senator from Oregon has not
been talking about North Vietnam under
a trusteeship and protectorate. I have
been speaking for the right of the people
of South Vietnam to determine their
government. The Geneva accords did
not set up a government in South Viet-
nam. The United States did that, in
clear and open violation of the Geneva
accords of 1954.
The record is also clear that there has
been little more political freedom in
South Vietnam than in the North.
Candidates for office are as carefully
screened there as in the Communist
zone.
I have always pleaded, and will plead
again, to set the record straight, for a
supervised election in both zones under
which the people would have the right of
self-determination, under the doctrine,
which we profess but of which we have
become notably in violation. I would
give to the people of South Vietnam the
right of self-determination. But-and
this is what the Senator from Georgia
was talking about-if we went to an
election in South Vietnam, either Ho
Chi-minh or his candidates would win in
South Vietnam. That is what has re-
sulted from the deterioration of Ameri-
can policy in South Vietnam.
That is why I say I completely dis-
count any appraisal of the Secretary of
State. The Secretary of State, the Sec-
retary of Defense, Bundy, Lodge, and
Taylor, have been dead wrong on 'each
of their representations on Vietnam
that I do not find them to be reliable wit-
nesses at all with respect to South Viet-
nam.
If the Senator will bear with me a
while longer, he will find in my speech
that I shall again propose a United Na-
tions protectorate of South Vietnam.
That does not mean that we would have
North Vietnam rule South Vietnam.
That does not mean we would have
what the Senator from Wisconsin is
alluding to, a so-called blood bath in
South Vietnam. As the Senator from
Wisconsin knows, the Senator from
Oregon would always insist on a pro-
cedure that does not let the Vietcong kill
South Vietnamese in a blood bath or
that does not let the South Vietnamese
kill the Vietcong in a blood bath. But
when it comes to methods and cruelties
and terrorism in South Vietnam, the
South Vietnamese are no different from
the Vietcong.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18418
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE August 3, 1961i
Both sides have been in violation of
the Geneva treaty in connection with
handling of war prisoners. The other
day, as I announced on the floor last
Wednesday, at long last the Inter-
national Red Cross has found it neces-
sary to take cognizance of man's inhu-
manity to man there by both the Viet-
cong and the South Vietnamese.
There must be a protectorate there.
I have also called it a trusteeship, I do
not care what label is used._. But it must
be a third party trusteeship, just as
Franklin Roosevelt, 20 years ago at
Teheran and Cairo, proposed for all
Indochina.
But now we have the trouble spot in
South Vietnam. At the very least now,
we should move in, through a concert
of nations, to change the situation in
South Vietnam, from one of warmaking
to one of enforcing the peace.
I do not know what the United Nations
may decide, but I am willing to talk with
the Senator from Wisconsin about some
hypothetical questions. I would not be
in the least surprised if the United Na-
tions decided to take jurisdiction either
under the Security Council or through
the General Assembly, and then to set
up a protectorate, and that their first
demand would be for a ceasefire.
I would pray for that. I would also
pray for bringing the killing to an end
on an sides, and to send in whatever
number of divisions of many nations
Would be,necessary-as I say later in my
sp eeh-to enforce that ceasefire.
Ili' anyone believes that a ceaseflre will
end the shooting 100 percent, he could
not be more wrong. It did not do so in
the Congo. It has not done so in the
Gaza Strip. It has not, done so in Cy-
prus, It has not done so in the Kashmir.
But, It ismt~ch better than a full-fledged
aar, and offers a much better hope for
;mankind to lead itself into the path
of peace rather than to complete
destruction.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr... MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Of course, we all
wish for a ceasefire, and we all wish to
stop the killing. The question I asked
-the Senator from Oregon, however, was
in response to his question, "Why not
hold elections and find out?" He is
talking, about Vietnamwide elections, is
he not?
Mr. MORSE. Elections in both South
Vietnam and North Vietnam. There is
no question about what North Vietnam
would do. Let me say respectfully to the
Senator from Wisconsin that I believe
we are 10 years away from an election.
We must have a protectorate for 10 years
before we can have an election on uni-
fication. That is the United States do-
ing, back in 1956.
Mr. PROXTVIIRE. I am talking about
what the Senator is proposing, a Viet-
namwide national election. In that kind
of election--
Mr. MORSE. The Senator is wrong.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Ho Chi-minh, of
course, would have a big advantage.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator is wrong.
I am proposing an election In North Viet-
nam, and I am proposing one in South
Vietnam; but I am also saying that Ho
Chi-minh would win in South Vietnam
probably with 80 to 9o percent of the
votes. Once we get out of Saigon, sup-
port for the puppet administration which
the United States Is financing vanishes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator says
and I read word for word from the text
of his prepared speech:
Ho Chi-mink's followers or General Ky's
followers would win a nationwide election
throughout all of Vietnam.
Perhaps the Senator does not mean
what he says, but his statement certainly
is clear to me. It means a nationwide
election between the followers of the
present government in South Vietnam
and followers of the government in North
Vietnam. If it does not mean that, it does
not mean anything.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Wis-
consin refuses to take into account that
back of it is the United Nations' protec-
torate. The United States must find out
what the feeling is in South Vietnam,
and what the feeling is in North Viet-
nam in regard to support for certain
parties, if any; and, of course, they
should find out what the support and
feeling is in regard to unification at the
present time. But, that is not going to
create unification at the present time.
If we have a protectorate, the protec-
torate is not going to vanish. In my
judgment,. we must have a United Na-
tions protectoratein Vietnam for prob-
ably up to 10 years in this particular
trouble spot of the world.
Mr. President, if the Geneva Agree-
ment of 1954 is now good enough for us,
why not permit the canceled election to
proceed? There is nothing to be proved
by arguing in the United States whether
Ho Chi Minh's followers or General Ky's
followers would win a nationwide elec-
tion throughout all of Vietnam. Only
the people in Vietnam can settle that
question. The Geneva Accord states
that such an election was to have been
held in 1956 under the supervision of the
International Control Commission.
Discussions were to have taken place be-
tween officials of the North and South to
settle the details of time and place of
voting.
It was at that point that the United
States and South Vietnam junked the
Geneva Agreement because we were
afraid of what the outcome of the elec-
tion might be.
But now President Johnson is talking
again of the possibility of nationwide
elections there. Let us go ahead with
them. At least we would uphold the ele-
ment of our national honor which pro-
fesses great confidence and belief in
self-determination.
An election of this kind, too, is some-
thing that might be better advanced
through the United Nations than by the
United States speaking alone.
Finally, I note that the Washington
Post editorial, and the Senator from Wis-
consin in referring to it, regard the po-
tential veto of the Soviet Union as the
total obstacle to U.N. action. Of course,
the possibility of a veto has no bearing
whatever upon the procedures that are
mandatory under the terms of the char-
ter. To talk about a possible veto as a
reason for not going to the Security
Council is not to talk about a reason, but
an excuse. Guesses as to what the Soviet
Union might do are nought but excuses
for not fulfilling our legal duties.
But how do we know what the Soviet
Union will veto? We have not put any
course of action for Vietnam before the
Council. Probably there are many po-
tential U.N. actions that the Soviet Unio.-i
would veto. Probably there are some
that France and China would veto, too.
But until we make a suggestion for U.N.
action, we have not the slightest idea
what Russia might veto. And it is also
entirely possible that the Soviet Unio i
might make a proposal that would prove
workable.
The Soviet Union did not veto the
Cyprus peace mission. We tried to keep
Cyprus out of the United Nations, too,
because we wanted to handle it through
NATO, and we used the excuse that if :.t
went to the Security Council, Russia
would veto it. But the Cyprus issue was
put before the Security Council, anyway,
and the peace mission was sent without
a Soviet veto.
I have no way of knowing whether the
Soviet position would be the same cr
different on Vietnam; but neither do
those who wave the flag of a Soviet veto
as an excuse for not going to the United
Nations.
I would also point out that they ale
already giving not only the Soviet Union,
but North Vietnam a veto over U.N.
action. We read again today that
Hanoi has ruled out any United Na-
tions intervention until the American
troops have left. Why should Hanoi be
given great power status at the United
Nations? Why do we give her an equal
weight in the Security Council with the
other five great powers? Yet we do it
every time we point to Hanoi's objections
to U.N. action as a reason for not taking
action through the United Nations. It s
not for North Vietnam to say what action
the United Nations may or may not
take in cases of a threat to interna-
tional peace, any more than It was
North Korea's. North Korea was
not a member of the United Nations.
We did not give North Korea a veto
power. We laid it before the United Na-
tions Security Council and the United
Nations took jurisdiction.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield at that
point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. T i -
DINGS in the chair). Does the Senator
from Oregon yield to the Senator from
Wisconsin?
Mr. MORSE. I am glad to yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Oregon knows very well what happened
in the Korean situation, that the Soviet
Union was boycotting the Security Cour..-
oil. It was not present and, therefore,
could not physically exercise its veto.
This was a fortuitous happening from
our standpoint. That is not the situation
today. I doubt whether the Soviet Union
will be caught napping again, certainly
not in the South Vietnamese situation.
Mr. MORSE. The Soviet Union was
not caught napping in North Korea, in
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
my judgment. She found it a convenient
way for sending the problem to the Secu-
rity Council, but she stayed for Cyprus.
In thinking about the Cyprus situation,
.the United States had to get kicked back
into the United Nations on Cyprus.
France and Russia were the leaders in
support of Security Council action in
Cyprus.
That is a good precedent to wrap
around Russia's neck in any debate in
the Security Council, over the matter of
jurisdiction in connection with th.e crisis
in South Vietnam.
Let me say to the Senator from Wis-
consin that we do not know until we try.
This is the argument which the Secre-
tary of State has been advancing for
almost 2 years, before the Committee on
Foreign Relations; and I keep saying to
him :
W. Secretary, why do you not find out?
Why do you stop reading the charter? Go
ahead and read the rest of the charter; and
if Russia does veto it, you have proved to
the world by that veto who it is that does not
wish to follow the rules of law for settling
the threat to the peace of the world. Take
them to the General Assembly, and I will tell
you how many I believe'you would get there-
a minimum of 90.
Mr. PROXMIRE. This is exactly what
the Senator from Oregon and I disagree
on.
Mr. MORSE. Try it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It seems to me that
we cannot determine foreign policy on
the floor of the Senate. It seems to me
that-
Mr. MORSE. We certainly could not
do a worse job than the one which is now
being done in the State Department.
Mr. Pf OXMIRE. it seems to me, that
without very careful preparation with
Russia, without knowing precisely what
Russia is likely to do, it would be an ex-
ercise in futility, or worse-it could
mean premature repudiation. . That
could forestall constructive agreements
later.
There may come a propitious time,
and it is very important that that time
be prepared for with the greatest care.
Russia might very well absent herself
under the right kind of circumstances,
but it is very important that they be
fully prepared in advance. This 'must
be done in a way so that it will work.
It is not wise that we move in merely
because we can do so under the charter,
technically. That does not make any
sense to me. That is exercising the most
futile kind of diplomacy.
Mr. MORSE. It may not make any
sense to the Senator from Wisconsin,
but it was right in 1954. That is how
long it has been right. The argument
is made that. we must have more time to
put our ducks in a line. That is what
the Senator argues. It is argued that
we must have more time to get ready
to see what Russia will do.
I do not believe in that kind of secret
diplomacy. The American people are
entitled to have the President and the
Secretary of State out in the open, with
open covenants openly arrived at. In
regard to the war in South Vietnam,
they are entitled to have the President
and the? Secretary' of State take them
into their confidence. They are entitled
to have their President and their Sec-
retary of State follow the clear proce-
dures of the United Nations Charter, and
to file a resolution, or to use one of the
alternatives.
At the request of the President I have
worked hard on the international law
aspects, to give him a memorandum
which would provide for an alternative
resolution.
I do not quote the President, but his
advisers have found no fault with the
legal analysis of the Senator from Ore-
gon. We get from them the argument
that the Senator from Wisconsin has
made, that they doubt that it is prac-
tical. Of course, my good-natured reply
is, "Why not find out?" If it is npt prac-
tical, let us find out.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Oregon, who is an extremely experienced
man in these matters, and who has been
a member of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee for many years, knows perfectly
well that we cannot discuss all these
matters publicly. He knows that it
might be extremely embarrassing to Rus-
sia because of her relationship with
China and North Vietnam. That would
be true under certain circumstances. He
knows that these things must be dis-
cussed privately; otherwise there would
be very little chance of success.
The Senator from Wisconsin takes the
position that that time may never arrive.
On the other hand, the time may come.
Mr. MORSE. I fear that that is the
Senator's position.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The time may
never come. If it does not come, the
President would have been mistaken to
go to the Security Council. He might
suffer an action that might be extremely
adverse to our interest and the interest
of freedom and, in the long run, adverse
to the interest of peace. There may be
other ways of achieving this than by
relying on the Security Council or of the
General Assembly, that could be prej-
udiced by such an action.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Sena-
tor has outlined the difference of opin-
ion that he has with me.
It is not possible to have a rule of law
on the basis of responding as an outlaw
to one's responsibility as a signatory to
a treaty. That is where the Senator
from Wisconsin and I part company.
I believe that we have an obligation
to take these matters to the United. Na-
tions. I disassociate myself from what I
consider to be the implication of the
Senator from Wisconsin, that he thinks it
is perfectly all right for our Government
to engage in so-called secret diplomacy.
That can mean the difference between
life and death for millions of Americans.
We cannot even gain access to it, as the
elected representatives of the people in
Congress. They tell us what they want
to tell us, and no more. I am a great
advocate of _ Woodrow Wilson's policies,
one of which was open covenants, openly
arrived at; and also of Woodrow Wilson's
concept as to the constitutional duties
of a President of the United States. He
enunciated that principle in Congress in
the historic joint session of Congress on
the night of April 2, 1917, when he
pointed out to Congress that it was his
constitutional duty to come to a joint
session of Congress and make a recom-
mendation for a declaration of war, and
that he was without constitutional au-
thority to make war in the absence of
a declaration of war.
I thought, as an old teacher, that it
might be helpful for the record to get
that lesson from Woodrow Wilson into
the RECORD, which I did last Wednesday,
for the edification of my President.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is tak-
ing the position that the United States
is wrong, and he has previously said that
our hands are dripping with blood. He
says that although 'the President of the
United States has said again and again
that he wants to negotiate, has indicated
that he is willing to go along with the
17 so-called neutral nations, and has
turned to the United Nations, for ex-
ample, by asking the Secretary General
to use his office for intervening, and so
forth.
Despite all that, the Senator from
Oregon now says that he is going to give
the United States no choice, but that we
must act at once, that we must move into
the Security Council, without any pre-
paratory action at all; that we must act
at once, and that we alone among all
nations must conduct our negotiations
in public, in the headlines, in front of
the world. I submit that the Senator
from Oregon is really handcuffing our
Government, and suggesting rules of
procedure that the Communists do not
care about.
There are moral forces, of course, of
which we must be aware, and we must do
all we can to play by the rules. How-
ever, this world is not a Sunday school.
We must do our best and recognize that
we must act with all the moral means
that we can find, and always with moral
ends. However, at the same time, it is
proper, it seems to me, to operate dis-
creetly and try to persuade nations to
come around to our view quietly and pri-
vately in a way which would do the most
good.
Also, we must time our action in ac-
cordance with our best judgment as to
what action can best secure peace. This
Nation wants peace. The Senator from
Oregon has never said that this Nation
wants to get any territorial benefit out
of the the war in Vietnam, or that we
want to get any economic benefit out of
Vietnam.
In that sense the Senator from Oregon
would agree that our hands are clean,
and that all we want is peace.
What we disagree on is the tactics.
I say that we should give our country
an opportunity to work with weapons
which will enable us to win the peace.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I disagree
with the Senator not only on tactics, but
also on the fundamental and basic policy
of our country in Vietnam.
Let me make these comments on the
verbalistic and semantic offerings of the
President of the United States. I dis-
agree. In each one he has a sleeper
clause and terms and conditions that
make impossible his professings of his
-desire for peace, and make impossible
getting the results that he would like to
have the people think he is seeking.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18420
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
The Senator has heard me say many
times that I do not pay much attention
to what politicians say, unless what they
say can be squared with their actions.
So the President has caused me to
come to the conclusion that until he is
willing to keep our Nation's trust under
the United Nations Charter by filing a
resolution calling for United Nations ac-
tion, it does not make much difference
what he says.
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
PROXMIRE] again talks about time. We
must have time.
We have had time since 1954. We
have been a wrongdoer since 1954. We
have had all the time many, manifold,
than any nation should need if it really
wants to correct a wrong course of action.
- The Senator talks about our ob-
jectives in South Vietnam. I will state to
the Senator from Wisconsin that in the
opinion of the senior Senator from Ore-
gon they are not as lilywhite as he would
have us believe from his rhetorical ques-
tions.
The Senator has also heard me say
many times on the floor of the Senate
that I am satisfied that the major top
polcymakers in the Pentagon are aiming
at preventive war against China. That
is- what they are after. The President
should call them off-and quickly.
The Senator from Wisconsin has
heard me say many times during the
past 2 years since that the first demon-
stration of nuclear power on the part of
Red China that we have those in the
Pentagon who wish to bomb those
Chinese nuclear installations. The Sen-
ator has heard me say that when we do
I am satisfied that Red China will come
in. They have no alternative. The Sen-
ator has heard me say that I am satis-
fled that Red Russia will come in, and
when Red Russia comes in they will
not pick China as the battlefield for her
war.
The great danger is that the President
of the United States and his advisers
are leading the United States to the
brink of total war. The American
people had better recognize it before
it is too late.
Mr. President, I do not like to find
myself in such complete disagreement
with my friend the Senator from Wis-
consin, or with my President, but I feel
that I have a solemn trust to continue
to do what I can do to change the course
of action of the United States from one
of warmaking, which is unconscionable
and illegal, to one of peacekeeping, which
would accrue to the everlasting historic
credit of this generation.
I do not believe the United states
should continue to allow its projections
of the views of others guide our policy
at the United Nations. Our treaty obli-
gations are a far more binding guide
than the views of North Vietnam, or even
the potential veto of the Soviet Union.
I think the objectors to U.N. action
also ignore the interest Russia itself has
in confining the Vietnam war. A peace
mission, sent to Vietnam to keep the
peace, could be as useful to the Soviet
Union as to the rest of the world. A
peace mission to' Vietnam would have
much the same role as it has had in the
Middle East, in the Congo, and in Cyprus.
Its function would be to pacify; but if it
were attacked or its peacekeeping opera-
tions threatened by any party, it would
shoot back. That should be its function
in South Vietnam. If such a mission
could be established, it would be a great
improvement over the current "pacifica-
tion" whereby American troops are going
to fight the Vietcong while the South
Vietnamese forces try to establish gov-
ernment control behind the lines.
That kind of operation, which is the
arrangement advocated by General Ky,
only means that Americans will bear the
brunt of the fighting, kill the villagers
along with the Vietcong, bring in our B-
52 heavy bombers for their indis-
criminate support value, and provide an
umbrella for General Ky and his feeble
army to establish themselves in the rear.
Do the Senator from Wisconsin and
the Washington Post want to call that
kind of war preferable to a United Na-
tions mission? I do not doubt that
deaths will occur even among a peace-
keeping operation. They occurred in
the Congo. But there was a vast differ-
ence between the rebels in the Congo
fighting the United Nations and rebels in
the Congo fighting American troops sent
in to prop up a government of our own
choosing.
The plain fact is that South Vietnam is
in no better condition to govern itself
than was the Congo. It has many more
elements of leadership that could de-
velop into a meaningful government; but
at the present time, it cannot furnish a
government and it has not furnished one
out of its own resources for 10 years.
South Vietnam should be a United Na-
tions protectorate. It should be policed
by a United Nations force to. maintain
peace and order until such time as a re-
unification election can be held or some
other political disposition made of its
future.
I am not impressed by any of the ex-
cuses that have been offered by the ad-
ministration, by the press, or on the
Senate floor for the continued flouting
of the United Nations Charter. I find
it a shocking and appalling situation
when the United States of America an-
nounces itself embarked on a war in
which we have undergone no attack
whatever, a war 8,000 miles from our own
shores, and in which American security
interests are not at stake, without so
much as a nod at the United Nations
Charter. What a travesty upon the ef-
forts of those who believed an Atlantic
Charter and a United Nations was an
essential political objective of World War
II. What a repudiation of the principles
we have preached for 20 years. What a
deplorable precedent we are setting for
the other nations of the world, whom we
constantly implore to follow our example.
Sukarno's Indonesia left the United
Nations when it found the organization
no longer served Its international pur-
poses. The Soviet Union has stalked
out from time to time when displeased
by U.N. actions. But the United States
merely calls it impractical and engages
In war without reference to its charter.
Is it possible that the American people
are prepared to see their Government
continue to escalate such a war without
ever demanding that we live up to the
U.N. Charter? Is it possible that our
people will support an American war in
Asia that is prosecuted by us just as
though the United Nations was never
created? I find that there is an increas-
ing outcry among our population that we
have pushed the Vietnam war far enough,
and that it is time to live up to some of
the international obligations we under-
took 20 years ago in order to control fu-
ture wars.
I ask unanimous consent to have!
printed at the conclusion of these re-
marks correspondence I have received in
just the last week on this subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
CONGRESS MUST REMAIN IN SESSION
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in my
trip across the country and back since
I spoke on the floor of the Senate lass
Wednesday, I have been alarmed by the
rising denunciation of the President
and his administration for their Viet-
nam policy. I have heard the word "im -
peach" used more often in the last week
than I have heard it since President Tru-
man sacked General MacArthur. I have
been asked by more people than I would
have thought possible if there is not
grounds for impeachment of the Presi-
dent, and how the process can be set in
motion. I have been advised about pe-
titions that have been circulated and
hundreds of people are signing asking
for the President's impeachment.
Much of this talk stems from objec-
tions to a war being undertaken without
congressional declaration. Most of these
people see the President as waging an
executive war in violation of the Consti-
tution. They think the impeachment
clauses of the Constitution must apply
to such a case.
I do not think that those of us who
want this administration to succeed in
its objectives of peace and prosperity
should be thinking of going home when
it is coming under such fire as that. The
President and his administration are
going to need all the help and advice
they can get from Congress on Vietnam
this fall. It is time they gave ear to the
views of the Senator from Georgia and
the Senator from Montana, who appar-
ently finally got the word through to the
White House that there is a lot more
acquiescence than genuine support in
Congress for the Vietnam war. The
Democratic Party has put up a verbs.l
facade to protect a President of its own
party. It has muted or stifled its criti-
cism, except for a few voices like mine
and that of the Senator from Alaska
[Mr. GRUENING].
But the facade is very close to crack-
ing. When the welfare of the Nation is
at stake, the desire to keep up appear-
ances is less controlling than the desire
to keep the Nation from making a
ghastly mistake.
Members of Congress of both parties
will serve their President a lot better by
being here to tell him the truth than by
adjourning and leaving his ears to the
exclusive talk of the McNamaras and the
Lodges and the Bundys and the Rusks
and the other architects of Asian policy
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300.190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
who dug us into this pit in the first
place. The President's advisers on Viet-
nam have a frightening record of having
been wrong over and over again about
the situation in that unfortunate coun-
try. They have misled the President and
they have misled the country. Their
estimates of the; situation have been
wrong, and their prescriptions of what
to do about it have been wrong.
Congress could do no worse than they
have done. And in fact, we would serve
the President better by open and honest
debate on Vietnam than we have served
him by going along, sight unseen, with
whatever the McNamara-Lodge-Bundy
cabal has proposed. As the war worsens,
and as the additional 50,000 soldiers are
sent to Vietnam, and as the draft calls
go up, the criticism of-the President is
going to increase. He will need friends
in Congress then, and he will need some
advisers who, like the Senators from
"Georgia and Montana, have a perspec-
tive on American interests that is lack-
ing among the White House advisers.
The American people respect the views
of these Members of Congress, and the
administration would do well to attend
to them, as well.
This is no time for Congress to take
a walk, and leave the war up to the
President. We should remain in session
until January 1.
We should never overlook the fact that
under the Constitution of the United
States, Congress has the solemn obliga-
tion to function as an effective check
upon the President and the executive
branch of the Government. The Presi-
dent, too, has his checks upon Congress.
But in my judgment, with American boys
dying in Vietnam, Congress cannot
justify any sine the adjournment.
EXHIBIT 1
CORVALLIS, OREG.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Let me tell you that
I fully support your stand on Vietnam and
am glad some others are now seeing the light.
Enclosed is an article of mine on the sub-
ject.
It is my understanding that whatever com-
mitment we have to the Vietnam Govern-
ment is an Executive commitment. There
has been no treaty with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate. Is this not correct?
Furthermore weren't whatever commitments
which have been made made with disregard
of the Senate and national sense of disap-
proval of any involvement in Vietnam about
1954?
Also, could you tell me what effect presi-
dent Johnson's speech before the U.N. in
June has in bringing this issue before the
U.N.? What further steps need to be taken
on the part of the U.S. Government?
Sincerely,
KERMIT J. RoFWE.
P.S.-If you have any good suggestions as
to what further I can do to support you in
this matter, let me have them.
[From the Oregon State University Daily
Barometer, May 19, 1985]
VIETNAM QUESTIONS
(By Kermit Rohde, professor of psychology)
What are some of the questions which
could and should be asked about Vietnam?
First, what is our purpose for being in Viet-
nam?
That we must honor our commitment to
the South Vietnamese governments is not an
answer. The Government to which we made
this commitment was overthrown, not
legally changed, and many subsequent
changes by force have occurred. The origi-
nal government itself became illegal when
it refused to hold free elections in 1956 and
thereby to carry out the 1954 Geneva agree-
ment terms under which it was established.
Furthermore we committed ourselves pub-
licly to nations of the world to uphold the
Geneva agreement which requires us not to
interfere in Vietnam.
That we are fighting for freedom is not an
answer. During the. 1954-58 period when
there was peace in Vietnam, we stood firmly
behind the Diem government as it abolished
a 40-year old tradition of electing village
chiefs. President Eisenhower and Diem
scuttled the holding of free elections on a
nationwide basis in 1956 as planned in the
Geneva Awards. Since then the governments
that have been formed have been military
dictatorships overt or covert. Our Diem
regime, the only one which had a peaceful
period in which to work, was the most cruel
and repressive, especially of religious free-
doms.
Do we fight for the people of Vietnam?
The reason General Eisenhower gave for
overthrowing the planned elections in 1956
was that 80 percent would vote against those
we wanted to rule. There is evidence that
even the Vietnamese Army is against us.
Eighty percent of the arms of the Vietcong
come from the United States much of this as
a near gift from the Vietnamese Army. As
testified by U.S. military men, the Vietnamese
have used such delivery tactics as marching
into jungles, carefully laying down their
arms and running when a shot is fired at
them.
Furthermore Vietcong fights a guerrilla
war. It is generally conceded that one can-
not fight a guerrilla war without a friendly
populace. As Mao, the Chinese expert puts
it "The guerrilla must be able to move among
friendly people as fish in a sea." How is it
possible that huge supplies sufficient to sus-
tain Vietcong forces which are strongest
around Saigon are obtainable? Saigon at a
minimum is 500 miles from North Vietnam,
the nearest friendly source. Needn't there
be local friends for direct contributions or
to facilitate transport?
It seems unlikely that the Vietnamese are
cooperative with Vietcong through force.
The greatest use of force and terror in our
time, that by the Nazis and the Japanese, did
not make unfriendly European and Asian
peoples cooperative during World War U.
The answer that we are fighting commu-
nism brings up other questions. Is it true
that the elected president of the Vietcong,
Nguyen Huu The, never has been a Com-
munist, and that only one of his vice presi-
dents has been a Communist? Are we to
militarily oppose communism everywhere?
Are we to militarily engage all types of com-
munism, the Russian, the Chinese, the Yugo-
slav, the North Vietnamese type, the Cuban
Marxism? Why only Vietnam now?
The answer that the safety of our Nation
brings up other questions. President Eisen-
hower stated that the price of his famous
settlement of the Korean dispute was the
loss of southeast Asia Including Vietnam.
If the loss of Vietnam makes our Nation
powerless in its own defense, did President
Eisenhower sell his country down the river
for a political advantage or has the impor-
tance of Vietnam changed? If it has changed
what has brought about this change?
Just exactly and specifically what is the
great harm which will occur if we do not
control a nation on the other side of the
earth? If Vietnam Is really the key to our
18421
safety, what will we do should we lose it?
Dissolve our Nation? Pull back to the
Hawaiian Islands? Pull back to the Pacific
Ocean?
The second major question one could ask
is, How practicable is our present plan?
We are bombing North Vietnam. Why?
The March 1965 white paper of the U.S.
Government simply supports earlier esti-
mates that the Vietcong was mainly a South
Vietnam movement at that time-only 10
to 20 percent of the aid comes from outside.
Almost all of the captured soldiers men-
tioned, though trained in the north, are na-
tive born South Vietnamese.
Can North Vietnam force the war to stop?
North Vietnam did use its influence to get
warfare to cease in the south during the
1954-58 period by selling the Vietcong on
the idea that 1956 free elections would be
held as promised by the United States and
others. After this betrayal, can the north
again sell the Vietcong on the good faith of
the United States or anyone associated with
it?
Furthermore, the known morale effects of
strategic bombing, ever since the Spanish
civil war, are yo create opposition and to
harden it. The military effects are negligi-
ble. Analysis of World War U strategic
bombing shows that it contributed negligibly
to military victory. In North Korea, 1950-52,
the only effect of bombing was to demoralize
the U.S. Air Force Involved. I knew those
airmen well. Indeed Secretary Bundy ad-
mitted recently on "Meet the Press" that
bombing has had no visible effect on the
war. The present allegations that North Viet-
namese regulars are now fighting indicate
that It may have had the predictable effect
of making the war more difficult for the
United States.
To fight against guerrilla war takes a ratio
of 10 to 15 to 1. On Malaya, it took 350,000
troops 13 years to win against 8,000 guer-
rillas. One-fourth of the officers in the U.S.
ground forces are now involved in this war.
If we involve North Vietnam, is it to be
noted that North Vietnam has an army twice
the size that Japan had in southeast Asia
during World War II. Are we going to con-
tinue to tie up these large military forces in
Vietnam? Will we want to do so for many
years?
Vietnam has had a 1,000-year-old tradition
of resisting China. He Chi Minh, the leader
of North Vietnam, has spent years in a Red
Chinese prison. There are 16 million people
in North Vietnam. Isn't it possible for such
a group to remain independent of Red China
as it is for little Finland with only 4 million
to remain free of the Soviet Union? Isn't it
possible that our bombing or further attack-
ing of North Vietnam will weaken the will
to resist Red China and enable Red China
to enter and control North Vietnam?
. It is to be noted here that though there
is general agreement that Red China is hap-
pier than we over the fight the Vietcong puts
up, no responsible authority, even our Gov-
ernment who has every reason to do so, con-
tends and offers evidence that Red China
controls Nort.i Vietnam or the Vietcong. In
short aren't we operating to extend Red
Chinese control in southeast Asia? As Chou
En-Lai said "Once we worried about south-
east Asia. We don't any more. The Ameri-
cans are rapidly solving our problems for
us'
Besides these practical questions there are
legal and moral questions such as where
would we stand with regard to the principles
used for judgment at the Nuremberg trials?
But these I leave for others.
These are merely some of the questions
which could and should be asked and to
which I would like answers and some straight
answers.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04;: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18422
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
[From the Oregon State University Daily
Barometer, May 19, 1965]
INHUMANE WAR?
(By Amos Roos, 1965, engineering)
The war we are pursuing in Vietnam is
even more inhumane than wars usually are.
Prisoners of war are tortured in most In-
genious ways, barbaric beyond comprehen-
sion. Whole villages are napalmed on the
suspicion that they may shelter a few soldiers
of the Vietcong. At our prompting, the Sai-
gon Government has established "strategic
hamlets," guarded stockaded villages where
whole populations, uprooted from their
homes, are forced to live in virtual concen-
tration camps. Intellectuals who speak out
for peace are exiled.
Perhaps actions as reprehensible as these
are undertaken by the Vietcong as well;
perhaps they are carried out by Vietnamese
personnel and not by Americans. Nonethe-
less, we are responsible. Torture cannot be
justified as revenge or reprisal for damage
done to us; the napalm, regardless of who
drops it, was furnished by you and me, the
American taxpayer.
Once upon a time, such a war was not con-
sidered civilized; but Hitler has taught us
to kill vast numbers of civilians on the
chance that, among them, there might be
one soldier. The war we are waging in
Vietnam is obscenely unmoral,
The American position in Vietnam cannot
be defended on moral grounds. In the poli-
cies of the Johnson administration, I regret
to note, justice and morality are no longer at
issue. We are not in the Dominican Repub-
lic to see justice done, or human lives
saved, or to support any moral law. Our
purpose is political. We are there to stop
communism.
In Vietnam, likewise, our purpose is not
to help the people attain a fuller life. It is
to stop the "spread of communism," and to
retain our "hold" on a piece of land whose
strategic importance is highly debatable.
Perhaps our present position in Vietnam
can be justified from it political standpoint,
since it clearly cannot be justified from a
moral or ethical one. If our presence there
brings about results which, over the short and
long term, are beneficial to the interests, of
the United States, then that presence ay
be considered worthwhile. If the ends
justify the means, as they seem to for John-
son, we must ask whether the means em-
ployed are likely to lead to the desired ends.
What are the ends we seek in Vietnam?
Do we seek to destroy the regime of Ho Chi
Minh in Hanoi? His army is presently a
great obstacle to Chinese incursions into
Indochina. Do our policymakers seek to
provoke the Chinese into a war so we can
"let 'em have it"? Such a war, if it ever
comes, will at best inflict terrible damage on
both sides. It will probably become world
war III.
Do we seek to destroy the fighting spirt of
the Vietcong so that a strong and stable
government may be established in South
Vietnam? If so, the people of Vietnam will
remain divided, arbitrarily at the 11th
parallel.
As the record indicates, there is little hope
that a stable government could be established
In the south. And the policies we are follow-
ing are totally ineffective in destroying the
Vietcong. The overwhelming proportion of
their arms comes, not from Hanoi, but from.
the U.S. Army.
The men of the Vietcong axe South Viet-
namese, fighting to liberate their country
from the American imperialism which in 1954
stalled Diem as its puppet ruler, in 1956 pre-
prevented free elections from taking place,
and has been devoting ever more effort to
ravishing their country.
Let us survey what consequences mightre-
sult from our present policies in Vietnam.
Will we succeed in weakening the regime of
Ho Chi Minh, the guerrilla leader who saved
Vietnam from the Mao Tse-tung? Impos-
sible: under threat from an outside enemy,
a nation unites under its chosen leaders.
Are we in Vietnam to demonstrate the ad-
vantages of a democratic form of govern-
ment? Sure thing. We've already demon-
strated half a dozen times in the last year
and a half.
Will our present policies guarantee -that
the next Vietnamese Government will be
friendly to us? Probably not. We are pres-
ently engaged in the destruction of their
industrial base, such as it was (though we
are building plenty of good airstrips), the
disruption of their society, and the decima-
tion of their population. Our army, virtu-
ally an army of occupation, and our vast
expenditures of money foment profiteering
and corruption in Saigon. And history has
shown us no way to guarantee ourselves a
"friendly" government. Though we may try
to buy them with the offer of a billion-dollar
Mekong Valley project, such loyalty as we
may gain will be mixed with contempt.
Lyndon Johnson seeks peace in Vietnam.
In 1939, all Europeans wanted peace in Eu-
rope. Hitler wanted a peace in which Po-
land would be a part of Germany. England
and France sought a peace under somewhat
different conditions-and the peace was lost.
A difference of opinions about the condi-
tions of that peace helped lead to war. It is
therefore of fundamental importance to
know the conditions of peace which Johnson
would accept.
Sooner or later, if world war III does not
break out, there will have to be a truce in
Indochina. How will it be maintained?
Who will police it? If a force of Vietna-
mese, under whose command? If an inter-
national force, how would it be financed?,
Would it be possible to set up such a forcer
under such circumstances that countries
such as France, the United States, and the
Soviet Union would all be willing to con-
tribute their share of the cost?
Under what kind of government might
Vietnam then carry on? If a neutral gov-
ernment, how could the situation be main-
tained? Because any government which Ho
did not consider reactionary, Johnson would
certainly view as Communist. Perhaps the
solution would lie in the creation of a trust
territory under the U.N. But what country's
trusteeship would be acceptable to all the
powers concerned?
The war in Vietnam cannot possibly cease
until such questions as I have raised have
been thoroughly discussed. So far, they
have scarcely been raised.
Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE,
U.S, Senator,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
ASPEN, COLO.,
July 31, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a former Orego-
nian I am proud because of your courageous
opposition against our unwise Involvement
in Vietnam. I should have told you this
much earlier but I was mixed up and tried
hard to believe that we are doing the right
thing. However the more I study the ques-
tion, the less defensible our position appears
to me, even when viewed solely from the
angle of power politics.
Very sincerely yours,
A. E. BRETTAUER.
SALEM, OREG.,
July 22, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR Sm: I wish to go on record, as one
who has thought for months, that it was
past time for us to take the Vietnam prob-
lem to the United Nations. I and many
people who are confused, but may not write,
will be grateful if you use all your influence
to use the one and only hope (U.N.) to keep
us from being carried down the road to
annihilation.
Respectfully,
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 26, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please do all in your
power to halt the fighting in Vietnam.
I do not see how the President can keep
sending troops there, when we are not at
war. We were only supposed to show them
how to use our equipment. No wonder they
look on us as aggressors.
If our men must fight give them every
weapon. We have no business to do less.
These men who are dying are precious to us.
I do not see how our leader has the right
to draft men and send them to war, when
we have not declared war.
May God forgive us.
I pray God will guide you and help you to
show others where they are wrong. May He
bless your fine work, we need more like
you in our Government.
Sincerely,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
State Capital Building,
Salem, Oreg.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I heard an unbeliev-
able story the other day. It concerned some-
thing that the mayor of Mexicali said to
Chou En.-lai and the Chinese people.
It seems that the fighting has been raging
furiously around La Paz and Ensenada in.
Baja California. Gringo-equipped banditoe
from northern Baja California have pene-
trated across the desert south of Pozo Grande
and Santo Domingo to threaten La Paz itself,
and a posse of southern Baja Californirins
(with Chinese advisers) are chasing the
banditos up and down their mountainous
retreats in the Sierra de IS, Giganta while
the Chinese Air Force carries out daily bomb-
ing raids to the north, knocking out the
casino and resorts at Ensenada and the
chamber of commerce, branches of U.S.
banks, and greenback concessions in Tijuana.
From the capital city of Mexicali, just be-
low the California border, the northern gov-
ernment has issued a statement to all Baja
Californians, but pointedly addressed to the
La Paz government of the south. The great
Mexican people, it reminded them, share a
common heritage of democracy. Born in
the revolutionary days of Zapata there has
been a fierce love of liberty throughout the
land, and a process of change which has seen
the growth of education and a consequent
evolution toward responsible, enlightened
democracy and greater and greater individ sal
independence. The statement then charged
that the Emperor of La Paz was a heel-?
dragger. Balking mulishly against the hands
of change, he was holding his people back in
their democratic growth-all under the guise
of benevolent fathership-and that to save
this benevolent fathership (which was no';h-?
ing more than a selfish little monarchy in
fear of all threats to its fatty status quo of
conquistadores and Indians) he had put on
a mask of Communist aspirations and had
beseeched the Chinese to save him from :;he
aggression of gringo commercialism. Ali, but
what is more ridiculous than descendants of
Zapata kowtowing to coercion-to Mao Tse-
tung's tyranny of pseudoscientific economic
determinism, which itself must change one
day? Measured against the proud palomino
of our native heritage, the communique con-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved Fox Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
eluded, no foreign influence can hope to
stand higher than the eye of a lizard.
From the Emperor of La Paz there were
only the briefest of statements. In an in-
terview with the Chinese people's daily TV,
he said that his people were all Marxist-
Leninists at heart, were barn and bred in
dialetical materialism, and only needed to be
kept free from gringo commercialism in or-
der to build a showplace Communist utopia
amidst the cactus and gila monsters of the
Territorio del Sur. The Emperor ended on a
note of humility, offering his selfless services
as a servant of destiny and of the people.
Chou En-lai ended the interview, assuring
the Emperor of the Chinese people's selfless
and continuing support. The riches of the
Vizcaino desert and the heart longings toward
Marxism-Leninism of the progressive people
of La Paz must not fall to the greedy com-
mercialism of the gringos and their lackeys
in Mexicali, he said. Ending on a similar
note of humility, he reiterated that the
Chinese people's purpose in bombing Ense-
nada was only to defend Peiping and the
Communist world and that their stay in
Baja California was only for the temporary
purpose of fighting the gringo aggressors
from Mexicali and protecting all of Mexico
for communism.
. What was ungraciously unbelievable was
what the mayor of Mexicali replied to Chou
En-lai. Heartily backed by Lyndon Johnson
and the U.S. Army, he replied that he and
his people would fight against the pirates
from China "for 20 years and longer."
Yours sincerely,
EDWARD N. HUGGINS,
Department of English,
Southern Oregon College.
JULY 24, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: When you stated,
earlier this year, that by the end of 1965
hundreds of thousands of Americans would
be dying in Vietnam, I thought you were
probably exaggerating to make a point. The
events of the past few days have shown me
that, as usual, you were right, your critics
wrong. It has become obvious that no ac-
tion is too insane for President Johnson, I
think I know now how many Germans must
have felt during the latter part of the
thirties. As many Germans must have done,
I tell myself that no one is heinous enough
to order the murder of women and children,
that no one is mad enough to begin a war
over a Boy Scout concept of "honor" Never-
theless, the newspapers, the television, and
the radio all join in telling me that precisely
this is happening.
Also like many Germans, I discover that I
do not have the courage of whatever it takes
to meaningfully oppose this idiocy. No, I will
not refuse to serve in the Armed Forces; if
asked, I will even join in the murder of Viet-
namese women and children. Like Adolf
Eichmann, I will "follow orders." My only
wish is that bloodthirsty politicians would
not ask me to believe in what I do, In short,
I wish men whom I despise and for whom I
feel nothing but contempt-men such as
Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and
Dean Husk-would cease mouthing empty
platitudes and childish lies. Because If the
American way of life can survive only on a
base of colonialism, then I hope and pray
that this society is destroyed as quickly as
possible.
I should like now to congratulate you for
what has been a gallant and inspiring fight.
Sometimes a voice, in . tl a wilderness paves. a
society, sometimes it does not. In any event,
if the human race has a future, history will
justify your actions. As the war gets worse,
American democracy, such as it is, will prob-
ably be replaced by a more efficient form of
government. So, if you abandon your fight,
I will not blame you. Good luck.
Yours truly,
-MIKE MIKKELSON.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 26, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I don't suppose
this letter will be read by you, since I under-
stand about 1 in 50 reaches your desk, the
rest receiving polite acknowledgments from
your secretaries, but I felt in view of the
worsening Vietnam situation I had to write,
feeling as I do that escalation of this war
will provoke us into a major conflict with
unforeseeable- if not tragic consequences.
Much as we would like to be the .savior of
all downtrodden countries and carry the
shining banner of democracy into every land,
realistically we are not going to be able to
carry out such a mission, and it is a big
question whether democracy, in the present
state of the world, is the answer for all
nations.
Many people are questioning whether we
can wipe out communism and play "Sir:
Galahad" to all our fellow men. It may be
we will have to learn to coexist with Russia
and Red China, protecting the interests of
threatened Americans where trouble brews
(as in Santo Domingo, until that situation
mushroomed into a foolish and impossible
crusade), but not extending hostilities into
enemy territory. Our lines of supply are so
far extended compared to the Chinese, in this
Vietnam situation, to say nothing of the
juggernaut of Chinese manpower, that we
will really find ourselves "painted into a
corner" and unable to get out if we bomb
Hanoi and other Red Chinese bases. Maybe
we could win eventually, who knows, but
when the experts talk of the war continu-
ing 10, 15, 20 years, in the holocaust of
death and destruction, attrition and possible
use of the atomic or hydrogen bombs by
either side, the question of who wins is
purely quixotic.
I often think nowadays of President
Franklin Roosevelt's works: "The only thing
we have to fear is fear itself." So many of
us have become so hysterical about the Com-
munist threat that we have lost all sense of
proportion and prate about it as deluded
parents do the bogeyman to frighten a child.
It is the black plague, the Salem witchcraft
hunt of our day. I, for one, get mighty tired
of all these timid, frightened people who
scurry around in the dark blind alleys of
communism, like moles who have lost not
only their sight but other senses as well.
We can recognize it as an unquestioned
threat to . our way of life but we can meet
it clear eyed and clear headed. I think
much of this pumping up the high blood
pressure of the Nation can be laid at the
door of newspapers and periodicals, par-
ticularly Life and Time which thrive on sen-
sationalism and the sometimes atrophied
views of Mr. Henry Luce. For a refreshing
contrast to this panic beating of the war
drums by such publications, read George
Feifer'a excellent article "Communism Is Not
What We Think" in the Saturday Evening
Post's "Speaking Out" section for February
27, 1965, and Frederick Nossal's, "Dateline-
Peiping," published in 1962.
Dear Mr. Johnson, I think you are a fine
and dedicated President; we voted for you
and have every confidence in your great
abilities but I think some of your advisers
are leading you astray when they propose
stepping up the war and sending ever more
and more American boys over there. The
bombing of villages, of helpless women and
children, is not only blackening the image
of the United States in foreign eyes, but a
grave sin on our own collective soul. When
we can argue the necessary successful out-
come of any war on the number of human
beings killed, whatever sex or age, combat-
ants or noncombatants, we have fallen low
indeed. I never approved the bombing of
Hiroshima or Nagasaki despite the military
18423
arguments designed to salve the national
conscience and I am heartsick about the war
in Vietnam. If we have to "lose face" to get
out or negotiate, better it be now than in
some near or distant future when we have
committed ourselves too far to ever with-
draw.
Most sincerely yours,
MARGARET MOZZANINI.
cc: Hon. EDrru GREEN
Hon. WAYNE MORSE
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
Hon. President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
White House,
Washington, D.C.
HON. PRESIDENT JOHNSON: Your message
to the American people asking for a
doubling of the draft leaves me appalled.
How can our Nation call for action on two
fronts-seemingly contradictory-the wag-
ing of a wider war, as indicated by an in-
crease in the military manpower being sent
from our country to Vietnam and at the
same time an appeal to United Nations Sec-
retary U Thant "requesting that all the re-
sources, energy and immense prestige of the
United Nations be employed to find ways to
halt aggression and bring peace in Vietnam."
I sit in attendance at a 1-week institute
on teaching disadvantaged children. For
what do we want to prepare these children?
Don't we want manpower to help our
country and the world reach new heights of
achievement for world peace? How do we
do this when we are faced with pronounce-
ments which seem to give greater value to
possibilities of greater destruction of man-
kind.
Our Nation, one of the great powers in the
world in intellectual and other areas of
achievement, should be giving greater lead-
ership to efforts for disarmament and total
world peace. I ask this of you, Mr. Presi-
dent. Let us not live with the lie that says
the waging of a wider war is a true pursuit
of peace.
Sincerely yours,
HELEN L. GORDON,
Mrs. William Gordon.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I feel compelled.to
write to you on the recent developments in
the southeast Asian controversy. As a stu-
dent I feel that the only way to a settlement
at all is through the United Nations. I feel
that the recent draft increase that the Presi-
dent has called is unquestionably an act of
aggression on the part of the United States
of America, and is therefore an act of war.
For this reason I feel that the President has
clearly overstepped his authority.
As you may well know President Johnson
becomes very upset when he is criticized,
but I feel that it is about time that he was
brought under fire by more people than
yourself. I would like to also tell you that
I am proud that you represent me on the
floor of the Senate.
Being a student I realize that the recent
decisions of the Johnson administration
will no doubt affect me much more than I
realize at this time, and I would serve faith-
fully in any post that I might get placed in
should I get called up by the Army. How-
ever, I must say in all honesty that had I
been old enough to vote in 1964 I would
have voted for Johnson because of his ap-
parent stand on southeast Asian policy, but
in 1968 I will be old enough to vote and I
shall not vote for anyone who runs under
the same colored flag that he ran under in
1964. Johnson has broken his faith with the
public and if he feels that appointing Mr.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18424
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
Lodge to Mr. Taylor's job in Saigon will curb
criticism he's really on the wrong trail.
I hope that every young man and woman
that will be affected by our Government's
recent shift in hit and miss policy to more
of the same, will write to their representa-
tives and let them know how they feel on
the subject of U.S. aggression in southeast
Asia.
Respectfully yours,
DONALD JAMES NELSON.
HALFWAY, OREG.,
July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: From the reports we have
had this week you, as well as many others,
are being consulted about the war in South
Vietnam.
First, we would like to tell you that we
are proud of the way you have expressed
your opinions about the situation and we
are supporting you all the way when you
say we should pull out of that part of the
world. After careful consideration it ap-
pears to us that we are not wanted by these
people-that is with the exception of a few
at the expense of many. In the first place it
was our understanding that it would be for a
short time to advise and keep the peace until
they could have an election--which never
happened. Then it was supplies and a few
men and now many more men to fight and
die for a cause even they do not understand
the meaning of. We believe in a free gov-
ernment and would like to see the people of
Vietnam free to choose their leaders and
have the right to rule themselves as they see
fit, but are we imposing our opinions on
them so that they find that we are not the
welcome guests that we would be led to
bel eve-or are supposed to be? Why are we
getting more and more involved in a situa-
tion that is so complicated and why are we
afraid to lose face? Is it not more important
to save the lives of our young men than to
say we have saved face and let so many die
in a cause that we should never have en-
tered into?
Very truly yours,
Mr. and Mrs. LEWIS LAIRD.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
The OREGONIAN,
Portland, Oreg.
To the Editor:
The Oregonian has performed a vital pub-
lic role in giving front page space in its
July 19 issue to the article by AP staff writer
John T. Wheeler. Most Americans must feel
both angry and ashamed of what we are
doing in Vietnam in the name of freedom.
The London Daily Mirror reports of a July 4
interview with Air Force General Ky, now
head of the South Vietnamese Government.
Asked who his heroes were, he replied: "I
have only one, Hitler." In this dirty, un-
principled war Hitler seems an appropriate
hero to the General but is he to be our hero
as well?
Have we lost all reason, all sense of pro-
portion and all human conscience that we
can continue to devastate a country in an
attempt to save a government which lacks
any support from its own people? If this
senseless slaughter is allowed to continue
in the name of the American people we will
certainly go down in history side by side
with those tyrannical powers who knew no
moral concern. Even beyond this, the con-
tinuation of the war in Vietnam threatens
to escalate into a total holocaust engulfing
not only South Vietnam, North Vietnam,
and China, but the United States itself. Is
it so difficult for us to imagine the wailing
Vietnamese woman cradling a baby in her
arms-pictured with Mr. Wheeler's article-
to be an American mother cradling an Amer-
lean baby midst the ruins of a once happy
country?.
Time is running out and the American
must protest in every conceivable way the
continuation of this senseless, fruitless and
ill-conceived war. Negotiations through the
United Nations are the only alternative and
no excuses can substitute for immediate ac-
tion to end this tragedy. Senator MORSE has
repeated time and time again the procedures
open to the Government of the United States
if it truly wants to end this fiasco. Within
the last few days, Governor Hatfield has
called for an immediate convening of the
United Nations to deal with ending this
horror. Both men deserve our thanks and
support.
All Americans, of every religious conviction,
of every ethical persuasion, of every political
conviction-in the name of humanity and
it's future-have the urgent task to convince
our Government to order an immediate
cease-fire and to enter into negotiations for a
political settlement through the United
Nations.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. HOWARD L. GLAZER.
cc: President Lyndon B. Johnson,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Governor Mark O. Hatfield.
WEST LINN, OREG.
July 25, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR: I am enclosing clippings I
think you may enjoy.
I trust you won't consent to our President
sending more men and boys to be slaughtered
in Vietnam, without full knowledge and
consent of the House and Senate majority
O.K.
I feel the President and Attorney General,
and Mr. McNamara have too much au-
thority. We do have other minds worthy
of consideration don't you?
Sincerely,
HILLSBORO, OREG.,
July 22, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Last weekend we
heard a radio report that you were preparing
a paper in hopes of taking the Vietnam
problem (war) to the U.N. I've searched the
papers since and cannot find one line re-
garding this. I'm beginning to think we
have a very well controlled press.
All I could say was "Bless you," please
continue that line of thought and speak out
loud and long and do all in your power to
try for a settlement of the horrible south-
east Asia mess. Somehow the citizens must
be made to realize that American boys' lives
are being sacrificed every day for them.
One does not need a degree in military
science to see the mistake of getting in-
volved in Vietnam, unless the Government is
prepared to fight Red China backed by
Russia which could mean a war continuing
many, many years. China has been prepar-
ing for this expansion for years with her
2 million troops in uniform. Why does the
Government feel we have to convince the
South Vietnamese that they should live in a
democracy when their government has been
unable to do it for the last 10 years? Why
are we so concerned that they not be com-
munist controlled, when we did so little to
prevent it in Cuba? I realize that com-
munism must be contained but at least we
could begin in a country that makes an
effort to defend themselves. Our Govern-
ment does not seem concerned when Com-
munist members and even college professor
are permitted to speak and influence our
young-people, who in turn, belittle democ-
racy and defy our government by burning
their draft cards.
We have spent billions on the U.N. and
that is the one place the Vietnam question
must be discussed to find out just who is
wrong. Where are our allies? We can't
even depend on our good neighbor, Canada,
who right now is supplying Red China with
much needed supplies. They must feel that
we are wrong and want no part of It.
France knows we are wrong, and if nothing
else, we should have gained a lesson from
their sad and costly mistake. England can
offer nothing but moral support, knowing
our troops will be a buffer for them in Ma-
lays, and relieve the pressure on them. Eo
our allies, little Australia and South Korea
send a token of troops, and our boys, the
cream of manhood between 22 and 30, will be
killed by the thousands when Red China
completes their missile bases in North Viet-
nam. That doesn't make sense to me.
We have been given the impression by the
press that we have to liberate the South
Vietnamese from the Communists, but to-
night an article in the Journal says: "Taylor
and the South Vietnamese officials were in-
side the stadium attending a rally marking
the creation of a new movement to liberate
North Vietnam from Communist control "
If that is attempted, just who are the ag-
gressors?
Now they tell us that the Reserves and tl,.e
National Guard must be called up. Do you
realize what that means? Thousands of
young men who have worked hard for sev-
eral years to secure a job, have married and
many with small children, are to be told to
give up everything and go to a seething jun-
gle to kill and be killed. Is that the true
meaning of the Great Society we hear about
from President Johnson, who also said dur-
ing his campaign that he would not send
troops to Vietnam. That meant many votes
for him because we wanted to believe hira.
We are sick to death of war with every Demo-
cratic President in office.
What will become of the families of these
men? In most cases they will lose their
homes, for certainly the salary of the lowly
enlisted man is not sufficient to maintain a
home. The Government seems so concerned
with the war on poverty, Job Corps training
and all the underprivileged groups, I wonder
how concerned it will be when these families
lose their husbands and daddies.
What is hardest of all to understand Is this
draft call. Until the late President Kennedy
decided no married men should be drafted,
all young men physically able had a military
obligation to fulfill. Now it seems all they
have to do is produce a marriage license and
they are immune to even 6 months' training.
We have seen it happen all around us. Right
out of high school or maybe a few years ii.n
college, but at least before that draft board
calls, that marriage license is the next step,
and they are laughing up their sleeves at the
"suckers," as they call them, who got drafted.
What is fair about all these so-called stu-
dents, and the troublemakers we find at every
coastal resort, and the black jacket crowd
and beatniks, do they not owe anything in
the -way of military service? It's terribly
hard to see them roam the streets and high-
ways and our young family men obligated to
give 4 to 6 years and maybe their lives. For
we know it will be a terrible price they will
have to pay once they are sent to fight the
Vietcong guerrillas with the little training
they have received in the Reserves. My
cousin fought in New Guinea in World War
II and because of 8 years' service in tie
Marines he lived to come home but he said
it was pure murder to send in such inex-
perienced men as the Reserves and Guards.
Again, please do all in your power to get
this dispute before the U.N. so at least we
could And out if we have any allies and if
they are as interested in containing com-
munism as our Government would like us to
believe. Our belief is that they are not, or
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003111/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Cuba and Red China_ would have beef, boy-
cotted before now. We. wonder, too, why our
other Senator and. Representatives from
Oregon have been so silent on such 's vital
(life or death to many) matter.
Respectfully,
Mrs. W. H. HATHORN.
P.S.-We assume because of the untimely
death of our .Ambassador. Stevenson ,your
purpose will be delayed, but continue to per-
sist. If you are successful In this mission,
there is small doubt but that you could be
our next President by popular demand.
July 27, 1965.
HOn. WAYNE MORSE, _
Old Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Recognizing' gravity current situation,
mindful of Nation's welfare and world re-
sponsibilities, and awful dangers of escala-
tion, we urge thorough discussion by Senate
of Vietnam policy including need for limiting
U.S. intervention to holding defensible posi-
tions, halting bombing of North Vietnam to
facilitate negotiation, seeking a cease fire
agreement by every effective avenue multi-
lateral diplomacy, and negotiating with all
parties involved.
Bishop A. RAYMOND GRANT,
President,
Bishop CHARLES F. GOLDEN,
Vice President,
Dr. A. DUDLEY WARD,
General Secretary Board of Christian So-
cial Concerns, the Methodist Church.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
Deeply opposed to any further escalation
MARTHA B. FOLEY,
MARGARET SMITH,
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
have the effect of repudiating them. Public
sentiment will support you gentlemen.
JOHN R. STAFFORD.
CORVALLIS, OREG.,
July 25, 1965. ,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Keep up the ques-
tioning on Vietnam. I noticed the Monitor
had an article saying that some Senate critics
had been virtually silenced by the pressure
that criticism was now unpatriotic and un-
American. I want you to know I do not think
that, and I hope you will be able to continue
your questioning.
If you are in Oregon this fall, I would like
for you to share your thinking with us.
Sincerely,
PAUL F. DAVIS.
EUGENE, OREG.
The Honorable Senator MORSE.
DEAR SIR: I am the mother of two sons;
therefore I am quite concerned as to the re-
ports of the situation in Vietnam' and the
stand of President Johnson and others.
' I protest wholeheartedly about sending our
boys to fight, especially when we have such
little knowledge of why we are there.
With sincere hope you will do all you can
to pass on more information to the people of
Oregon.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. FRED M. BROWN.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR: I agree with your views on
the conflict in Vietnam, as expressed in your
latest Senate speech, completely.
Yours truly,
Mrs. A. W. STEPHENSON.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I was gladto see on the tele-
vision screen your views on Vietnam. Please
be assured of our wholehearted support and
please keep on working for peace.
Yours sincerely,
MARGARET ROBINSON.
Ron. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Strongly feel Vietnam problem should be
brought before U.N.
CHARLES W. PETERSEN,
R, ETTY M. PETERSEN,
JOHN DAY, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate efface Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Am increasingly alarmed at decreasingly
justifiable position of United States in Asia.
Believe it imperative to stop escalation, define
objectives clearly and publicly, face realities
of Taiwan, establish diplomatic communica-
tion with China, and make fullest use of
United Nations despite difficulties, seeking all
possible avenues toward peace before too late.
M. T. MERRILL, M.D.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
'Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We urge support your continued efforts
for peaceful settlement in Vietnam.
CHARLES AND ELEANOR DAVIS.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 29, 1965.
j5enator WAYrtE MoRsE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Why can't you elect Members in your cau-
cus to effectively disallow the administra-
tion's current policies in Vietnam that will
PORTLAND, OREG.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: This is merely a
brief note from one of your constituents
and supporters who wishes to express his
admiration for your logical views concern-
ing Vietnam. i only wish more policy-
makers felt the same way.
Sincerely,
ROBERT STAVER.
ASTORIA, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator W ^.YNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR. SENATOR MORSE: Just a word to say
how glad I am someone is unafraid to speak
out against the lack of wisdom in the han-
dling of the Vietnam crisis. I am sure in
the events that so surely lie ahead of all of
us that you will be thankful to have been
among the counted who would have sought
solution, where it properly belonged, with
the United Nations.
Unfortunately wisdom and enlightenment
is seldom shared by the majority *
therefore your responsibility is even heavier.
Would that our governing leaned more to
wisdom and less to politics.
My best wishes to you and all who share
the burden of decisions in these,. trying
times.
Sincerely,
BLANCHE TUCKER.
P.S.-The Job Corps seems to be making
excellent use of the Tongue Point facility.
18425
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I admire your force-
ful stand against the present policy on south-
east Asia. PIease continue the good work.
Sincerely,
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
SENATOR MORSE: I completely support you
in your opposition to our activities in Viet-
nam. I urge you to devote your complete
time to influencing other Senators and Con-
gressmen as well as the press and public to-
ward an end to this futile slaughter.
With deepest concern,
HOLLY M. HART.
CAMMER & SHAPIRO,
New York, N.Y., July 30, 1965.
HOn. JACOB K. DAVITS,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. JAVITS: I. am writing to express
my dismay at the silence of Senators like
yourself and Mr. Kennedy over the abdication
by Congress of its sole responsibility to decide
whether or not the country is to be at war
in the face of the usurpation of that re-
sponsibility by the President.
Article I, clause 11 of the Constitution is
explicit that Congress alone has the con-
stitutional "power * * ? to declare war,"
and under clauses 12 and 13 only Congress
has constitutional authority "s * * to raise
and support armies" and "? " * to provide
and maintain a Navy."
It is thus clear that the Constitution im-
poses a tight rein upon the President's par-
ticipation in deciding whether or not to
declare war: The Constitution provides that
Congress alone must make that decision.
"Nothing in our Constitution is plainer
than the declaration of war is entrusted
only to Congress." Youngstown Sheet &
Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642 (1952).
The sole responsibility of Congress for this
decision is further emphasized by the fact
that the Constitution does not provide that
Congress should declare war "on recom-
mendation of the President," or that the
"President with advice and consent of Con-
gress may declare war." As former Assistant
Secretary of State James Grafton Rogers has
observed: "The omission is significant. There
was to be no war unless Congress took the
initiative." Rogers, "World Policing and
the Constitution," p. 21 (Boston, 1946).
The proceedings of the Constitutional Con-
vention make clear that the Founding
Fathers were not only determined to deny a
warmaking power to the President, but were
even unwilling to entrust it to the Senate
alone. To assure the fullest consideration
of these fateful decisions they therefore pro-
vided that the entire Congress, Including
the House of Representatives should partici-
pate in the decision. Bemis, "The Diplomacy
of the American Revolution" (New York,
1935), pp. 29-35. See also, Morris, "The Era
of. the American Revolution" (1939), p.
140-169.
Despite this constitutional separation of
powers, the country and the world were sub-
jected, by the President's East Room press
conference on July 28, to the spectacle of
an executive declaration of war. The Presi-
dent did not even trouble to characterize our
involvement as a "police action;" he boldly
declared not only that we were and would
be at war, but presumed to decide and to
declare the extent to which we would com-
mit troops and other forces in that war.
I submit that this flouting of the Con-
stitution is the destruction of the form and
substance of constitutional government. No
justification appears for this disregard of
the basic separation of powers which is fun-
damental to our form of government. Con-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18426
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
"We will Insist upon clear explanations of
the policies in which we are asked to cooper-
ate. We will insist that we and the American
people be treated as adults-that we have the
facts without sugar coating * * *."
At the same dinner, Senator Green asserted
that the administration was "isolating our-
selves from our friends about as fast as the
administration can grind out new policy
statements * * *. The administration blus-
ters about massive retaliation, and our allies
fear we are Inviting war."
As you can discern, I deeply believe that
our involvement in the current war in Viet-
nam is a tragic and perhaps fatal error. It is
occurring despite all warnings that we should
not become involved in a ground war in Asia.
And it isoccurring in the worst possible cir-
cumstances, for, as Walter Lippmann has
pointed out, we are alone in our stand. The
claim that we must honor our commitments
is patently hollow. Not one of the nations
we are presumably trying to save has seen fit
to support us in this war, and, if anything,
the indications are that-they oppose our ac-
tions. This includes Indonesia, India, Ma-
laya, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos; none of
their troops are In the field with ours. Aus-
tralia is not one of the "dominoes.") Even
the South Vietnam beneficiaries of our com-
mitment have long since gone or are going
(many of them over to the other side). We
are thus fighting to help people who don't
want our help, or at least not the kind of
help-barbaric war-we are giving to them.
Lawyers call this officious intermeddling, but
here the potential consequences are more
appalling.
I feel that you, as the senior Senator from
New York and also as a member of an oppo-
site political party from the President, have
the greater opportunity and responsibility to
speak up for constitutional government and
thereby, in this case, to further the greater
cause of world peace. Perhaps they are one
and the same.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Sena-
tor KENNEDY with the hope that he, too, may
see fit to join with you in opposing the Pres-
ident's usurpation of the function of Con-
gress and to bring to end the self-destructive
policy of Executive escalation of an unjusti-
fiable and dangerous war.
I am also sending copies to Senators MORSE
and GRVENING, to whom, in my humble opin-
ion, the Nation owes a massive debt for their
courageous opposition to those policies. I
hope future generations will be able to ap-
preciate their courage and wisdom. I hope,
too, that you will join with them in their
patriotic efforts.
Respectfully yours,
HAROLD I. CAMMER.
gress is and has been In session; the situa-
tion in Vietnam has been .in the making for
many years; no sudden emergency or uneE-
pected developments have arisen which
might remotely justify unilateral executive
action. It is wholly unfitting for the Pres-
ident to exercise powers which are vested
solely in the Congress. As Chief Justice
Warren pointed out as recently as June 7,
1965 (quoting James Madison):
"The accumulation of all powers, legis-
lative, executive, and judiciary, in the same
hands, whether of one, it few, or many, and
whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elec-
tive, may justly be pronounced the very def-
inition of tyranny."
United States v. Brown, - U.S. -, 33 LW
4603.
Nor are the President's closed discussions
with "leaders" of Congress an adequate sub-
stitute for congressional action. Under a
government of laws, action must be taken
lawfully through the constitutionally estab-
lished institutions of government-In this
case by Congress--and in a constitutional
manner. Congress acts as a Congress when
It acts in a parliamentary manner and with
opportunity to debate and deliberate, not in
closed meetins with a few over breakfast
,or otherwise.-'
"With all Its defects, delays, and incon-
veniences, men have discovered no technique
for long preserving free government except
that the Executive be under the law,. and
that the law be made by parliamentary delib-
erations."
Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in Youngs-
tam Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer,
supra, 655 (1952).
The President has indicated that he Is
reluctant to ask Congress for a declaration
war lest any opposition to his policies,
even if by a small minority, might give aid
and comfort to the enemy. This, of course,
does not justify his usurpation of powers
which are solely in the Congress and not In
himself.
But even if it were, it is worthwhile to
recall that when he was Democratic leader
of the Senate during the administration of
President Eisenhower, Mr. Johnson rejected
Such factors as justifying the exclusion of
Oongress from the fateful decisionmaking
iu this area, and that he took this position
in connection with an earlier, and perhaps
more critical stage of the situation in Indo-
china.
For on May 6, 1954, it was Mr. Johnson
who broke the bipartisanship which had
theretofore and since the war characterized
American foreign policy. On that day, ac-
cording to the New York Times of May 7,
1954 (then) Senator Johnson, as Democratic
leader of the Senate, launched an attack
upon the administration's foreign policy and
gave dual notice (1) that the bipartisan-
ship of the last 16 months was breaking up.
could not be counted upon for unquestioned
general support in the field of world affairs.
According to the Times, Senator Johnson
and former President Harry S. Truman used
the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on May 6,1954,
to lead off the attack by a declaration that
the administration was alienating allies of
the United States and that, according to Sen-
ator Johnson, the United States was in "clear
danger of being left naked and alone in a
hostile world."
Senator Johnson launched this attack at a
time when the fall of Dienbienphu was im-
minent, and, in fact, it fell only a few days
later. Nevertheless, he criticized the admin-
istration about the differences which he
claimed it had developed with the traditional
allies of ?the United States over Indochina
and demanded that thereafter Congress
should be consulted In advance on decisive
issues of national security policy. He said:
ONTARIO, OREG., July 29, 1965.
U.S. Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I wish to thank you for
the speech you made in the Senate opposing
the President's stand in Indochina. I be-
lieve it Is the beat speech you ever made.
Some times I think some Members of Con-
gress has the backbone of a jelly fish.
How can we win a war against 700 mil-
Ron people?
I have been In nine different States and
I find very few people in favor of a war
with any part of China.
And many many people, workers and young
men praised your stand "talk first". Some
favored get out.
I was born of white parents in Kansas
on a farm, taught school, farm work, vet in
World War I, lived and worked 28 years here
in eastern Oregon. Was a watchman at
Nyasa, Oreg., factory for about 14 years,
now I am retired. 72 years old this De-
cember. Widowed, live all alone and have
a small place north of Nyasa, worth about
$5,000, and will keep it for a summer home.
I pay taxes on it. I am not in favor of
vets paying no taxes.
I bought a house in Osborne, Kans., my
old home town and plan to spend winters
there. Year ago you worked and boosted
for social security, insurance companies said
it would ruin them, you said it would make
them grow and you were right, without it
we would be in a mess 50 years behind what
we are today.
Now Senator there is another thing I wis':i
you would do for this United States of
America.
Get the U.S. Supreme Court to make a
decision against State laws that compel
our people to buy insurance or put up bond
to travel on our public roads. Article I,
section 8 says Congress is to establish post
offices and post roads, but I do not find any
place in our Constitution where it compels or
allows States to have laws that force us
to buy insurance.
I pay over $100 a year for car insurance
and I need that money to live on.
The premiums are used for members cf
the insurance companies. It is not used
for road maintenance or construction of new
public roads.
Drivers licenses money is used for help in
Oregon paperwork and when a person is
convicted of an offense he loses his license
for a time. Drivers license is OK, I believe.
A court decision would give each a choice
in buying insurance or not to buy and I be-
lieve it would do like you said social se-
curity would do, make the insurance com-
panies grow.
I sure wish the U.S. Supreme Court would
make a decision like I am asking for.
Please write me.
JULY 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: What in God's name
do our military and civilian "experts" hope
to accomplish with the insane policy of
escalation?
Please inform the President and his "ex-
pert" advisers that my wife and I do not
sanction interference by the U.S. military
in domestic problems of any country; prob-
lems which the military mind does not com-
prehend, or appreciate.
We suggest the flyboys practice using their
"toy" guns and hideous napalm to bomb
in areas in which innocent women, men, and
children are not to be found.
We further suggest civilian authorities to
place restrictions on military policymakers.
We need no Caesars, Napoleons, or. Ludin-
dorffs today. Let the eager military heroes
attack poverty here and overseas, illiteracy
in and out of the military, and other ills
of mankind instead of helpless human beings.
Sincerely,
LAKE Oswzoo, OREG.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to thank you
for the stand you have taken over the Viet-
namese situation. Although, your advice his
not been heeded by the decision makers, it
has not gone unnoticed by your constituents.
Thank you.
Today, Mr. Johnson gave us it sugar-coated
pill in his message about Vietnam. He min-
imized the situation by indicating that he
did not think it necessary to call up tie
reserves, while at the same time he indicated
that he would reinforce the Vietnam troop
commitment by 50,000 from a now under-
manned Army. He also indicated that Le
would double the draft. Young men need
mature leadership or they quickly die on the
battlefield. I have a son who will be one of
those to go with the 1966 draft or he will
volunteer, but I do not desire to see him led
by inexperienced garrison soldiers, or dis-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003111/04.: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
turbed and disgruntled reservists. I think
that he is entitled to receive his training from
tried and proven professionals. One good
source would be the, hundreds of thousands
of retired professionals who have left the
army after only 20 years service.
Mr. Johnson cannot call up the retired
soldiers without congressional permission;
however, many are serving in dual capacity
as reservists in the retired reserve-many of
these men in their late thirties and early
forties could well free' an active army profes-
sional from stateside or service type or train-
ing type duties if ordered back to active
service. I do not advocate that they be
called to duty involuntarily, but they all
should be asked to volunteer their services;
many with complete dedication would leave
lucrative civilian jobs to return to harness.
Each one so returned to duty would lessen
the need to draft a boy or dislodge an un-
trained reservist who really doesn't want to
go, or can't afford to go. These men could
replace the military staff at universities,
recruiting service, station complements, and
other housekeeping jobs; thereby, freeing
well qualified professionals for duty overseas.
However, as evidenced during the Korean
war-the administration would not do this
unless it were dictated by the Congress. It
costs less to recall a retiree because he gives
up his retirement pay-an economic factor,
plus the efficiency that would be gained by
the use of experience that is available. Fur-
thermore, many retirees would be qualified
for troop duties also. Of course, only physi-
cally qualified retirees should be called.
I would appreciate your comments on the
above, and ask that you consider these
thoughts for possible action as my repre-
sentative in the U.S. Senate If the president
should call for authority to raise more troops.
Sincerely,
RAY A. ZIEGLER.
AMBLER, PA.
Senator WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR SIR (meant to be an appeal to Con-
gress also) : Have you thought of getting im-
peachment proceedings started against Pres-
ident Johnson, or interesting any of your
colleagues in the legalities of starting im-
peachment proceedings against a President
who violates the Constitution by waging
undeclared war according to his own will
and whimsey?
Surely he cannot play havoc with the lives
of U.S. citizens whom he has sworn to serve
and protect.
Surely he cannot order boys to their death
without Congress lifting a finger.
How has this egomaniac, power-hungry
man obtained such absolute authority over
this democratic Nation?
Where are the checks and balances of the
system?
Can President Johnson (one man) involve
the whole world in a nuclear holocaust?
Can he ignore public and world opinion
and fool Congress with his pious and hypo-
critical mouthings that are written by an-
other man?
Democracy is truly dead, if such a man
can, unchecked, continue to embroil us, step
by step, into a deeper and deeper conflict.
He will sacrifice thousands, yea, millions to
save face and pride, rather than admit de-
feat. He dictates to Congress and then pres-
surizes them into sanctioning his wild,
cowboy foreign policy. Congress has become
a rubberstamp. For shame.
Are there no men of good will left, sane
men of authority who will stand up and stop
this stubborn, obstinate man?
The late Edward R. Murrow helped to turn
the tide against another seemingly invincible
tyrant, the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Let us hope that enough similar good men
will come forth, join with you, and turn the
tide against the Johnson gang before it is
too late.
Sincerely,
MRS. FRANCES COX CECCHINI,
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZ.,
July 13, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In your letter of
July 6 you are probably right in the idea
that any attempt to remove Johnson from
office would backfire. My suggestion for im-
peachment, however, stems from an anger
which has been growing for 20 years. For
quite -a while after 1945 our diplomacy to-
ward Russia seemed to me to consist mainly
of the truculent stockpiling of atomic bombs.
Then came McCarthy and no issue could be
discussed anywhere, domestic or foreign,
without fear of some kind of reprisal-the
kind that would, and did, bring ruin to many
individuals. Now Johnson has proved to be
quite as trigger happy as it was feared his
opponent would be. I am very much dis-
appointed in him.
I have not yet read the excerpt from the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (July 1, 1965; pp.
14915 through 14922) but I shall study it
thoroughly.
I want to endorse the last paragraph of
your July 6 letter which I will copy here:
"I hope that the opponents of Johnson's
policy in Vietnam will not fall apart by
adopting what we call splinter tactics in
conducting this struggle for peace in Asia."
If there is any way in which I can help
the opponents of Johnson's Vietnam policy
I will do so.
I appreciate very much the care, the
thought, and experience shown in your an-
swer to my letter. You may expect to hear
from me again. Meantime, any communi-
cation or literature from you concerning the
cause of peace will be most welcome.
My wife and I are on vacation with truck
and trailer heading for Colorado. I am a
retired postal employee. We will return to
San Bernardino in September when her
school term begins. She is a teacher of the
visually handicapped there. I am studying
a great deal myself in an attempt to become
literate in my old age. Rural Kansas-at
least the part I was born in-60 years ago
did not encourage education beyond the
elementary. Or at least I can say it did
not encourage a broad outlook. During the
First World War I remember signs on the
street corners of Newton: "Speak the Amer-
ican language: If you don't know it, learn
it. If you don't like it, get out." And Ger-
man was no longer studied in the schools.
I am sure you can read much between these
lines.
The vacation Is expensive. We should
have waited really until next year. But, now
Is the time. We are still alive and this beau-
tiful country is still here to be seen. What
next year will bring no one can tell.
Sincerely,
CLIFFORD M. TURNER.
PS.-In spite of everything I have become
rather fond of the human race. In it there
is surely the potential for universal happi-
ness and well-being. But not if everything
is reduced to rubble by nuclear weapons.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
July 31, 1965.
WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Negotiate with National ,Liberation Front
for ceasefire in Vietnam
Mr. and Mrs. WILLIAM R. CHILTON.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
July 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
I protest latest escalation- in Vietnam.
Please escalate negotiation attempts instead.
MARCIA BARRABEE.
18427
WINNETKA, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Encouraged by President's recently ex-
pressed willingness to consider withdrawal
of troops and inclusion of Vietcong in nego-
tiations.
RYE, N.Y.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Have telegraphed President re congressional
hearings on the war in Vietnam.
MADOLINE WANG.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
August 1,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Strongly urge great effort cease fire negoti-
ation for peace in Vietnam.
Mrs., KAGER RAY.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Keep negotiating for peace in Vietnam.
SELMA EWISS.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
August 1, 1965,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.:
Support for your hearing on negotiations
to secure peaceful means in solving problem
in Vietnam and urge support for Goldbergs'
efforts at the U.N.
SARITA DAVIS.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Let the U.N. arbitrate in Vietnam then
back a free election. Democracy works for
everyone.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Strongly opposed Vietnam step up would
support unconditional negotiations with
Vietcong.
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF.,
July 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Thank you for your efforts to keep world
peace. I believe you are right.
Mrs. CATHERINE SEGGIE.
U.S. PEACE CORPS PROJECT, WEST-
ERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,
Kalamazoo, Mich., July 31, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Just a few lines
(long overdue) congratulating you for your
stand against United States policy in Viet-
nam.
As a long and careful observer of events
in Vietnam, I concur completely with your
pronouncements. While you may not be
popular and must be subjected to all kinds
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CI;A-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18428
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
of pressure, you have at least the comfort
of being able to look in a mirror at yourself.
Please keep up the good work--history will
judge you well.
Yours sincerely,
CEDRIC C. CLARK,
Former Peace Corps Volunteer.
NORTH MANCHESTER, IND.
Senator MORSE.
HONORABLE SIR: We are grateful to you
for speaking out against our country's ac-
tion In Vietnam. We feel that we are in-
terfering in the reasonable plan which was
agreed upon at the Geneva Conference, a
plan which we agreed to respect. We feel
we have no right to bomb North Vietnam or
to support those in South Vietnam who have
not received the support of their own people.
Our boys are being asked to the and our
money spent for unjust foreign policy of the
United States. We urge that you continue
upholding fair principles and oppose the
sending of our forces 8,000 miles from here
to no good for anyone.
Respectfully yours,
Mr. and Mrs. DWIGHT H. ASHLEY.
FAIR OARS, CALIF., July 27, 1965.
Hon. LYNDON JOHNSON,
President of the United States,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. JOHNSON: I am writing to you
as a citizen of the United States, deeply con-
cerned with those basic assumptions of our
foreign policy that seem to underlie our
recent actions in Vietnam and the Domini-
can Republic. Senators FULBRXGHT, MORSE,
MCGQvERN, GREENING, and others have
pointed out on numerous occasions that an
effective foreign policy must be based on
present-day realities rather than old myths.
The following assumptions seem to me ex-
tremely dangerous in an age of thermo-
nuclear reality.
Our foreign policy apparently assumes (1)
that all Communist governments are dan-
gerous to our security and therefore no new
Communist governments should be allowed
in the world; (2) that subversion can be
equated with armed invasion (3) that our
foreign policy should be unified and inflex-
ible and public debate should be discouraged,
and (4) that we can win the cold war and
this can be accomplished by military
methods.
I will try to discuss each of the above
assumptions, hoping that this discussion
will help to promote a dialogue on this
crucial subject. The first assumption does
not correspond to present-day reality.
Yugoslavia, Poland, and Rumania, for a--
ample, offer no military threat to our secu-
rity. Inherent in this assumption is the
belief in a unified worldwide Communist
conspiracy. Tito's independence as well as
events such as the China-Russia split should
be sufficient to dispell this myth.
The second assumption is an extremely im-
portant one. If a few Communists attempt
to wield some influence in a,government or
revolution, are`; we justified in calling this
an act of aggression in order to justify our
armed intervention? How can an effective
war' be carried o1.t against subversion? How
caiti we tell a Communist subversive from a
a socially concerned patriot? Why. do we
fear subversion? Has any government that
was sensitive to the needs and wishes of its
people ever been subverted?
The third assumption openly violates the
principles of our constitutional democracy.
In a society that is ruled by the peoples'
representatives at the concent of the gov-
erned, the government must provide the peo-
ple with accurate information and encour-
age unlimited discussion in the national leg-
islature and among the public at large.
Only then are the people and their repre-
sentatives able to arrive at w1se decisions.
The fourth assumption Implies the defeat
of communism. In this assumption we im-
ply that we have the only political system
worthy of existence in the world and that
not more than one political ideology can
exist at one time. Why is it that we are not
concerned about the existence of dictator-
ships? Isn't this system of government just
as alien to our own as communism? Obvi-
ously we must learn to live peaceably and
with mutual respect for other systems of
government. Our only other alternative is
to try to conquer the world in order to make
it safe for democracy. In my opinion the
latter course of action can lead only to na-
tional suicide.
With sincere concern,
DAN W. CLANCY.
REDDING, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: We wish to thank you for
your opposition to U.S. policy in Vietnam
and ask you to keep up the fight. The hopes
and prayers of millions of parents are with
you. Keep up the good work.
We have admired your fearless stand on
other matters in the past, but, like most, did
not take time to write you.
We, like millions of other parents, are
wondering why American boys should fight
for a system obvioulsy so corrupt as the
South Vietnam Government system is. We
are sick and tired of more than a decade of
bungling in Vietnam. This country has
spent enough money there to have bought
every family there a good .farm, yet the con-
tinuing poverty of the peasantry makes them
easy converts to the Vietcong.
The rest of the world is turning against us
in this war. We look great, using napalm
all over the Vietnam landscape. How many
innocent people have been destroyed because
of indiscriminate plastering of a jungle by
burning gasoline and high explosives? The
pictures of our own press runs of Vietcong
suspects-suspects mind you-being tortured
by South Vietnamese soldiers are enough to
turn anyone's stomach.
We are losing the respect of all the world.
And, fighting in a hostile environment where
technological advantages mean little, we are
making ourselves the laughing stock of other
nations. We and our South Vietnamese
allies together can't put down half-starved
guerrilla fighters who think they have an
ideal to fight for.
Please read the attached editorial. Our
prayers are with you.
Sincerely,
GARTH and LORRAINE SANDERS.
[From the Redding (Calif.) Record-Search-
light, July 29, 19661
LET'S HOPE UNITED NATIONS WILL MEDIATE
IN VIETNAM
The one cheering note in President John-
son's press conference speech yesterday was
the renewed appeal to the United Na dons
to do something about the Vietnam situa-
tion.
'Unless we can get some acceptable inter-
national body to take over and mediate, it
appears we're trapped in an increasingly bad
mess. For without allies, Asiatic or Eu-
ropean, we are engaged in a land war in Asia,
and in the eyes of a great part of the world
this is rich white men killing poor dark-
skinned people.
And it's a war in which there is no real
winning. Suppose we somehow whip the
Vietcong and occupy and control all of Viet-
nam, or at least of all South Vietnam, and
that neither China nor Russia comes into
the fight. this would be "victory," but one
in which we'd have to be the occupying con-
queror for a long, long time. An alternative
would be to set up another of the long series
of dictatorships that have plagued this ].,,)ar.
of the world.
Of course, having gone as far as we have.
it's difficult to back out without losing face
and welching on commitments. The com-
mitments should not have been made; they
were commitments the American people were
assured would not be made; they were made
to a. "government" lacking the support or
consent of the people it seeks to govern.
President; Johnson did not make the orig-
inal commitments, though he has tightened
them. But now he's stuck with them, and
his political enemies, the very ones who hay
urged him to hit even harder in Vietnam.,
already have shown they'll make him suffer
either way. If he seeks to end the ghastly
mess, he'll be called an appeaser; if the war
goes on and gets worse, as It shows every
sign of doing, it'll be "Lyndon's war" and
he'll face a candidate pledged to "bring our
boys home."
This is a predicament from which we seem
unable to free ourselves. That's why some
help from outside will be more than welcome.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Thank you for your
courage in speaking out against our occupa-
tion of South Vietnam by military forces.
Our position there seems illegal, imm ora.,
and untenable and completely opposed to our
stated national concept of goals and ideals
in dealing with our fellow men.
Tacit consent in aiding in torture of Viet-
namese peasants, both adults and teenagers
and actually children, who are caught
between the ambitions of two politically
opposed groups of Vietnam is perhaps one of
the most barbarous acts committed by this
country in many decades.
Ruthlessly aiding in bombing indis-
criminately, either because of inexperience
of the military commanders or complete dis-
regard of international military code, indi-
cates that we have already taken ourselves
out of the boundaries of behavior set by the
United Nations. As a Christian nation we
are setting and appalling example of being
far more ruthless than Communist nations.
It is most unfortunate that the advisers
of the President disregard United Nations
opinion. Whatever good has been achieved
on a national level during the President's
tenure of his office will be of little or no
importance if we continue our internation l
policy of interfering in the domestic affairs
of other countries. Rather, we should with-
draw all troops from Vietnam at once, Ieav-
ing only our Embassy personnel and work
through the United Nations for fulfillment
of the Geneva conference to permit the Viet-
namese electorate to decide their own destiny.
Hopefully they would be willing to become
a neutralized nation and put an end to the
military dictatorship which we are support-
ing in South Vietnam.
Again my gratitude that we have one
strong, intelligent, and moral voice which
speaks out again and again for world law and
order.
With warmest best wishes.
Oorclially,
Mrs. FRED Z. HETZ KL.
SAN FRANCISCO.
The Honorable WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
SIR: My congratulations on your forth.-
right militant rejection of President John-
son's "war" program.
There are many of us walking in peace
marches, talking to friends and coworkers,
urging withdrawal and negotiation who are
becoming more frustrated and discouraged
as each day more dreadful acts are carried
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August .3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
out in the name of the people of the United
States.
Your voice gives us courage to carry on.
Don't fail us--speak out, often.
Most sincerely,
ELLEN IZARD.
JULY 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I appreciate your
having the courage to speak out and give
your opinion on this terrible war in Vietnam.
I agree with you completely. I do hope,
through your efforts, this civil war in Viet-
nam can be settled in the United Nations.
Very sincerely,
Mrs. IRENE MANDELL.
JULY 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: You are fighting a
losing battle-but thank God you are fight-
. ing
It seems as':though the war hawks includ-
ing Johnson have gone completely off their
mind.
I wish I knew how I could help-I write
-Johnson almost daily hoping that enough
mail against war will make him realize that
his words of peace and his actions of war
is not fooling anyone.
He would make a good actor-he is always
posing-and frankly we turn off our TV
when he is on-because he seems to think
he is fooling the American people. All he
is doing is showing that he is a war hawk-he
lied to get the Presidency-so where do we
go from here?
Again thank God that you and a very few
of the others are protesting-it gives us just
a little hope.
Please help us to help you in some show
of.-faith we have in you to possibly make
the war hawks come to their senses.
Thank you.
YUCAIPA, CALIF.
plead with you to maintain your courage and
your dedication-not to yield and lose heart.
Let me inform you that our own endeavors
to educate the American public concerning
the Vietnam situation continue with increas-
ing vigor and dedication through the spon-
soring of public debates, speeches, distribu-
tions of literature, conversation, and letters
to newspaper editors and public officials. If
you should have any suggestion to propose
to its so that we might be more effective,
please do not hesitate to so inform me.
I am wondering if you have available
copies of speeches, official, publications, or
any other written material to send me. I
would be most pleased for you to place my
name on your mailing list in order to receive
whatever you have to offer along these lines.
In closing, let me offer to you a more
complete quotation of President Johnson's
appeal to reason so often quoted:
"Come now, and let us reason together.
If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat
the good of the land:
But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be de-
voured with the sword.
-Holy Bible, Book of the Prophet Isaiah,
chapter 1, verses 18, 19, and 20.
What could be more prophetic?
Respectfully yours,
SIDNEY M. WILLHELM,
Assistant Professor.
WOODLAND HILLS, CALIF.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: It is the purpose of
this letter to register my approval of your
stand concerning U.S. policy in southeast
Asia, particularly as regards our action in
Vietnam.
I greatly admire your courage in taking
a forthright stand for what you believe to
be right.
Sincerely yours,
HARRY E. SULLIVAN.
WOODACRE, CALIF.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please Continue in
your 'efforts against more military aid to
Vietnam and in your criticism of Johnson's
policy regarding this disgusting situation.
Thank you.
? CARMICHAEL, CALIF.,
July 28,'1965.
DEAR SIR: I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to thank you for your efforts in the
Senate to bring about peace in the world.
I feel, as I know you do, that our only hope
in this age is the settlement of our prob-
lems through world law and the United Na-
tions. I am certain that more and more
voices will join yours in this effort in the
weeks to come,
Americans everywhere are indebted to you.
Sincerely,
JAMES K. TODD.
P.S.-Since I am a displaced Oregonian
now living in California, may I be added to
your mailing list.
J. T.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF
NEW YORK AT BUFFALO,
July 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Of all the U.S. Sen-
ators you must surely stand most erect for
your forthright declaraitons in opposition
to President,. Johnson's war in. Vietnam. I
can only say that you deserve the highest
praise, our foremost respect, and our fullest
support in your sustaining efforts to inform
the Senate, the President, and the American
people of our persistent errors in regard to
our military intervention In Vietnam. I
No. 141-11
Los ANGELES, CALIF.,
July 29, 1695.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I heard your com-
ment on CBS regarding Vietnam where you
suggest that our dear President send a reso-
lution to the Security Council of the United
Nations in order to work out a peace through
world law.
He is asking for help through the United
Nations but in turn is commiting more
American forces because the South Viet-
namese have given up. This is not a war for
freedom. This is an American war. It looks
like we are in it to stay.
How can we alert our Congress and the
people to the facts. I heard Sander Van-
ocur-NBC newsman just back from Vietnam
explaining this type of war can never be won.
If the Americans want to do it alone it will
take 2 million men.
Wish you health in order to keep up the
courage. Your Governor Mark Hatfield's
position is great, I wrote and commended
him too.
Sincerely yours,
IDA MESSINGER.
CUPERTINO, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
,Senator WAYNE,MORSE.
DEAR SIR: I believe you will appreciate the
sentiments I have enclosed with this letter.
I don't know if you ever looked up any, of
the Bible passages I have referred to in my
material to you. I will say this, you have
been unswerving in your fight for honest
18429
and fairplay in our foreign affairs. If you
and your associates could all get busy and
recognize the basic soundness of my analysis,
perhaps civilization might be saved.
I can anticipate a major American naval
disaster in the immediate future. Following
that there will be four or five atomic or
nuclear bombs dropped by our side in a con-
tinuation of "measured" retaliation.
Sincerely,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
ELTON R. MAAS.
SEATTLE, WASH.,
July 30, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: My own Senators are
of no use to me in this matter about which I
and many, many of my neighbors feel
strongly.
I speak of our activities in Vietnam. It
seemed to us that Lyndon Johnson had the
opportunity of all history to proclaim peace
for the world when he came into office. He
did not.
We look at the wars of history and find
that after killing numberless men, the peace
table was the final settlement. We act like
beasts.
What concerns us, out West here, is the
real motivation for this war in east Asia. If
"communism" the favorite cuss word of our
time, is the real cause, then it is the fears
of business, private profits and monopolies
which are the actual urgency. Is it such
things as tin, rice, and rubber and their
future control by our "free enterprisers"
which are furthering this killing spree, this
drafting of more and more young men to
snatch their profits for them,at the cost of
lives, defeated family life, and embittered
young men?
I remember, during the Korean war, we
had a pet shop and many soldiers on fur-
lough used to come in to play with the pup-
pies and kittens. One day I asked one of
these young men what we were accomplish-
ing in Korea. I have never forgotten the
way he stiffened up and replied "Not a damn
thing."
After that I made a business of asking.
Perhaps it was my friendly, gray-haired old
lady appearance which made them speak
frankly, but out of the 39 I asked they all
made practically the same reply.
Why, for Instance, have we not sent ves-
sel after vessel loaded with food and mate-
rials for bettering life in Vietnam, to get the
same result over communism-if it really
is communism we fear. Think of the atti-
tude toward America to be created by such
gifts, instead of winning what we now have-
the disapproval of practically all nations,
lost trade with the immense Chinese popu-
lation, and not the least, the fears, sadness
and unwillingness of the parents of drafted
soldiers.
Please set me straight. We need the advice
and wisdom of a Senator who dares to oppose
our Government policy.
Sincerely yours,
ETHELYN M. HARTWICH.
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I'm with you..
Your truly,
J. E. KATZENBERGER.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: You seem to be one
of' the very few leaders in this country to
whom the American citizen can appeal.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18430
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
Why do our statesmen hide their heads in
the muck and become merely politicians
under the heel of President Johnson? Why
is everyone who disagrees with Johnson
tarred as a Communist? is it so that none
will dare speak out?
Will we have to whine like the German
people did of Hitler's war: "We were not
responsible; it was not of our doing."
Khrushchev got out of Cuba. Was he a
more responsible leader than Johnson?
Doesn't he know or care that the use of vio-
lence to solve problems is an absurdity? Or
is he some sort of antihero, above the con-
science of God and man?
Our late President Kennedy was more than
a man for America, he was a man for the
world. Will there be anyone to seize the
banner from his stilled hand or are we never
to have the loathsome yoke of war lifted?
Must we all follow like lemmings down into
the hellish pit which Johnson is digging
deeper for us everyday?
Johnson's arguments for war are as straw
In the wind. Everyone of us knows that this
country is strong enough to turn back any
aggressor. Let not America be the aggressor.
Why hasn't this vital issue been laid
squarely before the United Nations where It
belongs, in this world that is being forced
to use comonsense? Why is Johnson
hedging this question?
Surely, America could do more for the
peoples of Asia and Africa through a demon-
stration of allout help in a South Vietnam
that is separated from her Communist
neighbor, North Vietnam.
This senseless killing of both Americans
and .Asians is creating vast fear of the
U.S. Government throughout the world and
In American citizens, also.
In God we trust.
WINNETKA, ILL?
July 31, 1965.
I shall stand behind you In every diplo-
matic effort to bring an end to the tragedy of
Vietnam.
Yours for a better world,
SARAH SHORESMAN.
GAZA, IOWA,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: The situation
and deplorable U.S. policy in Vietnam has
many in this community deeply worried and
concerned.
I understand you are one who is in opposi-
tion to the bombing in North Vietnam and
the terrific military buildup in South Viet-
nam. If so I would like to extend my sincere
appreciation and wholehearted support.
It seems this situation has gotten way out
of hand. Not much but disaster is going to
be achieved by all the military aggressiveness
and show of force. If all the personnel and
money could be turned to constructive efforts
and peaceful help and building up of the
country's resources rather than the current
destructive policies how much better every-
one would be.
May you continue to work for peace and a
constructive U.S. policy.
Many thanks,
Mrs. RUSSELL
BILLINGS, MONT.,
July 24, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I've listened with
interest to the opinions you have expressed
in recent years concerning the Vietnam war.
I think that we made a terrible blunder and
the proper thing now is to admit that we
made a mistake and get out of Vietnam, be-
cause after all anyone can make mistakes and
we have made them before. We should turn
it over to the United Nations and let the
United Nations take responsibility and be
supported at the very time that it needs our
support. This should be done immediately
before this war escalates into world war III.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
EUGENE V. KRONMILLER, M.D.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
A1sAR SENATOR MORSE: I am enclosing a copy
of a letter just sent to President Johnson. It
is anly one of many recent messages to him.
I hope that you will use his recent state-
ment3 in such a way that he will receive
public support for the diplomatic and politi-
cal approach, rather than the military escala-
tion which seems almost inevitable.
Unfortunately, there are few men in Con-
gress to whom we can make an effective ap-
peal. We hope that you can convince more
of them.
Yours sincerely,
SARAH SHORESMAN.
WINNETKA, ILL.,
July 31, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
Ttl:e White 'House,
Washington, D.C.
D1AR MR. PRESIDENT: Not long ago, I wired
you that I do not want a wider American war
in Asia. I still feel the same way. I, how-
ever, applaud in your latest remarks that you
are ready to talk with the Vietcong and dis-
cuss the four points previously made by
Hanoi. I hope that your request to the Se-
curity Council will be vigorously pursued and.
will bear fruit before we become more. in-
volved in deadly warfare. I hope that dip-
lomatic, political, social, and economic means,
not military, will be used from this point on
to bring an end to the death, destruction,
and disease in both Vietnams. The increase
indraft calls, the request for more military
spending and expansion of our forces in Asia,
frighten all of us and serve to consolidate
opposition to our policies throughout the
world.
MENLO PARK, CALIF.,
July 30, 1965.
MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have not seen
your name in-our papers since Johnson's talk,
but I heard on radio that you yelled "mur-
der" with which I wholly agree.
We keep on trying to influence Johnson
to cease-fire, to turn the negotiations over to
a United Nations which we would support
and make strong enough to settle interna-
tional disputes.
Could some of these clippings be inserted
in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? Do you like
to see the editorials, and good columnists
from the San Juan Chronicle?
My dear man, how I wish we had you for
our President.
Carry on.
Los ANGELES, CALIF.,
July 29, 1965.
Congressman GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr.,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN BROWN: May I again,
on behalf of both myself and Mrs. Borough,
express appreciation and gratitude for your
firm stand on behalf of world peace in the
present crisis precipitated by the Johnson
administration? You and the courageous
dissident minority of Senators - and Repre-
sentatives who are standing out against the
war hawks may well prove the deciding fac-
tor in the prevention of ultimate chaos and
dissolution for civilization. Your responsi-
bility is tremendous.
Your battle is by no means hopeless-the
people are being mobilized on behalf of
peace. It is undoubtedly true that a de-
cisive majority of the politically consciou8.
citizenry of the United States stands for
peace-against the escalation of the Viet-
namese war and for the prompt settlement;
of the issues involved through the United
Nations. As for the people as a whole, the
majority is torn by doubts and fears and
though silent, is by no means convinced that
it wants its sons to fight a truly foreign war
There are, of course, the representatives of
the Pentagon-industrial complex and their
defenders-always the enemies of interna-
tional law and sanity. But these, thougl',
powerfully entrenched, are by no means in-
vincible in the face of national and interna-
tional opinion. I am eager that you and
your courageous colleagues accept this wholly
rational premise. Do you? You must not
concede that you are fighting a losing battle.
Above all else, it ought to be increasingly
apparent that the official Washington pre-
sumption that this Nation has a right to lay
down the moral law for all humanity is
ludicrous and totally unacceptable to the
rest of mankind. Let's get off our high horse
and try to be cooperative human beings.
Thanks again, Congressman BROWN.
Cordially yours,
REUBEN W. BOROUGIiI.
CORTARO, ARIZ.,
July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: The critical Vietnam situa-
tion is a very serious problem. It seems
that most people, who are concerned about
the Vietnam fight, deal with it only with
their emotions, not with their intellect (per-
haps their brain has been numbed by the
slaughter).
Oh, how the American people do need
understanding and integrity when they are
confronted with controversial problems.
The average public official and the average
American is starving for, at least, one of the
qualities in which you are outstanding, that
is intellectual and moral courage.
I think the national administration is
making some good progress with many of our
domestic problems, but the foreign policy
seems to be far off the course, especially the
massacre action in Vietnam.
I think this Nation has no right to use
military power to force other nations to
adopt an ultra conservative or reactionary
government.
It seems to me that for many years the
United States has been giving military cr
economic support to royalty and other dicta-
tors in foreign countries.
It seems to me that this Nation is inter-
fering with the democratic processes in Viet-
nam.
This Government should exercise more el -
fort to stop the Vietnam fight instead of
extending it.
Senator, I think some of your views on
foreign policy are much better than some
of those being followed.
Senator WAYNE MORSE, I appreicate your
active intellectual and moral courage in you r
concern with our today's problems.
Sincerely yours,
A. B. JACKsoN.
P.S. A quotation from a cartoon: "The only
thing to do is set up a reactionary, incom-
petent government, then ask for U.S. sup-
port?
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
1-8431
July 30, 1965.
Senato'r"'WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: How courageous a
man you are. Your path must be lonely. I
pray for you and your convictions, daily.
How some of our leaders throughout the
world can gamble with millions and millions
of lives is nonunderstandable.
A concerned citizen,
Mrs. CALETTE GALLI.
DORCHESTER, MASS.,
July 31, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am in favor of
your fight to have President Johnson clarify
our foreign policy. You are a patriot to your
country. I am sorry that you are harassed
by being unable to have your speeches
printed because of your dissent from Presi-
dent Johnson's view.
GERALD J. O'RouRKE, Jr.
MILWAUKEE, WIS.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please continue your
efforts to have the Vietnam war settled by
the U.N. My husband and I are among those
who do not approve of U.S. behavior in that
country and who do not go along with Presi-
dent Johnson in this area.
Sincerely,
DAVIS, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: My profound ad-
miration for your courageous stand on Viet-
nam.
You will yet be honored for your expert
analysis of this senseless war-if there is
anyone left to honor you.
JOHN E. DRAPER.
WEST BRANCH, IOWA,
July 31, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Your "No" vote on
May 4, 1965, when the President asked Con-
gress to appropriate an "additional $700
million to meet mounting military require-
ments in Vietnam" is applauded. May you
continue to be responsible to and for the
people of these United States and of this
world.
Through Christ.
Love,
FRED L. BARNETT.
NEW YORK, N.Y.
July 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
SIR:You are indeed the greatest man in
Washington today, I only wish that you were
from New York. My representatives-one a
man full of Boston beans who must confess
to Cardinal Spellman and the other is for-
ever looking for softer matzoth balls on
Broadway.
S. MORASKI.
NEW YORK, N.Y., July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MORSE: Enclosed is a copy of a
letter I sent to President Johnson.
This country is rapidly approaching the
point of no return. You are one of the few
people with the courage and honesty to speak
out. We look to you for leadership and guid-
ance.
JANE K. $KLAR.
The war in Vietnam is not worth the cost
of a single life, American or Vietnamese. If
you are at all sincere, you can agree to the
implementation of the 1954 Geneva Accords.
Then you will be saved the need for shed-
ding tears for our boys.
Respectfully,
JANE K. SKLAR.
Modesto, Calif., July 15, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a college teacher
since 1930, except for 4 years' service in
World War II, I am behind you 100 percent
in your program for Vietnam. I also suggest
that McNamara and Rusk should go.
Also, the Bundy boys should go.
What can we Demqcrats do to help mat-
ters?
CHARLES BLACK,
Instructor in Anthropology.
P.S. The administration could use ?a few
anthropologists, but then these are not very
popular with either the south or the Army.
SPRINGDALE, CONN.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I just want you to
know that I think you are the only Senator
in Washington that is sensible. Please con-
tinue to speak out for you reflect the views
of many Americans.
Thank ybu.
DOROTHY OSILEA.
YPSILANTI, MICH.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Eastern Michigan University Vietnam
Committee urges cease fire and immediate
negotiations with National Liberation Front
in Vietnam.
J. THEODORE HEFLEY.
JAMES R. WALTER.
PITTSBURGH, PA.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I endorse your stand
on Vietnam. We were wrong to go there;
are wrong to stay there. Two wrongs do not
make a right. "May your tribe increase."
CELIA C. LEWIS.
YPSILANTI, MICH.,
August 2, 1965.
friends are those who come into my yard to
help me in a fight with my brother and who
leave me minus a house, a barn, a crop, every-
thing. That is what we are doing in Viet-
nam.
Mr. Johnson better take care that he not
lose more than his face. The one called God
may take a look-see on this earth and decide
to sweep it clean of all who encumber it be-
cause they are spiritually dead. With God,
positions and possessions do not count and
leaders who lead their followers to evil-doing
are guiltier than the ignorant masses they
lead.
May that God inspire you to oppose the
real malefactors within this and within all
nations on this earth. Congress still has the
last say-so on declaration of war. Don't let
Johnson, at al., eucher us into that declara-
tion. -
God be with you.
FRED F. JURASEK.
PORTLAND, OREG., July 30, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: I feel the
pulse of heartbreak for our Nation at the
decision of President Johnson to send his
peace and progress program forward on for-
eign soil with the blood of our sons, and tears
of their loved ones.
As our confidence in our President is
shaken, please let us extend our vote of con-
fidence to you for the mighty right you stand
for, and thank God you can speak out so we
can all hear you.
We voted for a man who promised that
no' mother's son would fight on foreign
soil, and not at home; unless we were
attacked. The Oregonian depicted our new
President and Vice President in colored pic-
tures and ink as peace and progress.
Now he describes "peace" to us as war
strategy to have peace if we have to fight
for it. He never talks of initiating meas-
ures to bring about a peaceful solution. He
only suggests that those who do not have
either the ability or the confidence in our
Nation to offer a solution that will be inviting
enough for us to stop killing them because
they are Communists.
President Johnson is right when he claims
this idea of carrying the war forward over
there is an old idea for that is what
MacArthur was fired for.
It was hard to expect anything from Ike
except war strategy, but somehow we all
had high hope that Kennedy would grad-
ually negotiate trade agreements to bridge
a way to greater understanding among na-
tions, because of his great intelligence In in-
fluencing the nations of the world to work
peacefully toward solutions, and his patience
to bring them about, and now we mourn his
loss to our Nation anew as we see the result of
"impatience."
When you speak it is like a light high on
a hill' of hope, again a vote of confidence
from us to you.
Sincerely,
Mrs. JOHN MAXWELL.
JACKSON, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Urge you to cease'bombing Vietnam. Be-
gin negotiations immediately with the Na-
tional Liberation Front.
JAMES R. and JUDITH C. WALTER.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,
July 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Hurrah and cheers.
Heard your Short comment anent Vietnam
fracas tonight at 10 p.m. over Station KCPX,
Channel 4.
It is about time some of you in Congress
ulled on President Johnson's [but more so
on McNamara's and Rusk's and CIA's
Bashes. Who says we [the peo wan o
ght? If Mr. Johnson and his well-heeled
ackers want to fight a war let them-with
heir bodies, their blood, their sons-keep the
est of us out of their perile, childish, stupid,
apoleonisque games.
We have many problems here. Why not
make this country a closer approximation of
heaven and leave the rest of the world to
their hell-making. And what will the Viet-
namese be freed from-an approximation of
poverty to the sureness of destroyed produc-
tivity? Since when can the destruction of
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I cannot vote for you,
but I do respect you. Why, why, why must
we continue to kill our lovely young boys?
We have spent millions of dollars for
United Nations. What is it for? Can't
America produce even one good leader that
can prevent war?
We are not all behind President Johnson.
Is this another Korea? What is our foreign
policy?
We fight communism in Asia, then we have
it 90 miles away and even in the United
States.
'PresidentLYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Your remarks concern-
ing your distress at having to send our boys
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-1 DP67B00446R0003001900001-8
 18432
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 8, 1965
I thought only Congress could declare war?
I've lost faith in our "Great White Father."
Respectfully but so very, very sad, I am,
Sincerely,
Mrs. CLAUDIA BABcoKR.
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY,
'uly 31, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR SIR: As a voter and citizen in the
.United States, I want to express my deep
and sincere appreciation for your courageous
stand upon the question of Vietnam. It Is
comforting to know that the Senate is not
entirely without consciousness that in Viet-
nam the United States has-put forward 'the
most unfortunate foreign policy commit-
ment (with the exception of the inexcusable
performance in the Dominican Republic)
to`date.
The United States should never have been
in South Vietnam, to begin with. And
neither international law nor commonsense
support our continued adventures in that
unfortunate country.
The only conceivably sensible and hon-
orable thing for the United States to do
now in Vietnam is to ask the U.N. to exer-
eise all its possible power to gain a cease-fire
preliminary to serious negotiations foi a,
settlement. And negotiations must include
all concerned parties (the Vietcong also) at
the conference table.
Once the dangerous, insane escalation of
the war, and the mutual use of terror and
brutality, have stopped, we may all recover
our wits sufficiently to make a settlement
at least as good as the 1954 Geneva accord-
with the United States a signatory this time,
please.
ANN HUBBELL.
P..$.-I am sending a copy of this letter
to President Johnson.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 31, 1963.
IJSAR MR. PRESIDENT: As a college educated,
voting, questioning, responsible citizen, I
feel "compelled to protest what my country
is doing in Vietnam and other parts of the
world. I may, not approve of what other
countries do, but that is irrelevant. This
is my country, and the only one in which
I have an involvement.
I am offended that we feel we have in-
herited the divine right to determine what
is right for the rest of the world. `his
has burdened us with policing the whole
world, enforcing our policies most cruelly
at times and, in short, led us to a kind of
insanity which calls every revolution com-
munist and quashes the just struggle for
fri dom. We have turned our backs on the
motivations which, in their turn, caused our
own revolution. We are ignoring the reali-
ties of the world situation.
I -feel like a citizen of prewar Germany
who sat and watched while the trains took
Jews past to be stripped of the final free-
. dom. There is no "right" or "wrong in
this world politically; but there is a wrong,
and we all know it, when people are mangled
and murdered by us. Hitler leveled Lidice
in the war when it was supposed to hold
partisans-and the world called it just one
more of his atrocities. I do not want my
country to be doing the same; I grew up
being taught it could never be so.
And even more practically, can we go on
using these methods wherever another coun-
try would use communism or socialism or
whatever to achieve what we already have.
It is none of our business. And we cannot
keep it up forever. We must find alternative
methods to war to settle 'human disputes.
Instead of relying on defense and armaments
experts, please listen more to the many
State Department and university experts who
are spending their lives working out ways
to achieve peace through honest negotia-
tions, economic cooperation, agreement to
allow others to differ with us.
In brief, they, whoever they are, are no
more perfect than we. We must accept this
and plan for, not an end to strife, ways to
settle strife without the horrible means of
modern war.
Sincerely yours,
JEAN CLARRIDGE PELLETIERE.
YPSILANTI, MICH.,
August 1, 1965.
President LYNDON JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I wish to
convey to you my opposition to the present
policy toward Vietnam.
Although the number of our troops has
been increased in that area and the draft
doubled, the war is hopeless, it seems to me,
from a military standpoint. The French
committed a quarter of a million troops to
the task of defeating the Vietminh and ulti-
mately had to withdraw even though they
continued to hold the major cities.
If the war continues to escalate, both
Vietnamese and Americans will be killed in
increasing numbers in a brutal, senseless
war which can go on for years until it be-
comes another Korea. And the Korean war
finally became so unpopular that General
Eisenhower in 1952 promised to go to Korea
if elected and secure a cease-fire which he
did.
The political implication of a continued
war in Vietnam is that we will lose more face
than we already have among southeast
Asians and probably among undeveloped na-
tions over the world. Moreover, if it is
communism with which we are chiefly con-
cerned, more Communists will be produced
with each day the war continues.
But the most serious results of the war
might well be a nuclear confrontation fol-
lowed by someone's decision to employ atom-
ic weapons. This danger, it seems to me,
is so frightening that no nation is justified
in embarking on the sort of military ad-
venturism which now characterizes our Viet-
nam policy.
I urge you to deescalate the war with a
view to reducing the tension and removing
American troops from Vietnam as soon as
possible.
Very truly yours,
J. THEODORE HEFLEY.
BRONx, N.Y., July 29,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Keep up your fight against the
ever-widening U.S. military involvement in
Vietnam.
Only Congress can declare war, according
to the Constitution. We are in a hot shoot-
ing war, but why has Congress failed to exer-
cise its warmaking authority, which is ex-
pressly mandated in article I, section VIII,
subdivision 11 of the Constitution?
I am proud that you keep insisting for
Congress to debate this issue. Too many of
your colleagues in Congress either are too
timid, or too indifferent to this life and
death problem.
Maybe now Congress will take up discus-
sion of our southeast Asia troubles since
hundreds of thousands of our men are to
be sent there, and since it is to cost so much
money.
I admire you for standing up almost alone
in your dissent of current Presidential pol-
icy on southeast Asia. The Congress should
be grateful to you for saving the warmaking
policy for the Congress to perform, as the
Constitution states.
Yours very truly,
HELEN D. KARSTADT.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
July 31, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I wish to ex-
press my great dismay at your decision once
again to escalate the conflict in Vietnam.
The refusal of our antagonists there to talk
peace cannot be a convincing reason for
escalation until we have offered to talk with
the people we are actually fighting against.
If that kind of peace negotiation: now
seems like "backing down," we have nobody
to blame but ourselves, since our "comlydt-
meat" to dictate what kind of government
the Vietnamese shall have violates all our
basis American values.
The only moral purpose for a foreign mili.
tary presence in Vietnam would be to insare
the freedom of free elections by the Viet-
namese themselves, and the only way to do
this is to make the military presence inter..
national; i.e., under the United Nations.
If we are afraid that South Vietnam would
go Communist in a free election, then our
best bet is to have the U.N. supervise two
free elections, several years apart, so that
the Vietnamese have a chance to live under
the kind of government they now think they
want and then have a chance to change their
minds if they want to.
Such a policy would do the greatest honor
to our American beliefs in democracy and
individual freedom. Until it has been tried
we cannot honestly claim that we have no
peaceful and honorable alternatives to war in
Vietnam.
Respectfully,
ELIZABETH CONVERSE.
Copy to Senator WAYNE MORSE.
JACKSONVILLE, FLA.
July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: This is being written to
say that I agree entirely with your position
in the illegal war we are carrying on in
South Vietnam. I have read in the papers
at times that you are one of the very few
men in Congress who have the courage to
get on your feet and disagree with Mr. John-
son in this matter. We have no business
in fighting a war in South Vietnam and we
never made any promises or commitments
to any country to do so. We were to furnish
some military advisers to that little country
but we were never under any obligation to
send thousands of troops there to carry on
a war.
If the forces of North Vietnam get con-
trol of South Vietnam I do not see whether
that makes any difference to us. This whole
little country is not worth the life of one
American soldier. The situation is getting
worse and worse. We are losing men every
day and the expense is terrible and we the
taxpayers have to pay. This is a matter
that the United Nations should have to
handle and not the United States should
handle alone. We ought to get out of that
little country as quickly as we can and slow
down instead of enlarging the war. Ii a
vote in this country were taken, I am con-
fident that the great majority would agree
with you that we should not and have no
right to carry on a war in that country. I:
want to congratulate you upon your courage
in the position you have taken. It seems,
however, that practically all the Democrats
in Congress go along with whatever Mr.
Johnson wants and are afraid to oppose him.
in anything.
With best wishes, I remain,
Respectfully yours,
J. H. Ross.
P.S.-Our Florida Senator, GEORGE SMASH-
ERs is doing a poor job-he does every-
thing Mr. Johnson orders to be done. I:
have so written him. I have been a mem-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
her of the Jacksonville City
several years.
Council
JULY 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am writing to you
with the hopes that you will relay my plea
to anyone who is in a position to listen.
Please, please for every mother, son, wife, and
children left behind, can't someone put a
stop to this horrible mess before it goes any
further? It appears that the U.S. Govern-
ment has gone completely insane with a
few exceptions of course.
As a private citizen, taxpayer, and voter,
I am unable to understand the reasons for
the insane mess in Vietnam.
Mr. President has explained and explained
but I am still unable to grasp the real rea-
sons Why? Are they being told? Or are we
being duped again?
Please do whatever you can to help stop
the war and register my protest if it will
help.
Secretary General U THANT,
United Nations,
New York, N.Y.
DEAR SIR: Since all governments have ex-
pressed their desire for peace and the ending
of the war in Vietnam, may I suggest that
you call for a ceasefire to take effect August
14, the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire in
World War II. This should be accompanied
by steps toward negotiations.
Very sincerely yours,
PHILIP S. ROWEN.
VISTA, CALIF., July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR SIR: We are in accord with your pol-
icy on Vietnam.. How can we help you in
your efforts?
Sincerely,
Mrs. LEROY THOMAS,
LEROY THOMAS. ,
SEBASTOPOL, CALIF,., July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I've heard many
people in this area express their apprecia-
tion for your valient effort in behalf of the
Vietnam people. Accept my thanks for all
you are doing to promote justice and sanity
in world affairs.
DEAR SIR: I am simply a citizen who feels
that we are embarked upon a losing so im-
moral path in Vietnam. Altho I am aware
of the many mistakes of U.S. policy of the
past in this region and of the many fallacies
and flaws of the present policy, I find it
difficult to consider alternatives. Most of
what I read is either out right opposition,
with no actual realization of any dangers of
outright surrender, or approval of the pres-
ent U.S. policy. Intelligent criticism, that
is aware at least of the perils of surrender
and can consider them and still offer alter-
natives, is what I seek. If you could send me
any literature you might have, copies of past
speeches on this topic or the names of some
other books so I might read, I would be
greatly appreciative.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
LONG ISLAND CITY, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MoRsE: The President's ap-
proach to the United Nations in his state-
ment yesterday indicates that he is at last
beginning to feel the force of your persistent
I am deeply grateful to you, and to those
few of your colleagues courageous enough to
support you. I hope you will find the energy
places unappreciated, effort to bring sense
into our foreign policy.
I am sure that if it had not been for you,
the President would still be holding tight
shut even this one little door to peace.
With assurances of my highest personal
consideration, I am, sir,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As I doubt that
President Johnson's consensus is any less
evident in Oregon than in my locale in east-
ern Massachusetts, I wish to congratulate
you for your (politically) brave stand on this
Nation's policy of abandon in Vietnam. Cer-
tainly, you are alienating many of your con-
stituents with your statements. It is absurd
that the Senate is proving itself so woefully
lacking in its willingness to get informed on
the development of U.S. policy in Vietnam
that only two in its ranks, yourself and Sen-
ator GRUENING, seem to be able to bring rea-
son to bear on the problem. More power to
you! Vietnam is obviously too delicate a
problem to be coped with intelligently by
politicians.
I have recently finished reading Harold
Laski's "The Rise of European Liberalism"
(1936). Below I have quoted the closing
passages from that work for you. In them
Laski describes his impression of the failure
of the so-called Liberal states of the 19th
century to avoid the conflagration of 1914.
His analysis, which points out the ironies of
universal ideals compromised to parochial
self-interest and reason perverted by crusad-
ing self-righteousness, seemed to this reader
compellingly applicable to the posture of the
present U.S. policy-making machine. At least
it helps to explain our Government's naive
understanding of modern Communism, its
reluctance to understand He, the Viet Minh,
the Vietcong, Vietnamese-Chinese relations,
its spurious legitimization of South Vietnam
in 1954, its sanctification of that regime by
means of the SEATO protocol in September
of 1954, and its mounting, of a crusade there
since 1960. Surely, the men in our Govern-
ment who have so consciously pursued a
power position in Vietnam, a position which
can be rationalized only through crude abuses
of fact and history, must feel threatened by
ideas such as self-determination of peoples,
anti-colonialism, distribution of goods ac-
cording to need, to name but a few.
Whether either blind self-righteousness or
cunning greed alone inform the outlooks of
our Vietnam policymakers is impossible to
determine from my vantage point. More
than likely both these traits are playing im-
portant roles as our Government enjoys
equating the protection of mankind's free-
dom with our national self-interest. With
an unassailable formal justification for our
policy such as this, it has become increasingly
impossible for the United States to keep its
foreign policies geared toward satisfying the
hoped-for community of diverse nations and
political systems that gave a reprieve to the
war-torn world in 1945. In essence, the
United States is committing its power to a
concept of world order that is already obso-
lete. The self-interest of the United States
is its own business which it must square
With the interests of the ?other nations of
the world; the freedom of mankind is the
business of a genuine United Nations.
Well, enough of my theorizing. Here are
the passages from Laski:
"That they [the classical liberals] had
made war and revolution in their search for
authority they either did not remember or
chose to forget. That there was a time when
they, also, had been driven to plead for
understanding and justice and mercy they
no longer recollected. That the liberty they
18433
cherished was, in sober fact, a freedom denied
to the overwhelming majority of their fellow-
citizens too rarely entered into their con-
scious thoughts. They had refused to see
that a just society means either one in which
there is recognition of an equal claim upon
the common stock of welfare, or one, at
least, in which differences in reward are
capable of justification in terms of relevance
to that common stock. They had been con-
tent to assume that a profitmaking society
will, as science bestows the fruits of its dis-
coveries upon mankind, always be wealthy
enough to buy off its adversaries with mate-
rial concessions. On their assumptions,
they could not foresee that the forces of
production would come into conflict so
profound with the relations of production as
to jeopardize the continuity of all the habits
by which they shaped their lives. That con-
flict had been predicted throughout the
course of the 19th century; but, for the most
part, they had refused to take those steps by
which its acerbities might have been as-
suaged.
"So that when the conflict did come, they
were unprepared for its advent. Like their
predecessors, they fell into angry panic, and
felt with conviction that no price was too
high to pay for the retention of their privi-
lege. Even when the price exacted was the
destruction of the liberal spirit, they did not
hesitate to justify that sacrifice. They called
it the common well-being, the maintenance
of order, the preservation of civilized life.
They refused to admit that the energizing
principle of their society was exhausted.
They could not believe-even with the evi-
dence dramatically before their eyes-that
mankind was ready for a new social order
based upon a new relation of man to man.
They had in their hands the choice between
peace and War. But so completely were they
in thrall to the profitmaking motive that, in
the name of humanity, they blindly chose
war, without the vision to perceive that the
thing they called humanity was no Other
than, the greed they served. So, as in the
16th century, mankind seemed to enter upon
a long period of winter. We can comfort
ourselves only with the hope that a later
generation will detect in its rigors the grim
prelude to a brighter spring" (pp. 263, 264).
Sincerely,
PAUL A. FIDELER,
Instructor in History, State College,
Framingham, Mass.
RIVERSIDE, RIPARIUS, N.Y.,
July 30, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have a new wrinkle
of an argument for you in your continuing
and just fight against the administration's
immoral policies in Vietnam, though per-
haps it occurred to you.
We are allegedly fighting to preserve and
secure freedom for the South Vietnamese
and we are using B-52's and napalm in this
cause. Do we love freedom so much that
we would send some marines to South Africa
to release the hundreds of political prisoners
there-who are imprisoned because they
have stood up for certain minimal human
rights? Or is our concern for freedom highly
selective and relevant only where our banks
do not have significant investments. In
short, our guardianship of freedom is
strangely selective and seems limited to de-
stroying the terrain of primitive countries
to stop communism. How about freeing
Albert Luthuli?
Cordially,
FLUSHING, N.Y.,
July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We are enclosing a
copy of a letter mailed to Senators JAvrrs and
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
18434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
KENNEDY, and Congressman ROSENTHAL. We
wish to express our approval to you and
Senator GRUENING for being two courageous
men whose views we applaud.
Very truly yours,
Mr. and Mrs. SAMUEL J. HOLLAND,
BURT S. HOLLAND.
FLUSHING, N.Y.,
July 30, 1965.
Hon. ROBERT F. KENNEDY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: We are tremen-
dously concerned regarding the escalation of
our administration's war in Vietnam. It is
a war not declared by the Congress or ap-
proved by the American people. We believe
that neither we Americans, nor the Western
World is being threatened in the manner that
the Nazis menaced all mankind.
We further believe that the Vietnamese
have the right to determine their own destiny
and their own form of government. All
countries cannot be shaped in our image.
if President Johnson wants free elections,
let him adhere to the principles agreed to
at the Geneva convention.
We urge you to prevail upon our Govern-
ment to act with sincerity and to talk with
the majority of the Vietnamese who have
been fighting for more than 40 years to free
their country from aggression. The so-called
,Vietcong are ' resisting us and it should be
to these people who are fighting that we must
address with our proposals of peace, if they
be real.
That the German people did not speak out
and protest a Hitler is now piously lamented.
We who still have the right of dissent must
speak up now against the unilateral policy
decisions which are earning us the enmity
of the free as well as the 'uncommitted coun-
tries of the world. Our stanchest allies can
hardly contain their criticism of our actions.
Since our country has not been provoked
our attitude is insane, If this madness con-
tigUes much longer our country will cease
being a democracy despite the administra-
tion's brilliant record domestically.
Where are the leaders who will speak up
for us? If no one appears soon enough,
words ;such as these will soon be deemed trai-
torous and treasonable.
May heaven help us.
Very truly yours,
Mr. and Mrs. SAMUEL J. HOLLAND,
BURT S. HOLLAND.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I do not need toex-
plain to you why I believe our present course
of action in Vietnam is wrong-if not insane.
But I can see no hope of reversing it except
through the action of the U.S. Senate.
The people will follow the President
blindly, more readily because of his evident,
sincere desire for peace "with boner." The
conditioned reflex of the cry of "stop com-
munism" is strong. But I see little hope of
a solution along lines acceptable to the Pres-
ident's advisors through the United Na-
tions-whom the Vietcong is unlikely to
trust.
I believe we must get out with what little
dignity remains possible and save our powder
for a better fight-which please God may not
be necessary-such as a Chinese invasion of
India. This present one cdn lead to nothing
but an interminable, massive military occu-
pation.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM M. PRESTON.
MOUNT VERNON, N.Y.,
July 28,1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to congratu-
late you and thank you for your courageous
stand against U.S. military policy in Vietnam.
This policy (like -a cancer) has eaten into
the hearts and minds and morale of our
American people to the extent that they are
no longer able to honestly evaluate our ac-
tions. I believe the Pentagon must be re-
sponsible for this. This damage to ourselves
could become irreparable if not checked. My
heart aches for the people of Vietnam.
What can be done to turn the tide of our
military policy? The American people do
need and want peace. With all best wishes
for your continued strength and good health
to work for peace.
Sincerely,
ALTA B. CHUsm.
OTTAWA, KANS.,
July 30, 1965.
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I write to say I ap-
prove of your views on the world situation
in which you state you believe the United
States must take the initiative for peace.
The President has lagged here, or doesn't
believe it.
I am opposed to the present Government
war policy as I understand it. I urge you to
work for cessation of U.S. bombing raids on
North Vietnam; cessation of troop move-
ments to South Vietnam.
I urge you to continue to work for peace,
especially to make full use of the U.N. re-
sources. I feel the latter has not been done.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
The Senate,
Washington, D.C.
EAST CHICAGO, IND.,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to compliment
you on your stand on the Vietnam crisis.
It's too bad that we don't have more in the
Senate today with your understanding.
I am a lifelong Democrat as my voting in
East Chicago will verify. I was one of those
who welcomed our President to East Chicago
during the time he ran for President.
I am very disappointed in his stand on the
Vietnam policy. I feel strongly that we have
no obligation there and especially In the
needless sacrifice of our American youth.
Recently I returned from a 4,000-mile vaca-
tion trip. Rather by accident in my travel
which covered 11 States, the Vietnam situa-
tion was mentioned and discussed. Some-
times it was a gas station attendant and
others such as fishermen, resort owners, res-
taurant operators, etc. Most of those I
talked with disclosed their politics, and were
Democrats, and all of them condemned the
President and his policy on Vietnam. In
Washington, p.C., I heard the same
comments.
The States through which my travels took
me were Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington, D.C.,
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
I estimate that I talked with 40 to 45 per-
sons. Remember these are the working class
of people and not executives, and so forth.
Also, I determined that by far the largest
majority were Democrats and were very
bitter.
As a businessman I am hearing the same
thing from customers every day and this is
a very strong Democratic vicinity.
Again congratulations and keep up the
good work. You are winning a lot of respect.
Yours truly,
HERBERT O. JOHNSON.
MENLO PARE:, CALIF.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: This letter Is an
expression of support for your outspoken
August 3, 1965
criticism of the Johnson administration's
present foreign policies. I am disgusted by
the acquiescence of Congress in the face of
this grave situation. A full scale debate of
the Vietnam war by the Senate is definitely
In order. I strongly urge you to continue
your efforts to present rational alternatives
to our present foreign policies.'-- You have the
support of a large proportion of the bay area
citizenry. Could you send me a couple of
your most recent speeches concerning the
Vietnam situation?
Very truly yours,
SENATOR MORSE: Keep up your Vietnam,
cr'ticism. You are correct.
Truman made a mess in Korea, Johnson
has made a mess in Vietnam.
You may not agree with some of the
things I say. But look at things correctly
and you will see.
ABN.
GOV. MARK HATFIELD,
Portland, Oreg.
DEAR GOVERNOR HATFIELD: With interest
and satisfaction I noticed that out of all the
various Governors assembled, only you and
Governor Romney had sense and courage
enough to voice opposition to sanctimonious:
talking Lyndon-come-lately as related par-
ticularly to the ever-growing-worse situation
In Vietnam.
My hat is off to both of you gentlemen
and my sincere wish is that other men, both
in Governor's seats and in the U.S. Congress
will awaken what is going on and side with
you two gentlemen.
A fair, sensible and impartial look at U.S.
Involvement in Vietnam should make every
Intelligent man and woman realize that from
the very beginning conditions pertaining to
U.S. Involvement have steadily gone from bad
to worse. And, of late, alarmingly so.
Henry Cabot Lodge, whom I long ago
dubbed, "Mr. Saigon failure," accomplished
little or nothing during his reign in Vietnam.
Now he is back. And why? More because of
politics than ability.
Gen. Maxwell Taylor has nothing to boast
about for his efforts.
Arrogant McNamara made several trips to
Vietnam. And if he accomplished anything
worthwhile-except wasting public money
on such trips-it has not been apparent.
It seems to me, as I think it should be to
anyone and. everyone with good sense, that
the fault lies with the political leadership
In Washington.
The Vietcong have, on occasions too
numerous to mention, made monkeys out of
the men sent to Vietnam by the Washington
chapter of the political KKK.
Just to mention three: When that build-
ing was bombed killing several sleeping
Americans, the official excuse was in the
jungle and couldn't be guarded. Bah.
Green, country boys with buckshot could
have and would have protected that build-
ing as it should have been. Apparently, no
leader.
When those several planes were destroyed.
Officially, accidental.
Bah again. No competent leadership was
evidently there.
When correctly timed and planted bombs
at that floating restaurant. These three
occurrences should make people wonder why
this Government did not hire a few Vietcong
leaders to guide American destinies in Viet-
nam.
Now, the United States under the guid-
ance of the Washington leaders of the polit-
ical KKK who have made a mess so far in
Vietnam, is flirting with a real war.
If we are to become engaged In a real
war, why, oh why can't the sensible and
thinking people of America work for and find
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R0003001.90001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
a way to make the nigger vote wooing polit-
ical racketeers in Washington take a back
seat, and in their place, put real men to
guide this Nation when real leadership is
most wanted? Men of the caliber of Gen.
Mark Clark.
The only war that sanctimonious talking
Lyndon-come-lately: Smiling, smirking Hu-
BERT, arrogant McNamara, bullying Katzen-
bach, and their tools among the Federal
judiciary who have made a mockery of city
and State laws, ban win-have the ability
to win-ir the war against the hated and
persecuted South to force equality between
races that God did not make equal.
Withholding Federal funds, Federal pa-
tronage from Members of Congress who dare
to buck the political KKK, numerous forms
of reprisals, Federal court edicts that have
made crimes committed by beastial niggers
skyrocket, said all such practices of the polit-
ical KKK will never win a war in Asia or
Russia.
This Nation needs real men at the helm
to guide our destiny-not the poor excuse
for men with the welfare of their Nation and
all of its people at heart, that we now suffer
from.
Think over what I have told you. We
sorely need real leadership-far different
from what we now have: a leadership that
will work for the welfare of this Nation and
all its people. Instead of working to win
the votes of a class that can and will be led
to the polls as so many sheep.
A. B. NIMITZ.
LOWELL, MASS., .
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: May I commend you
for your forthright statement on Vietnam.
It is heartening to many of us. who feel
that we are being catapulted into a un-
tenable situation to know that there remain
some public figures who have the courage to
represent reasonableness at a time when this
may not be popular.
After reading your comments, I was moved
to send the enclosed letter to my Senators
and Congressmen.
Very truly yours,
LOWELL, MASS.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator KENNEDY,
Representative F. BRADFORD MORSE.
Senator LEVERETT SALTONSTALL,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR SALTONSTALL: My deep con-
cern over the recent stepped-up involvement
on our part in the war in Vietnam has
forced me, an unaccustomed public letter
writer, to write to you. Like many, I have
sat by silently awaiting the forces of wisdom
and restraint to eventually assert them-
selves in our foreign policy. I am now, how-
ever, appalled and frightened by the accel-
erated tempo of our determination to risk
total war as the price of what must appear
to much of the world as our determination
to throw our weight around.
Phrases such as "survival of the free
world," and "protection of Asia," have ahol-
low sound as we find no active allies among
the free world or the Asians. Indeed, al-
though our President has clarified what we
must fight against, there appears little indi-
cation of any stable entity or philosophy in
South Vietnam that we are fighting for. I
appreciate that the situation cannot be over-
simplified and that we are in a difficult bind
in terms of commitments. Yet there must be
a cheaper price for saving face than further
immersion In this tragic venture which can
obviously not be solved through further loss
of human lives.
Was it not our fear that just this very kind
of situation could trigger off another world
war that made us so determined to set up a
Council of Nations? Why have we not trans-
ferred the responsibility of seeking some
compromise solution for this problem to this
world body where the United States can take
its proper, supportive role along with the
other freedom loving people of the world?
I do not idealize the power of, the U.N.,
yet feel that It can only begin to gain
statute and become a meaningful instrument
as we entrust it with the problems of the
world and invest in it our integri y and
strength.
Very truly yours,
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
July 30, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
Washington, D.C.
SIR: Abraham Lincoln has been credited
with the statement that "Some of the peo-
ple can be fooled some of the time but not
all people can be fooled all the time." It
came to mind Wednesday morning when
suffering the agony of watching you on my
television screen announcing the sending of
countless thousands of young Americans as
cannon fodder to the slaughterhouse in Viet-
nam.
Embarking upon an undeclared war no
different from the criminal actions of Ger-
many and Japan when starting World War
II without the sanction of Congress, in arro-
gant contempt of and in flagrant violation
of the Nation's Constitution. Apart from
the nauseating grin on your countenance,
the hypocritical use of the words "peace"
and "freedom" it was sickening to hear your
sanctimonious protestations of your concern
for the young people you are dispatching to
most cruel, premeditated mass murder and
misery.
Like warring heads of state in times past
you have also invoked the support and bless-
ings of Providence. It was the immortal
Scotch poet Bobby Burns who once exclaimed
"God does not give nor accept pleas and
thanks for murder." This on the occasion of
an invitation to participate in a church
Thanksgiving ceremony after one of Britain's
many imperialist, colonial adventures. If
there exists a just Providence what severe
punishment must await you and your kind
when summoned to appear on judgment day.
See Michelangelo's masterwork In the
Sistine Chapel in Rome, "The Last Judg-
ment."
The German people by silence and acqui-
escence allowed Hitler to come to power.
Our planet has still not recovered from that
tragedy. Your acts of aggression in Vietnam
if not stopped can only lead to world war
III, for which history will denounce and
condemn you.
I, a civilized human nearing the three-
fourths century mark, will not remain silent.
For the sake of our planet's preservation and
in order that America's youth and families
may live out their lives in peace, uninter-
rupted by the scourge of war, I demand that
you cease and desist your acts of aggression.
Yours truly,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
EVANSTON, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR: Your voice sounds like that
of the only sound man in an insane asylum.
I wish something could be done that it
may be heard all over the world turning this
escalating nightmare into a bad dream-and
18435
the dawn of commonsense and peace into
reality.
Sincerely,
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y.,
July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Although you are not of my
home State, New York, nevertheless the
views you are holding forth are my views
and from what I've read in the newspaper,
may I express my wholehearted admiration
for your remarkable courage in your out-
spoken criticism of the President's Vietna-
mese policy and of the brutal sending of
our American boys to sacrifice their lives in
such a coldblooded manner. I'm shocked
and may I say that you earn my most pro-
found respect and may God bless you for
having a conscience and not having the
timidity to speak out against the sickening
war this administration is carrying on with-
out any regard for our youth and fighting
men. I also have a son just turned 18
who is very depressed and most unhappy
over the state of affairs now going on in our
country. Our Congress is being ignored for
a formal declaration of war. We might as
well have no Constitution for all the admin-
istration cares. The U.N. is a peacekeeping
organization. Where are they functioning,
on paper only? Also I see by the newspapers
that your most worthy Governor, Mark Hat-
field of Oregon, was the only Governor be-
sides Governor Romney of Michigan who had
any spunk to disagree with the other Gov-
ernors. It really seems to me, as a resident of
New York City, that the only intelligent
members of our Government, who have minds
of their own, are not afraid to express their
own individual opinions are the rugged in-
dividualists from the State of Oregon, such
as yourself, sir, your Governor and also a
Senator from Alaska.
Senator MORSE, although I'm only a woman,
and a poor one at that, were I given the op-
portunity, I would have liked to get up on
the floor of Congress and express my anguish
and sorrow as a mother, and also express the
pain of the countless millions of mothers of
our land, the poor people whose lives have
always been one of hardship and poverty, and
to have the final insult thrust at them by
having their flesh and blood sent to be
killed-or maimed in a far-off jungle and for
what, I ask you. God bless you again, and
I feel grateful at least that the mothers have
at least one champion in you to defend us
in the Halls of Congress.
May God give you strength to fight those
policies of the administration in Vietnam and
to let yourself be heard.
Sincerely,
SAN GABRIEL, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: May I congratulate you
highly for your strong opposition to the es-
calation of the war in Vietnam. You are
truly a prophet crying in the wilderness. I
only wish many would heed your words.
Keep it up.
Sincerely,
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C':
Urge and end to hostilities and negotia-
tions in Vietnam based on Geneva awards.
Dr. and Mrs. R. S. FREEMAN.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18436
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE August 3, 1965
BROOKLYN, N.Y.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MoasE,
Senate Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Do not relax anti-Vietnam war effort.
Strongly support you. Doing everything we
can.
DOROTHY ALLEN.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate, -
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: This is in inquiry based upon
fading hope and mounting awe.
I am shocked by the Vietnam policy of
the United States. I have communicated
this shock to Senator KucHEL, and, to the
President of the United States. I have not
received a reply, despite my letters convey-
ing an interest in understanding their per-
ceptions. But, I need a reply, if only to
frustrate the growing tension within me
Which manifests itself by contaminating
somewhat the doctrine of peace and democ-
racy which purportedly motivates our Na-
tion. Thus, I am writing you, in the an-
ticipation that your publically announced
position on Vietnam will allow you the polit-
ical freedom to react to my often compro-
mising questions.
I Inquired of the Senator and of the Pres-
ident: by what right does the United States
impose its might upon a primitive country
that has for centuries resisted external con-
trol? By what authority does the United
States exercise its weaponry upon innocent
South Vietnamese women and children?
Under what aegis does the United States pre-
empt the United Nations in the search for
peace, or, if not peace, then negotiation?
What are our naive assumptions regarding
the ephemeral nature of the South Vietnam-
ese political puzzle? What ideological
ignorance is the matrix for the apparent pre-
sumption that the Vietnam population pos-
sess the awareness of higher authority, na-
tional identity, or personal integrity suffi-
dent to form the conviction demanded for
victory, or even combat? What evidence is
there which suggests the commitment of the
lay South Vietnamese individual, who, ulti-
mately, will be expected to power the social
aspect of reconstruction? What is the pro-
tracted design regarding southeast Asia?
Is Vietnam a bogus issue, and is Red China
the ultimate foe? What is the reason for
the apparent disparity between the combat
troop reports (on deficiencies of weapons,
material, etc.) and the Pentagon reports?
How do you account for the likely bamboo-
zling of the public by the administration,
which manifests itself in weekly estimate
contradictions, reversing position evalua-
tions, heavy press censure, etc? How can
one American death be justified in a war
that isn't a war, fought by native soldiers
who aren't soldiers, for a government that
isn't a government? Is the stability of the
mightiest Nation in the history of man de-
pendent on aggression? And lastly, what
happened to Goliath?
I wonder how representative our Govern-
ment really is. Thank you for your con-
sideration.
Sincerely,
GREELEY, COLO.
- LYNDONVILLE, VT., July 26,1965.
DEAR SENATOR: Can anything be done to
atop this senseless war in Asia?
We will not have a friend in the world.
utterly failed. History repeats itself and
no nation has remained free more than 200
years. Wouldn't you think people would
learn. Is it true that luxury living only
breeds rabble and it takes 200 years for that
rabble to getstrong enough to rule things.
Elections in our loved land Is now only a
farce. Under a really free election the people
who have gotten elected for the last 35 years
would never have made it. These people
fear the truth worse than the Devil hates
holy water. What good is education if it
does not teach godliness, patriotism, honor,
duty, cleanliness of mind and body, and most
of all love to work, not play.
We know that for many years there has
been an evil force working to destroy every-
thing that makes life worth living. They
talk of progress-the only progress they are
making is back not forward. And as sad as
it is this has all been planned from the
start of our loved land. The Constitution,
the envy of the world, is no longer a shield
but a weapon. All this did not just happen,
but was planned.
Now anyone with the courage to stand
against them gets the smear act. They dare
not star` an argument by attacking what
they say, for they only tell the truth-and
the truth must not be known, at any price.
The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Is full of truths,
but are being ignored. Let me suggest you
read up on your history and see if you want
the same kind of government that men have
struggled for years to free themselves from.
Or is the people under 45 unable to be any-
thing but slaves.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
New York, N.Y., July 31, 1965.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The President,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. PRESIDENT: I em writing in sor-
row and outrage that our country has pro-
ceeded with an extremely serious escalation
of the Vietnam war, masked by appeals for
peace. Many who voted for you, like myealf,
voted for opposition to Senator Goldwater's
call for war. We will not be deceived by
words which are denied by actions.
Others who are now swayed by admira-
tion of your domestic program and the au-
thority of your office will be shocked to reality
as the costs of our country's intervention
mount. If vigorous protests were made to
Democratic Senators and Congressmen when
an immediate call of the Reserves was ex-
pected, what will happen when the costs of
a war which has increasingly ominous pros-
pects hits vast numbers of our people?
Reality will not forever be masked by word
illusions.
Moreover, I urge that you consider the
wiser voices of our friends before we suffer
new setbacks. As the Manchester Guardian
recallad on June 27, we twice removed
Souvanna Phouma with unhappy results, and
our illusion that if only foreign subversion
could be stopped, all would be well is a fatal
misconcetpion. As our own press has em-
phasized, the North Vietnam aid became
significant only after our mounting interven-
tion.
Since you quoted the Bible in your Johns
Hopkins address, it is appropriate to urge
that you consider another part, As a man
sows, so shall he reap."
Even at this late hour, let us turn from
words of peace with acts of war to both
words and acts of peace. Ask the United
Nations to organize negotiations among all
parties involved in the Vietnam war. This
will include the Vietminh as well as the
government of North Vietnam.
Respectfully yours,
EDWIN S. CAMPBELL,
Associate Professor of Chemistry.
P.S.-I am enclosing a copy of this letter
in appreciation of your persistent effort for a
peaceful solution of the Vietnamese war.
Your work is needed more than ever before.
Copies to Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senator
ERNEST GRUENING, and Senator ROBERT
KENNEDY.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: You must keep yelling
against this Vietnam madness. Atrophy
must have set In with your colleagues. They
cannot be allowed to sit idly by and let
Johnson-McNamara & Co. push us over the
brink.
CHEVY CHASE, MD.,
August 1, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Enclosed Is a copy
of a letter I have sent to President Johnson
on the Vietnam situation. I hope my letter
helps in your brave attempt to keep our
Government from escalating this war to a
point of no return.
Good luck.
CHEVY CHASE, MD.,
August 1, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JoHNsoN,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I speak to you as a
mother and want to assure you first of all
that I am fully aware of the awesome job
you have as our President.
As a mother I also have the job of giving
my son confidence that if he is drafted to go
to South Vietnam he is doing the right thing
for his country to kill and perhaps be killed.
In this capacity I would appreciate it very
much if you would answer some very trou-
bling questions.
In essence you say that we are fighting in
that small country to keep men free so that
the ideology of communism will not spread
in southeast Asia and then have the oppor-
tunity to come to this country.
From all reliable reports I have heard the
majority of people in South Vietnam are
with or for the Vietcong. If the majority of
South Vietnamese people are with the
Vietcong and are helping them fight the
Saigon Government, my commonsense tells
me that the Vietcong must be better to the
people than the Government Of Saigon
which we are keeping in power.
My questions are:
1. If the majority of people In South
Vietnam do not want the Saigon Govern-
ment ruling them, why should we, thousands
of miles away, insist, by such methods as we
are using, that these people be ruled by a
government they are fighting to get rid of?
2. Is it our job to tell these millions of
people that they don't know what is good
for them?
3. Shall I tell my son that we are killing
the Vietcong because we say they are Com-
munists, and Communists are very bad peo-
ple in our thinking?
4. If such be the case then why don't we
send our army to the other Communist
countries such as the Soviet Union, Poland,
Checzoslavakia, Romania, etc., etc., instead
of having diplomatic and economic relations
with them?
5. I would like to tell my son, Mr. Presi-
dent, what you think a Communist is and.
just what does communism mean?
It seems to me that our country's approach
to the whole Communist problem, (if that's
what you say our problem Is) is inconsistent
and really makes no sense to me at all so
that I could not in good consciousness at
this point tell my son to go to South Viet-
nam and in this way help our country.
CASA GRANDE, ARIZ., ,uly 22, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
SENATOR MORSE: I have been reading an-
cient history. I wonder where We have so
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04 ::CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
I am very serious about these questions
and would appreciate some serious answers.
With sincere good wishes,
MIRIAM LEVIN.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 31, 1965.
MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I enclose a copy
of a letter to Mr. Leon Stein, editor of Justice,
ILGWU, for your reference.
I regret that I cannot vote for you. For
awhile I thought that men like you are no
longer around. Although the workers are
inarticulate because of the suppression of
democracy in the unions, they are with you
in this great struggle for morality and the
good name of our country. History will
prove you right; unfortunately, the Pentagon
slay 'swallow millions of lives to provide the
proof.
May God be with you all the time.
Very truly yours,
JULIUS BUCHWALD.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 31, 1965.
Mr. LEON STEIN,
Editor, Justice, International Ladies Gar-
ment Workers Union, New York, N.Y.
DEAR MR. STEIN: Thank you for your letter
of June 21, 1965, concerning my suggestion
that you invite Senator MORSE to reply to
Dean Rusk's remarks in Justice. In my let-
ter of June 4, 1965, I also indicated that in
the spirit of the current discussion-of Amer-
loan policy in Vietnam, and in the best inter-
est of our union, it is essential that all
pertinent views be heard.
You state, however, that "The two basic,
divergent positions in Vietnam were pre-
sented fully and effectively by two leading
spokesmen-Senators DODD and CHuRcH-in
the March 15, 1965, issue of Justice."
I have. studied the matter and feel that
since the article by Senator CHURCH ap-
peared more than a month before the Rusk
excerpts, it cannot be considered an ade-
quate reply to both DODD and Rusk. Also,
Senator CHURCH'S position is weak and self-
contradictory.
Senator CHURCH asks: "Why have we
spread ourselves so thin? What compulsion
draws us ever deeper, into the internal af-
fairs of so many countries in Africa and
Asia, having so remote a connection with
the vital interests of the United States?"
And he asserts: "Such a vast undertaking
has at least two defects: First, it exceeds our
national capability; second, among the
newly emerging nations, where the specter
of Western imperialism is dreaded more than
-,communism, such a policy can be self-
defeating. As a' seasoned, friendly foreign
diplomat recently put it: `The United States
is getting -involved in situations where no
one-not even a nation of saints-would be
welcome: "
But then he adds: "the judicious use of
both the arrows and the olive branch repre-
sents our best hope for avoiding a widening
war in Asia."
How does this position differ from the ad-
ministration's? Come, come, Mr. Stein, do
you really believe, do you, that Senator
CHURCH represents the other basic, divergent
position? In effect, Senator CHURCH says
bomb North Vietnam "judiciously" and talk
about negotiations because "we are losing
the contest." Senator CHURCH appears to
be somewhat more cautious than the admin-
istration;
A report concerning a debate between Sen-
ator CHURCH and. Republican Representative
FORD of Michigan defines Senator CHURCH's
position: "A long-time critic of U.S. policies
on Setilaiil from the liberal side, Mr.
ro.141-i2
CHURCH was forced by Mr. FORD'S arguments
into a defense of the administration's
strategy. The Idaho Democrat declared that
an abrupt step-up of the war by U.S. air
attacks would almost certainly bring the
North Vietnamese Army to intervene in force.
This would mean the very type of land war
that Mr. FORD wishes to avoid, Mr. CHURCH
argued." (New York Times, July 19, 1965.)
It is obvious that Senator CHURCH' merely
objects to our spreading ourselves "so thin"
and to the "abrupt" step-up of the war, but
not to a gradual step-up of the war. I find
Senator CHURCH'S position very interesting.
I do not understand on what basis you
determined that there are two basic posi-
tions on Vietnam. May I point out that
there are other "basic" opinions. For ex-
ample:
Walter Lippmann maintains that North
Vietnam, Saigon, and the National Libera-
tion Front (Vietcong) should decide the is-
sues for themselves. In the New York
Herald Tribune, July 8, 1965, Mr. Lippmann
says: "The new policy would have to be, it
seems to me, a pullback of our forces from
the defense of villages and small towns to
one or more highly fortified strongpoints
with certain access to the sea, and then to
advise Saigon that it should seek to make
peace with the Vietcong and with North
Vietnam."
And Bertrand Russell has said: "The U.S.
Government is conducting a war of annihi-
lation in Vietnam. The sole purpose of the
war is to retain a brutal and feudal regime
in the south, and to exterminate all those
who resist the dictatorship of the south. A
further purpose is an invastion of the north,
which is in Communist hands.
-. "The real concern which brings the United
States to pursue the brutal policy abandoned
by France in Indochina is the protection of
economic interests and the prevention of far-
reaching social reforms in that part of the
world." (Letter to the editor, New York
Times, Apr. 9, 1965.)
In the New York Times Magazine section,
January 3, 1965, the well-known playwright,
Arthur Miller, spoke out against the atroc-
ities committed by the Saigon regime: "Who
among us knew enough to be shocked, let
alone to protest, at the photographs of the
Vietnamese torturing Vietcong prisoners,
which our press has published? The Viet-
namese are wearing U.S. equipment, are paid
by us, and could not torture without us.
There is no way around this-the prisoner
crying out in agony is our prisoner."
Lewis Mumford, president of the American
Academy of Arts and Letters, denounced U.S.
political and military policy in Vietnam as a
"moral outrage." (The Nation, June 21,
1965.)
On July 16, 1965, on the Senate floor, Sena-
tor WAYNE MORSE stated: "I have said for
many months that I am satisfied, as a mem-
ber of the Foreign Relations Committee of
the U.S. Senate, that we have a dangerous,
desperate group of men in the Pentagon who
want a preventive war against China and who
would like to create an opportunity to bomb
the Chinese nuclear installations. I consider
them the most desperate and dangerous men
in all the World," (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
pp. 16523 ff.)
Here, Mr. Stein, are five opinions which
justice must take note of, if it intends to pre-
sent "basic, divergent positions" on Vietnam.
This may interest you, Mr. Stein: In the edi-
torial section of the New York, Times, July
25, 1965, an article by E. W. Kenworthy is cap-
tioned, "Johnson's Policy in Vietnam-Four
Positions in Congress."
I have suggested that you print Senator
MORSE's opinion because he is the foremost
American opponent of the Johnson policy
and he emphasizes the imnmorality, the
atrocity, the criminality of U.S. aggression in
Vietnam. Senator CHURCH complains only
18437
that we are "exceeding our national capaoll-
ity" and that we are "losing this contest."
What would he say if we were winning?
Publishing Dean Rusk's statements without
an adequate reply places our paper in the
category of an organ of the State Depart-
ment and the Pentagon, in the service of
war propaganda. There must be equal space
for all pertinent views. This is the American
way, Mr. Stein.
In order that Vietnam may be fully dis-
cussed, and in order to stimulate discus-
sion on other important national issues and
trade problems, I suggest that you estab-
lish a "Letter to the editor" department in
Justice, and I hereby submit this letter for
such a department.
I also wish to take this opportunity to
express my indignation at your using our
union paper for Mr. George Meany's vulgar-
ity. I am referring to the May 15-June 1
issue of Justice, in which Mr. Meany defines
the academic community as "intellectual
jitterbugs and nitwits." Should someone
offer you such trash for publication in the
future, please, Mr. Stein, think before you
print.
I look forward to your reply to the issues
I have raised.
Yours truly,
JULIUS BUCHWALD,
Cutters' Local No. 10, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO,
July 31, 1965.
Honorable Senator WAYNE F. MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: While you're not a
Senator from Ohio (more's the pity), I have
followed your Senate career and feel I can
write to you and have a sympathetic ear.
I am unequivocally opposed to the whole
Vietnam mess and think the United States,
under President Johnson (although I voted
for him because I thought he would not get
us into a war), is treading a dangerous and
horrible path. During my vacation travels
(on this continent) I've heard nothing but
grave opposition and real concern at the bel-
ligerent steps taken by our President. I hope
you and many other Senators will have the
intestinal fortitude to stand up against this
foolhardy increase in men and munitions to
Vietnam. You will have my support and
that of many, many others if you do. And I
am mindful that you and Senator CHURCH
were the only ones (that I remember, any-
way), who stood out against this in the
beginning. I think it is monstrous and dis-
graceful that our President has so high-
handedly bypassed the U.N. If it fails, we
are the ones who made the most massive
hatchet stroke to bring about its downfall.
It occurs to me that once again the House
of Representatives will rubberstamp John-
son's and McNamara's demands for funds to
carry this on. Wars never settled any prob-
lems and never will. It seems to me that
man's inhumanity to many is a greater curse
to the world today than communism. I
hope you in the Senate will have the cour-
age to speak out and vote against any further
increase in money or men for Vietnam. We
surely would be the first to protest if they
tried to come over and bomb us into settling
our racial problems, in the South or North.
ARBOR NALL FARM,
Stilwell, Kans., July 29, 1965.
Senator MORSE: Keep fighting for a new
foreign policy. War is too important to be
left to the generals.
We cannot be policemen for the world.
Respectfully,
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8 ,
 =18438
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE August 3, 1965
NEW ORLEANS, LA.,
July 29,1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Perhaps if I knew
all the facts I wouldn't agree with you.
However, from what I've been able to gather,
our stand in Vietnam is wrong-not to men-
tion the Dominican Republic.
L.B.J. did not receive a mandate; it was a
popular rejection of what Goldyvater stood
for ("even Lyndon"). It's ironic that the
public seems to be getting what, in essence,
they voted down at the polls in 1964.
There seems to be an inference that if one
doesn't agree with the administration, he is
slightly less than patriotic. I say "Hogwash,
and hurray for an intelligent opposition." I
have never written a letter like this before,
but I want you to know that some people
think highly of you for your courage to stand
on a seemingly unpopular issue.
Respectfully yours,
LAWRENCE Y. YATSU.
JULY 30, 1965.
The Honorable Senator WAYNE MORSE:
Again I have written to our President to
recommend to him your thinking on Vietnam
situation. On page 2 of today's New York
Times, our President is quoted as being grate-
ful to the women of the land who support
his position in Vietnam. Today, I wrote to
him explicitly and solely to tell him that
many "women of the land" are opposed to
his position in Vietnam.
Again I read with interest and hope what-
ever the press prints on your position in
Vietnam. I have also written to my Sen-
ators KENNEDY and JAVITS.
Respectfully,
VICTORIA, TEX.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We read your state-
ment on Vietnam. We want you to know
most of the people in this area concur with
statements you have made.
Mr. and Mrs. ZAC LENTZ.
CHICAGO, ILL?
July 31, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
The U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: We should like to congratulate
you on your publicly critical attitude to-
ward the administration's Vietnamese
policy.
Not only is our position in Vietnam his-
torically illegal and immoral, but it is tragi-
cally naive to suppose that a political-
philosophic movement can be halted with
guns. We have, in effect, advanced the
cause of communism by meddling in Viet-
nam. We should never have been in that
country, and whatever tenuous support we
had originally from a singularly corrupt,
nonrepresentative government is gone. It
would appear that due to a recurring, patho-
logical fear of communism, we are being
taken down a garden path with patriotic
platitudes masking a radioactive end.
We regret that the Senators from Illinois
are not able to approach the beginnings and
the end of the Vietnamese question as ra-
tionally and intelligently as you are. It is
regrettable that they show no inclination to
stop the blind rush to disaster, but we are
grateful for your continued efforts to bring
some sense to our policymakers.
Very truly yours,
CARLA C. WILDE.
CORNING, ARK.,
July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The attached col-
umn of Walter Lippmann pretty well ex-
presses the opinion I have of our involvement
in the Vietnam conflict.
In the first place, I am more or less of a
loss to know what we are doing there. In
the second place, that area appears as a poor
place to have drawn a line in a stand against
Communist expansion.
I think that if we had conducted our
diplomacy right we could have pitted Russia
against China and restricted our policeman
role to the Western Hemisphere.
It appears that we sometime go out of our
way to get involved in the internal affairs
of some undeveloped country. While pre-
tending to contain communism in some far
corner of the world, we suffer it to gain a foot-
hold at our very doorstep.
It would certainly shock the world if we
admitted our mistake and withdrew our
forces from Vietnam. It is often said that
it takes a big man to admit his errors. I
doubt if we have this kind of big men in con-
trol of our affairs.
I have observed with interest your posi-
tion on some of our foreign affairs issues.
I hear many expressions of concern locally
about the position of our administration in
current foreign affairs.
Very respectfully yours,
BRYAN J. MCCALLEN.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I find myself in a very difficult
position as do friends of mine and others
whom I have talked to. I love my country,
not in a chauvinistic way, but because of its
historical roots, its people, the land itself,
and the possibilities that exist here for the
development of the human being. All these
things I love, however, are now threatened by
developments in American foreign policy.
The greatest threat to human development
is not communism, but perversion of those
ideals which America has always claimed to
.believe in, We have become a nation that is
Increasingly willing to violate its own pro-
fessed standards of freedom and justice out
of an unhealthy and irrational fear of com-
munism. That word has come to mean to
us what the word devil meant to our Puritan
ancestors. This fear has driven us to a course
of aggression and violation of the right to
self-determination in Vietnam and the Do-
minican Republic. We are pursuing policies,
especially in Vietnam, that can only lead to
increased suffering and the decline in moral
force of the United States, if not to the de-
struction of our whole civilization. I love
my country, but I cannot support it. I be-
lieve in the ideals that we profess, and they
must be practiced, not just given lip serv-
lee. It is the discovery that my country
and its government does not always believe
in them and is willing to condone grave viola-
tions of those ideals that hurts most. The
only course that I can see for persons like
myself is to refuse to cooperate with our Gov-
ernment until it changes its immoral, illegal,
and dangerous foreign policy. I urge you to
use the power and influence of your office
to seek a sane and just path to world order,
and I congratulate you on the valiant effort
that you have made to date.
Sincerely,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
BALTIMORE, MD.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR: I have read portions of
your speech before the SANE rally in Madi-
son Square Garden, and I want you to know
that I appreciate your efforts to bring be-
fore the people what the administration and
other leaders do not want to discuss. I do
hope you will continue to exert your influ-
ence to get our Government to work harder
in the direction of getting a.peaceful settle-
ment in Vietnam.
Yours truly,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
July 31, 1965.
DEAR Sin: Don't you think that the right
to declare war should remain in the hands
of our Congress? Or does the word "emer-
gency" nullify our Constitution?
Please insist that the right to declare war
be returned to the representatives of the peo-
ple who must fight those wars. Please open
debate on our Vietnamese participation.
Please question our course.
We are burning and bombing, torturing
and murdering in the name of "U.S. honor."
This is not my conception of our honor. Is
it yours?
Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to our
President today.
Sincerely,
ELEANORE SELK.
P.S.: I wish you unlimited courage, initia-
tive, and support. You are a voice for sanity.
Perhaps this letter to our President may
interest you.
CHICAGO, ILL..
July 31, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: Isn't it time we
encouraged the Vietnamese people to talk
to each other?
If South Vietnam Government representa-
tives will negotiate with the Vietcong a gov-
ernment may emerge which represents the
South Vietnamese.
I am tired of this war. I am ashamed of
our participation, of our bombing and our
slogans. I am terrified of your promise of
escalation and even annihilation.
Let's not make this our war. We were
called in as middlemen. Now is the time
to step aside and promote negotiations be-
tween the warring South Vietnamese Gov-
ernment and its Vietcong.
Sincerely,
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Consider bombing near Chinese border ex-
tremely provocative. Urge immediate sub-
mission of problem to U.N.
Mr. and Mrs. HUGH E. HENSHAw.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Stop ruthless bombing and killing. Start
talking in United Nations for world peace.
JACQUELINE GALLI.
JULY 28, 1965.
MY DEAR SENATOR WAYNE MORSE:
Thank God for your ability to voice your
convictions so strongly. I am with you 100
percent and I think I would explode if I did,
not hear you voice my convictions against
the behavior of our Government. I sit here
helpless, convinced that the United States
is behaving badly. Thank God again for you.
I have found a new faith, the Bahai faith,
a faith with a plan for a Godly world gov-
ernment. I understand Woodrow Wilson's
sister was a Bahai and no doubt the Pres-
ident got his idea for the League of Nations
from her. Now we have the U.N. along the
same line. Rome was not made in a day,
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approvedfor Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
and if we persevere we may bring to frui-
tion the projected plan of Bahaullah, a
prophet with a message for this new era.
If you are not familiar with this faith I
believe you might benefit immensely by get-
ting some of the literature.
I went from church to church looking for
a solution to solve the corruptness of our
country. I found the faith I had in mind,
a faith with a plan for coexistence. Now
I am thinking in, a straight line which is a
comfort and I must again say: Thank God
for you, who can express so aptly my desires
for the United States.
I have 19 grandchildren. Five wonderful
children. We made the grade in spite of our
inequality in our economy. I hope we can
build a semblance of equality.
Thank you again for your fairness to all
CLARICE GRAHAM.
KANSAS CITY, MO.,
July 28, 1965.
Re Vietnam mail.
'DEAR SENATOR: Today I read an article in
the Christian Science Monitor entitled,
"Viet Mails Run Light in Senate." This ax
ticle stated that the Vietnam mail to Sena-
tors is falling. off but that the percentage of
protest against the military buildup is still
running high.
The Vietnam mail is running low, because
the American public is not only uninformed
but, worse yet, it is misinformed. For the
former. they are to blame, but for the latter
you Senators are to blame, unless you, too,
have been taken in by the frightening blan-
dishments of the Pentagon, and unless you,
too, are unaware of the facts of history, past
and present, concerning Vietnam.
If you are not aware of these facts, read
the recent speeches of Senators WAYNE
MORSE, FULBRIGHT, and GRUENING (CONGRES-
SIONAl, RECORD). Armed with this undis-
putable information, certainly you would
have the courage to join ranks with these
men and make all possible haste to inform
and arouse the complacent, indifferent
American public about Vietnam and the in-
evitable, useless massacre of Americans and
Orientals which is going to take place if
offensive ground action is taken over by
American forces-to what end?
Your job Is to help the gullible, brain-
washed Americans to save themselves rather
than to sell them down the river to our mili-
tary-industrial complex for a profit.
Those Who know the score are begging you
for assistance.
P.S.-Has the U.S. Senate abdicated its
constitutional right to declare or not to de-
clare war?
NEWBURG PARK, CALIF.,
July 27,1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
The Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Thank God for men of courage,
like yourself, sir, who see the disaster ahead
and who are not afraid to speak out the
truth.
The appalling side thought is that so-called
intelligent statesmen (I will not dignify the
military with this adjective) learn nothing
from the history of Napoleon, Hitler, et al.,
and expect to wage a successful war with
such over extended, supply lines, so close to
the enemy and so far from home.
I am writing, as I have from the onset, to
President Johnson, HUBERT HUMPHREY, the
late Mr. Stevenson, etc., in, protest of our
insane policy, but I feel a positive note to
you is much more constructive, and will be
counted among the many, many thousands
I am sure you receive.
I, for t'Tte first time in my 45 years walked
a precinct, in the heart of this John Birch
Society area, in behalf of Mr. Johnson be-
cause of the policies he once claimed but has
now abandoned.
If, in the next presidential election, it
should be possible to work for one, Senator
WAYNE MORSE, I know I shall work even
harder, and no matter what the results, I
shall not wind up with the taste of bitter
ashes in my mouth.
Sincerely,
CHARLES S. BRUCK.
WEST HEMPSTEAD, N.Y.,
July 30, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: It seems desperate
to think this way, but I am finally con-
vinced that the only way that the American
people, and the people in this planet can
avoid extreme disaster or extinction, is for
those who clearly see what McNamara and
the Pentagon gang are up to, to start a new
political party. It is obvious that neither of
the two major parties as constituted today
offer the slightest hope. A new political
party has to have as its principles, a foreign
policy of real peace and living together with
other nations through the U.N.regardless of
their political orientation. Let us realize,
that the Communist nations have not been
military aggressors, but we have and con-
stantly are.
I feel that you or people around you who
support you could assume the leadership of
such a party, and I am sure that, even though
you will be villified, and called names, many
thousands and maybe millions of college
people, intellectuals, rank and file workers,
and certainly mothers, will rally to the ban-
ner of a party of real peace and decent rights
for all.
I hope that you can consider this matter
carefully. I feel that it not only has merit,
but hope. It is the only thing I can think
of that does.
Yours very truly,
July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE.
MR. SENATOR: I am writing you to express
how much I appreciate the fight you are
waging against the war in Vietnam and I
would like to know how they know how the
American people think. I want you to know
that I and many others think as you do.
Keep up the good work.
Many good wishes,
I. B. KINGSBURY..
ISSAQUAH, WASH.,
July 29,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,.
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Despite the lateness
of the hour, it surely is not too late to stage
a debate on the conduct and ultimate goals
of the war in Vietnam, At least we have that
coming to us. The most deadly serious ac-
tions and commitments are made in the,
name of us all by a series of virtual executive
fiats. I am convinced that the role of a
Member of the Congress of the United States
is not to simply melt into a "patriotic" mass
known as a consensus every time a contre-
temps arises outside our borders. There ex-
ists a great vacuum waiting to be filled by a
genuine opposition. As far as I can see by
reading what is vouchsafed to us as suitable,
Congress acts more or less as a rubber stamp
whenever the combjngii, weight and prestige
of the President and his military advisers
is brought to bear.
How many years are we prepared to oc-
cupy South Vietnam? North Vietnam? Do
we intend to wipe out entirely the Vietcong
insurgents from the face of the earth-if
this were possible? Are we prepared to take
on China on the ground? Are we looking
for some trumped-up excuse dreamed up in
the military circles for bombing China's nu-
18439
clear establishments? Will we launch into
another "Vietnam" in Thailand? Cambodia?
Are we to police the whole of southeast Asia?
Are we to fall all over ourselves to rush to the
beck and call of any threatened regime, any-
where, regardless of how unworthy and inept,
when the local politicians cry "Communist
wolf?"
Has anyone pointed out, when all the hor-
rified murmurs about "loss of prestige" come
up when it is suggested we think up a quick
way out of Vietnam, that the French suffered
a disastrous defeat in that wretched coun-
try, and pulled out ignominiously. French
prestige, French prosperity have- never been
higher in years than at this time. France is
universally admired and fawned upon by
those very peoples one would have expected
to gloat and crow and never allow her to for-
get what happened in Indochina.
After four and a half years in England and
Canada I grew accustomed to lively and thor-
ough parliamentary debates, where no quar-
ter was given or expected. I returned home
recently and find myself dismayed at the lack
of discussion, the poor reportage on what the
opinions of Members of Congress actually
are on foreign affairs.
I'm very happy to see, however, that Sen-
ator MoRsE is still functioning as an excel-
lent approximation of a full-scale opposition,
and as the conscience of the Senate. I sa-
lute you, sir.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. CECILE H. BOSTROM.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I support your position on the
war in Vietnam and I have finally started to
write some letters about it. The reason I
am writing you is to ask you for suggestions
about who I should write to. I don't flatter
myself that my letters will carry much
weight, but I know they will carry more of
whatever weight they have if they get to the
right place. Please help me.
Thank you,
SEATTLE, WASH.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to commend
you on your stand on the Vietnam war.
It is gratifying to know that there is at
least one man in Congress with the courage
to publicly oppose our current policy.
Thank you for your efforts.
Yours very truly,
BROOKLYN, N.Y.,
July 31,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE:
Thank you for your efforts to bring peace
In Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and
especially, in Vietnam.
We are . fortunate in your intelligence,
energy, scholarship, courage, and good will.
HARRY MARSHAK.
Los ANGELES, CALIF.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Several days ago I re-
turned home after a fortnight in the hospital
where I enjoyed the advantages of mid-
20th century medicine and surgery to find
myself once again in a world in part still
governed by principles of the stone age.
Previously I had addressed myself to you
on the subject of our policies and conduct
in southeast Asia. The events of recent
months force me again to protest against
them. The talk should not be of national
honor but of national preservation, not of
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
international responsibilities but of inter-
national morality.
To think that the other side can be driven
to the negotiating table by force of arms is
to deny all knowledge and understanding of
human thinking and action. Negotiations
can never be undertaken if one side an-
nounces in advance what It demands for
satisfaction, for, then, what would be the
reason for negotiating?
The blasphemous morality of equating our
side with God and assigning the other to the
anti-Christ, of confusing what is God's with
what is Caesar's, with assuming that political
and economic systems unlike our own are
damned, all this may confuse and lead astray
the thoughtless among our own citizens, but
not the thoughtful here and abroad.
May I urge you to temper our policies so
that among us it will again be recognized
that "Blessed are the peacemakers," that our
country be known for its moral might, not its
military power.
I am taking the liberty of sending copies
of this letter to Senators KUCHEL, MURPHY,
GRuENING, and MORSE.
Yours respectfully,
S. M. RABsoN, M.D.
ROCHESTER, N.Y.
July 31,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Every so often we, in
this snug little, snug little, low-key pitched
news media area--get, rumbling usually tele-
vision-of that healthy voice from the north-
west United States, last stand of the "Bill of
Rights and the Constitution," which you
have so long and faithfully and dedicatedly
and tirelessly represented in Congress. Your
long and principled devotion to the demo-
cratic -ideals to which our country has as-
pired (until Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
its compromises with the Nazi's in W. Ger-
many)-deserve eulogies by your conati-
tuenoy casts a real light of political "en-
lightenment" upon the State you represent
and shines like a neon ,sign in a desert of
gloom. Long may you voice the principles,
ideas and practicality In a precarious age-
of international peace and universal brother-
hood of man.
And like Abou ben Adam: May your tribe
increase" And I say-to Democrats and Re-
publicans and Liberals alike sabre rattling
bomb-poise breathing forth threads and
bombast of all world tyrannies-"a plague
In all your houses." A party of peace un-
conditional peace, global peace Is the only
party (and its candidate for public office I
shall ever support again). I nominate you
to search such out.
Anyway thank you for your opposition to
the "military-industrial complex"-Penta-
gon, "face savers" in the administration;
unilaterlalists in foreign policy Congresses.
Men---and all such public common weal-
disservicers-Congress should reassume by
it
repealing Government by crisis, powers, it
has delegated to the President over the years
since 1950. And never again any admin-
istration such absolute power as the U.S.
Presidency wields.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. MILDRED O'TOOLE.
YARNELL, ARIZ.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I know I'm not one of your
constituents, but. I should like to congratu-
late you for your courage to stand up for
what you believe.
What I can't understand is why we send
our men to Vietnam to fight for the freedom
of colored people, when we deny that same
freedom to the colored citizens in our own
country.
I wonder what the President and the Con-
gress would do if Africa or.China or Russia,
were to send soldiers and bombs to the United
States to fight for the freedom of our Ne-
groes.
I, too, believe we are rushing into world
war III.
I thank you for your support for peace.
Sincerely yours,
Los ANGELES, CALIF.,
July 31, 1965.
WAYNE MORRIS,
Senator, Oregon,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: This is a copy of a letter I sent
to President Johnson today.
Yours truly,
JOSEPH SIEGEL.
"Dear President Johnson: Wednesday, St.
Louis Post Dispatch, July 28, 1965, has an
-Interview by Larry Johnson, American
Broadcasting Co., on his return to St. Louis
for treatment of grenade wounds. He was
asked how the war In Vietnam had changed
since 3 years ago when he was there. He
said the only difference was the war was now
expanded. 'And now the Vietnamese
couldn't care less which side wins.'
"Is this the freedom we are drafting our
sons for? To die in a jungle 12,000 miles
from Washington, D.C.?
"President Kennedy said the Vietnamese
have to fight this out. Now we are combat
troops, no longer advisers. The Saturday
Evening Post's Stewart Alsop says 58 percent
of the American people do not support the
war in Vietnam. Please call a halt to the
shooting-cease fire-and then negotiate.
"Yours truly,
JOSEPH SIEGEL."
Copies to: WAYNE MORSE, Senator, Oregon;
Huntley-Brinkley Report, NBC-TV.
BUFFALO, N.Y.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: It seems to me that there
is only one way to stop President Johnson
dead in his tracks on the Vietnam situation,
and that is by setting up committees In every
city of any size to collect signatures to be
sent to congressional Representatives and
Senators calling for the immediate impeach-
ment of the President violating the Con-
stitution of our country and for reneging on
his campaign pledges. I've sounded out a
lot of people, in all walks of life, and they
think it would catch and go like wildfire.
But it takes someone prominent in political
life to launch the thing. You could do it.
I'm an oldtime ex-union organizer. I've
learned that to be effective when you are
unable to stop someone you must go for
his throat. And a threat of impeachment,
merely the gathering of hundreds of thou-
sands of signatures, would be a real lunge
for the President's vulnerable jugular vein.
I'm convinced it would work. And I know
of no other way to get him to listen to reason,
I hope you will seriously consider this
step.
Sincerely,
CLEVELAND, OHIO,
July 28, 1965.
The Honorable WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE : May the good God
strengthen you In your marvelous courage
to uphold sanity and human values in this
deplorable condition in which we of the
United States have become embroiled.
it seems to me the Senate is letting us
the people down. Acquiescence is given
each new rapid step in the escalation, no
matter what individual Senators have pre-
viously said about the need for careful ex-
ploration of the entire Vietnam situation,
if it developed further.
Two things call for most careful, con-
scientious probing.
First. The President's declaration that our
cause Is just.
"Once to every man and nation comes the
moment to decide etc."
Second. Today the President said the pres-
ent course might take many years in its
completion.
This latter is a terrific statement given as
a "plausible possibility."
How can our Congress fail to open the
whole situation, lest this brings the end of
Western civilization? How blind are we?
You are our one greatest champion. Our
fervent appreciation and earnest prayers are
yours.
Very sincerely,
LANSING, MICH.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please accept my
thanks for your firm opposition to the Viet-
nam situation. The voices of opposition are
so few, and so quickly stifled.
We said goodbye to our only son last night
as he left for that war, and we cannot, in
spite of all we have read, studied, or listened
to, give ourselves any good reason for his
going. We have had years of evasion, sec-
recy and lies, so why should the American
people now believe anything coming out of
Washington? The President does not know,
nor can he ever, the tears of a mother,
father, wife or child. That is nauseating
hogwash.
Please continue your stand. There are
those of us who applaud you, and thank
you.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to convey
to you my deepest respect and admiration
and thanks for the courageous role you have
taken upon yourself on the question of
United States involvement in Vietnam. I
believe that you personally are responsible
to a large degree for the increasing willing-
ness of our Government to take this matter
before the United Nations. I also believe
that through your speeches before the Senate
and by your personal appearances, such as
at the Madison Square Garden rally of June
8, you have given strength and hope to mil-
lions of Americans who protest our role in
Vietnam. As one who has been involved in
this struggle for the past several months I
can testify to how easy it is to lose heart
and get discouraged as more and more men
are sent over, and how much it means to
have someone who is part of the power
structure of this country who is willing to
speak out against our role. I don't know
what the outcome of this struggle will be,
but if our Government does decide to take
this matter directly before the United Na-
tions and will agree to abide by their deci-
sion, I believe I will be justified in thinking
that you played a great role in preventing
the possible destruction of all of mankind.
No man can possibly do more.
With my profound respect, I remain
Respectfully yours,
DULUTH, MINN.,
July 29,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE: I wish to add my
support that I, too, am very much against
this war in Vietnam.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
.August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
There must be some way that this could
be settled around the conference table.
I do not agree with President Johnson
for I fear that the war will get larger and
take more and more young men. '
I served 3 years in World War II and I
know what war 1s.
But to get into a war with China and
that is the way it seems to be going could
take an awful toll of life.
I am glad, Senator, that we can turn to
someone in this crisis.
Thank you.
DAVID E. OPIEN.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator, ,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Thank you for
bringing ' before the people the fact that
President Johnson has no right to make
war without a declaration by Congress.
He is dragging us into a ridiculous swamp
like Korea and possibly over the brink into
a holocaust.
Since he talks about honoring promises,
he has a promise to honor that he made
to, the American people. He was elected
on the basis that he was,against war. Yet
his foreign policy is so weak that the only
way he knows how to implement it is by
waging war.
I ,certainly hope that more Members of
Congress speak up. I am, of course, writ-
ing to my own Senators, however I wanted
to write and thank you.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. B. SISAFRAN.
SACRAMENTO, CALIF., July 29, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Senate Office Building,
'Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I should like to commend you
on the views which you have expressed con-
cerning the inadvisability of our Nation's
policies on Vietnam, I hope that you will
continue to articulate more reasonable solu-
tions to our current problems of foreign
policy.
Sincerely,
MELROSE, MASS., July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR,, SENATOR: Because you have a long
record of fearless and independent action,
I am writing to say that I hope the Senate
will not agree with the House in repeal of
the "right to work" law now on the books.
States should retain their present power to
legislate on the subject, and individuals
should retain their present rights to employ-
ment without union membership. Surely
there are economic as well as civil liber-
ties that need to be defended. Also, the
unions have become too powerful for the
public good. Congress should not aid the
unions further.
Sincerely yours,
KENSINGTON, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR IA., MORSE: I want, ,to "express my
gratitude to you for your untiring efforts to
argue and promote a rational solution of
the war In Vietnam.
How unfortunate for this country that
there are so few others in its government
with your courage and integrity.
Sincerely yours,
S. A. ANDRES.
KELLY, KELLY & KELLY,
JACKSON, MICH., July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The American people
support and applaud your standup fight
against the slaughter of American boys in
Vietnam.
Keep it up.
Yours very truly,
ST. LOUIS, Mo.,
July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: With today's an-
nouncement that the Viet war is being ex-
panded there is more than ever the need for
your loyal opposition. Others in high office
have feared to speak out against the admin-
istration's terrible mistake, and now there
will be fewer. Even the people around here
appear dazed as to what is happening; there
is certainly no flag waving among the general
public because what they thought was noth-
ing has suddenly become a real threat, and
they are mumbling to themselves asking
"What has happened?"
We Americans have been blessed with too
few leaders of experience, wisdom, and liberal
vision. Liberalism, the patient and reason-
able defense of our way of life, is the only
existent and truly effective alternative to
marxism. The present administration has
lowered themselves to a crass and unwise
method of dealing with the "marxism" that
is being displayed in the "underdeveloped
countries." America needs your voice, your
leadership, and your far-sighted wisdom.
There is a large body of sentiment against
the war; It is not being expressed in public;
the fear is too great. But you do have a
silent support-but maybe even more im-
portant you have the support of history.
Sincerely,
KNUEPPEL'S,
Milwaukee, Wis., July 29,1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please persist in the
attitude you have taken against the Viet-
nam fiasco. We are with you 100 percent.
Yours very truly,
Mr. and Mrs. HILBERT H. KNUEPPEL.
R. L. RICHARDSON, D. C., -
Pitcairn, Pa., July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: May I urge you to
continue your efforts in extricating us from
the Vietnam solution? This policeman of
the world bit betrays the San Francisco
conference on peace. Let the U.N. be the
policeman not the United States of America.
Sincerely,
ANN ARBOR, MICR?
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: In an article appearing in
the Ann Arbor News, you are named as the
one and only Senator who has the fortitude
to oppose L. B. Johnson's steamroller, as'far
as Vietnam is concerned.
Well, I am thankful that there is some
one in Washington to speak for a host of
citizens who voted for L.B.J. because they
were led to believe that he was a "sane, peace-
loving man" and who are now thoroughly
disillusioned.
It is a tragedy that the other Senators
are such a cowardly lot, intimidated by right-
wing fanatics who would brand them as
Communists.
Perhaps if you persist you can bring the
power mad war lords in the White House and
the Pentagon Building and the Senate to
their senses before the world is engulfed in
a fearful holocaust.
Respectfully,
LAURA GETZ,
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
EDITOR, NEW YORK TIMES.
DEAR SIR: I listened to President Johnson
during his press conference on Vietnam, and
I recalled that when he was running for elec-
tion in November 1964, he called Barry
Goldwater trigger happy, which now can well
apply to Johnson. What one cannot forget
is the promise that if elected he would not
escalate the war in Vietnam. Evidently,
those were false promises in order to get the
people to vote him into office. He would
never have received the overwhelming vote
that he got from both Democrats as well as
Republicans if the American people had an
inkling that he would bring them to this
pass-where our young men would once
again find themselves giving up their free-
dom and their lives in this atomic age, which
bodes ill for all humanity. The atom bomb
was supposed to have been a deterrent to
war-now look what is happening.
President Johnson is a good politician, but
not a wise statesman, representing a power-
ful Nation. It is easy to become involved in
war, but it takes wisdom to know how to
avoid one. Johnson has surrounded him-
self with the wrong advisers-the military
mind-the CIA-
,McNamara-Bundy, et al.
This an undeclared war because Presi-
dent Johnson fears that the Congress would
not support him in this drastic step of
escalation which may bring on a Third World
War that spells madness. While there is
still time, the American people should openly
express themselves against this threatened
holocaust which should be avoided at all
costs.
It is either going to be coexistence or no
existence.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. EVA WILLIAMS.
SAN DIEGO, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR: Since in my own dis-
trict we get so little cooperation from our
Representatives in the Congress we have to
appeal to others on a nationwide basis.
The enclosed is a letter I am sending to the
Members of Congress far and wide and to let
the few great leaders among you know the
citizens are aroused.
The situation looks very dark at the mo-
ment, but I try to believe that the darkest
hour maybe before the dawn.
Thank you for your wise leadership.
Sincerely,
Mrs. ALICE B. HASKINS.
I am having copies of this letter made to
send to Senators as well as Representatives.
SAN DIEGO, CALIF.,
August 1, 1965.
MY DEAR SENATOR: In the June 21 issue of
the Nation (which this year is celebrating
its 100th anniversary) I would call your
attention to an editorial under the head of
"Where's Congress?" It points to the fact
that Congress has not been relieved of the
responsibility for the consequences of Presi-
dential action in committing the United
States to hostilities against other states. In
failing to actively assume this responsibility,
the Congress has, by its inaction and abdica-
tion, nullified the Constitution. With about
-Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18142
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE August 3, 1965
two dozen exceptions, this is literally true.
thus the war in Asia rises to increasing
heights of mutual peril, not to mention what
is happening in the other Americas.
There is no logic known to man that can
justify the ruthlessness of our foreign policy
in waging war. It Is tragically reminiscent
of the Hitler period and I am wondering if,
when this situation has reached the point
of no return, the American people will claim,
as the Germans did, "We were unaware."
There is no way we can escape responsibility
for the death and destruction being perpe-
trated either on a neighboring state or on a
people half a world away.
We look to those we have elected to re-
sponsible places in Government to take lead-
ership in seeking solutions which will bring
peace to a war-torn world. The people are
still awaiting that leadership. As a loyal
American citizen, one who has lived through
many wars and knows the futility of them,
I beg of you to stop this mad drive toward
world destruction. The more concerned a
citizen becomes the more suspect. he is.
This insane fear of communism will surely
be our ultimate destruction if we do not
return to reason.
Sincerely,
Los ANGELES, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The purpose of this missive is
twofold, to thank you and to encourage you.
First, I wrote you last fall asking for cer-
tain information and copies of speeches that
you have made in the past. Your response
was immediate, exciting, and more than I
dared hope for. But, alas, I wait until now
to thank you,
Moreover I wish to thank you for your
consistent positions on such matters as for-
eign aid, education, and International law.
Second, I encourage you to continue your
work with the same zeal that you have here-
tofore shown.
I would remind you of a statement of
President Wilson, one that you doubtless al-
ready keep in mind. I refer to his statement
in reference to "Fighting Bob," prior to our
entrance Into the First World Wax, wherein
he stated that Mr. La Follette represented no
opinion but his own.
:1 hereby go on record as stating that your
expressions represent my opinion and my
position.
Warmly and cordially yours,
IRA L. LOWERY,
Superior Court Clerk, Los Angeles
County, Calif.
LONG BEACH, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I feel that your com-
ments on the Vietnam situation are most
perceptive, and, from the historical point of
view, will eventually be proven to be highly
profound. You must, therefore, exert all
possible efforts to prevent the loss of any
more American lives defending remote jungle
outposts populated by ignorant barbarians.
I can see no justification for the defense of
any territory whose people generally do not
understand the implications of life in a
Marxist society and would tolerate elected of-'
ficelals with pro-Communist views. For these
reasons I feel that the American forces
should be immediately pulled out of Viet-
nam, and that the U.S. Government should
concede all territory to the Communists up
to, and including, the State of Oregon, with
the defense perimeter established at the Ore-
gon State line.
CANOYA PARK, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR SIR: Glad to hear you speak out about
the powers of the President not being dicta-
torial.
We certainly need many more men such
as you in Congress these days. I do hope
you will not drop the fight, but keep on
until we return to the constitutional form
of government.
Yours very truly,
JULY 31, 1965.
SENATOR MORSE: What little news we get in
our local Seattle press about you, plus your
statements over the radio-are all very wel-
come. Yours is one of the few voices of
sanity in the country when values seem up-
side down. Please keep up this fine courage-
ous stand. If your office has copies of any
of your policy speeches, I'd like a few copies.
Thank you.
SEATTLE, WASH.,
July 28, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHwsole,
The White House, Washington, D.C.:
It will always be our actions that speak to
the peoples of the world, no matter how we
rationalize in words-and the continuation
of the acceleration of the war in Vietnam is
an act of stubborn perversity, not wisdom.
Eventually we shall provoke a conflagration
we cannot stop, let alone cope with.
New complex social, political and economic
problems exist in the world which cannot
be solved by the old show-of-force technique.
Greater numbers of our fighting men in Viet-
nam will only force Russia closer to Red
China, and Red China will be forced by our
aggressive "invitations" into war. No matter
what one's color or politics * * * when one
Is hit again and again, one will eventually
strike back.
When will the leaders of our country and
shapers of our foreign policy learn that by
swallowing just some of our pride and ac-
tively backing down to peaceful negotiations
(which may seem to our military minded, a
"loss of face"), we, in the long run, will
raise our stature in the eyes of the world.
What Is the price of our brand of democ-
racy In southeast Asia? Slaughter of In-
nocents as well as the Vietcong? Total war?
Step by step you are leading us toward the
latter. I for one have been ashamed of be-
ing an American since we stepped up our ag-
gression. This Is not what I voted for, nor
condone. And having spent nearly half of
last year traveling in Europe, I know what
the peoples of those countries thought of
Goldwater's policies. They were appalled.
When will we ever learn?
To sum up: Whatever the causes for the
war in Vietnam, the reasons (which remain
very cloudy) for any continuation, any step-
up, have too high a price in human lives and
In American dollars. The money that is be-
ing spent to keep us in Asia could far better
be spent in cleaning up our own many prob-
lems at home. It is ironic to compare the
sums .being spent for the Peace Corps, pov-
erty program and beautification of America
with the total daily costof this undeclared
war. We are rapidly undoing whatever good
we have done with our Peace Corps program.
And as for the cost in human lives (what
Is the "price" of a human life?) * * * any
realistic and reasonable thought should lead
one to conclude that wecannot win any war
with numbers of fighting men in Asia. Can't
we learn from France's bitter experience?
Shall we learn only when Our own home-
land is finally bombed? Perhaps we shall
SAN DIEGO, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.G.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I agree with your
viewpoint of Vietnam and Santo Domingo,
and if more members of the executive and
legislative branches of our Government knew
more history we would not be in the mess
in which we are mired.
I wish that every member of Government
would read the article by historian Arnold
Toynbee entitled "We Must Woo Red China"
in the July 17, 1965, issue of the Saturday
Evening Post. Toynbee's treatise supports
your contentions, and the article should be
read into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Respectfully yours,
D. W. MILLER.
ST. PAUL, MINN.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I should like to ex-
tend my support and solidarity to you and
your colleagues, especially Senator GRUENING,
for carrying on the campaign against our in-
volvement in Vietnam. About a year ago,
President Johnson stated publicly that as
long as he is President, no action of his will
be in the direction of provoking war. He
was elected to office largely on the strength of
this promise, which he has subsequently vio-
lated. -
I would appreciate your sending me re-
prints of any material you may have inserted
into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD or any other
news media. Thank you very much.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a mother have
written President draft increase. Appreciate
your stand on Vietnam.
SYLVIA SHULMAN.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
July 30, 1985.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a mother have
written President draft increase. Appreciate
LAS VEGAS, NEV.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR MR. MORSE: I fully agree with you
about our involvement in Asia, I do hope the
lawmakers heed your Warning before it is
too late.
Sincerely,
MORGANTOWN, W. VA.,
July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am not a con-
stituent, technically, but feel that you serve
me well. Too often, I'm sure, American
Congressmen receive correspondence of de-
mands or complaints with laurels too thinly
interspersed. I would like to take this
opportunity, however, to commend you on
your intelligent and forthright stand on the
grave Vietnamese issue. The praise is better
deserved for your long and continued opposi-
tion to our policy.
Although there are those who would have
Very truly yours, norant at home. us believe, however fantastic, that Amer-
EMIL IS. MURAD. JOY FULLERTON. ica's interests are best served in the rice
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 18443
paddies of a nation involved in civil war,
there are also those of more mature reflection
who believe that American integrity and
safety are being compromised.
The fry is arising for preventative, war
against China. We have had "war hawks" in
the past. History pronounces their epitaph
as the wailing of idiots. Enough American
blood has been spilled in this century, not to
speak of the wanton slaughter of Europe's
and Asia's millions, with no resolution of the
problems. Will we not learn that war creates
more problems than it solves?
Our people need proper medical care, our
children need good teachers, our cities need
hospitals, our rivers and streams are sorely
polluted. Yet we callously spend the major-
ity of our national budget for military pur-
poses. Surely, Americans, indeed all people,
deserve better. For when we involve our-
selves in war we are involving all others.
The responsibility for wise leadership and
wise behavior rests with the preponderance
of power. The gargantuan stands guilty as
accused of misusing its power.
Men, particularly leaders of men, appear to
be more warlike than peaceable. Con-
sequently the burden of proof and debate
rests with the advocates of peace who con-
stitute the minority. But, for the sake of
mankind, the mission of peace is vastly im-
portant and must be diligently pursued.
To you, Sir, America owes a debt of grati-
tude, for you serve America well.
Sincerely yours,
WAYNE HOLLIDAY.
EAST STROUDSBURG,PA,,
July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I share your concern
over the deepening and dangerous involve-
ment in Vietnam. I believe that if the Presi-
dent is arrogating to himself the power to
conduct war without a specific resolution
from Congress to that effect by the constitu-
tional mandate, them impeachment proceed-
ings are in order. It is, I think, Imperialism
of a most blatant kind,
As Norman Mailer said at a recent Harvard
discussion, . "He shares the insanity that is
in all of us." The spending on arms, the
moon race, and such simple things as build-
ing highways and killing more people by
the automobile.
As Professor Seymour Melman says in his
recent book, "Our Depleted Society," we are
tied too much to the military, our defense
spending and research is throwing the rest of
development out of kilter.
So, I thank you for adding your very
powerful and influential voice in what must
seem like a quite lonely wilderness, and the
few other Senators and Congressmen as well
who have risked Presidential displeasure as
opposing such wilful and arrogant actions,
Sincerely,
GLEN FISHER.
WHITESTONE, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Never before have I
written to any Senator about any issue, how-
ever, I am finally moved to do just that be-
cause of the courageous stand taken by you
regarding the indefensible position the Presi-
dent has taken in the Vietnam adventure.
I admire your intellectual honesty in pursu-
ing a course advocating the widest possible
discussion and scrutiny by both branches
of the legislature in conformity with our
Constitution. It seems, indeed, as if too
many of our legislators prefer political ex-
pediency to discharging their duty.
A copy of this letter is being mailed to your
colleagues, Senators KENNEDY and JAVrrs, for,
after all they are my representatives and they
should be aware why one of their constit-
uents feels impelled to write to the distin-
guished Senator from Oregon..
Please be assured of my deep gratitude for
the valiant fight you are conducting for all
of us.
Sincerely yours,
FRANK SIMON.
FLUSHING, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
Eon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR: Regarding your position
in the current Vietnam crisis:
I thank God that there is a man in the
Senate with your commonsense and under-
standing of the value of human beings. My
husband and' I truly admire you for your
reluctance to go barging into a situation that
obviously will never be resolved by dropping
bombs and sending troops.
I pray that your efforts are rewarded.
Please never stop striving for peace. We
want our children to live in a world without
constant fear and possible destruction.
God bless you.
Respectfully yours,
AURORA DOHERTY.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Although I have
never written to a public person I must say
I echo my wife's sentiments. God bless you
in your fight for peace and commonsense.
JOHN DOHERTY.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: First, congratula-
tions for your necessary response to the
President's address this afternoon. As far
as I'm concerned, we are in the words of
Governor Hatfield "being run and told what
to do by a few experts." As for me, I agree
with people like yourself, Senator GRUENING,
Walter Lippmann, and Drew Pearson.
I want you to know that you have many
supporters all over the country and as for
myself (me?) you're my favorite Senator-
perhaps because-quite bluntly-you don't
give a damn about your colleagues and you've
the guts not to go along and be a yes-man-
because Johnson says to. I have been solidly
behind you ever since I can remember (I'm
only 16) possibly because in my eyes-
you're the epitome of a person who believes
wholeheartedly in the welfare of not only
his country-but the world.
You don't propose to be a messiah to the
Negro-as Senator ROBERT KENNEDY-yet
you show your true colors by voting against
that segregationist Coleman-whereas "Mr.
Everything" voted for him.
I disagree with our policy on South Viet-
nam. 1. We have no right to be there and If
it were any country In there but us-all
- would break loose. 2. L.B.J. constantly
refers to the "aggressors" but are we the
epitome of peace when we bomb North Viet-
nam? We are always the good guys.
It is a civil war in South Vietnam and it's
none of our business and they're not even
.fighting for the people of that land-they
fight blindly against the Vietcong-they (the
Marines) bear a resemblance to the Birchites
as they seek out and kill the "Reds"
I could go on and on and on but I don't
want to consume your time-I just want you
to please, please, please do all you can to
convince Senators to vote nay concerning
the money L.B.J. will ask for to finance the
war and please-don't ever give in and
never feel as though you have no support-
you have a lot.
Sincerely,
ROSANNE HELLER.
BRONX, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am writing this
letter to you because yours has consistently
been a voice of reason in the Vietnam crisis.
After hearing the President's news con-
ference yesterday, I find myself dismayed
in t:.e extreme at the continued pursuit of
what I feel to be a disastrous course.
This is a military operation which, in
my opinion, we cannot win; if by that we
mean causing the enemy to sue for peace
or. our terms. Both sides concede that this
could go on for 5 years or more. Aside
from "side issues" of what happens to Viet-
r. un and its people in this period, as we
use up more of our own young men and
materiel in this bottomless pit, the pressures
for the use of nuclear armaments will in-
crease, with catastrophic results we can only
van el-- imagine.
I am writing to ask you, how an individ-
ual can register a protest so as to at least
cause the judgernaut to pause a moment
before It crushes everyone in Its headlong
dash? To whom can one write or speak in
order to arouse some meaningful opposition
to this course?
I really would appreciate an answer from
you.
ARTHUR HUFFMAN.
SPRINGFIELD, ILL.
MY DEAR SENATOR: Stop Johnson at all
costs. Get out and come home. If he must
have a war, throw Castro out. Our gold Is
gone, our silver is gone, and we are busted
now. A big war is our finish.
STANLEY K. HALBERT, M.D.
LAItE'WOOD, Onto.
DEAR SENATOR: Iou, Senator, and your col-
league from Alaska are the only men in Wash-
ington who are not frightened silly by com-
munism. France and Italy have had large
Communist Parties for years and even their
nations are ruled by Communists. We are
wasting men, money, and materials in
Vietnam.
Cannot you give a little of your courage
and backbone to our present leader?
D. LOHMEIER.
P.S: Wish you had a chance of becoming
President.
JULY 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR: Heard your comment on
President Johnson's policy speech. Amen.
May I thank you and commend you for your
honesty and courage. Our Constitution and
our elected officers' oaths are more precious
than any political or military advantage.
ARTHUR E. SPENCER.
FORT WAYNE, IND.,
July 20, 1965.
DEAR AMERICAN: I hope you keep up your
fight as you have. I think your stand is
morally, logically correct.
Success to you and to all of us and the
world If you win.
Sincerely,
JULY 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Is there any way I,
as a citizen, can help you and your all-too-
few rational colleagues restore sanity to our
country's foreign policy. Why does Presi-
dent Johnson pursue a policy of ever-increas-
ing military involvement In Vietnam? Does
he really think we can bomb and burn peo-
ple Into being our friends? The publicized
reasons of resisting aggression from North
Vietnam and keeping South Vietnam free
do not seem consistent with the facts of the
Vietnam situation. Why doesn't our coun-
try encourage popularly supported resistance
to oppressive authoritarian regimes such as
in South Vietnam, Portugal, etc.? Why
should we support an oppressive anti-Com-
munist dictatorship any more than an op-
pressive Communist one? I can think of no
justifiable reason, can you? I can think of no
other reason than to preserve the foreign
eoonomio wealth of powerful and wealthy
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
18444
Americans and American corporations. I
certainly hope there are other reasons, but
what are they?
Can you suggest any organizations that I
could work with in an effort to deflect Pres-
ident Johnson from his present course to-
ward, I fear, a nuclear thirdWorld war?
Is there any way to replace President
Johnson with someone as intelligent and
sensitive as you as the Democratic Party
presidential nominee in 1988, if we live
that long? His actions concerning Vietnam,
Latin America and U.N. finances have been
to. distasteful that I can never vote for him
again.
I would appreciate any documentation of
the inconsistencies of American Vietnam
policies with facts that you have readily
available, and want you to know that I sup-
port your efforts to bring reason, truth, and
justice into play as the guiding principle of
our country's actions in affairs with other
countries. -
Sincerely,
CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO.
Senator WAYNE MORSE, _
Senate Office L wilding,
Washington, D.C.:
We definitely agree with you taking your
stand against our boys being murdered in.
Vietnam and also against Congress adjourn-
ing until this situation is settled.
Mrs. MARIE STEINBECK,
MRS. GLORIA THOMAS.
AKRON, OHIO.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Congratulations on your correct and cou-
rageous leadership of opposition to our in-
volvement in Vietnam.
ARDATH RosENBzRG.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building, -
Washington, D.C.:
We are headed for disaster in Vietnam.
Get us out of Vietnam immediately.
WILLIAM HANNAH,
World War II Veteran, Republican.
CHWA(;o, ILL.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We support your courageous stand against
administration's Vietnam policy. Urge you
continue vocal opposition.
Prof. and Mrs. MELVIN ROTHNEE5G.
JtrLY 27, 1965.
Ron. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a private citizen,
I feel sick at heart over the role of our coun-
try in Vietnam. In your recent remarks, you
have expressed my sentiments and convic-
tions very strongly.
I wish to commend you for your courage
in speaking out. People like myself feel so
impotent to alter the course of events. Per-
haps men like yourself, in positions of re-
sponsibility, will be more successful.
I know you will continue to speak out as
you have so often done - In the past. May
my expressions of approval give you some
support.
Yours very truly,
Mrs. InaNE A. Wncox.
EL CERRITO, CALIF,
July 26,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
'Senate O ffce Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Enclosed Is a copy
of a letter I have written to President John-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE August 3, 1965
son indicating my opposition to his policy
in Vietnam.
I hope you may use it as evidence of some
public support of your admirable attempts
to change U.S. policy in Vietnam and Asia.
Respectfully,
GERALD D. BERREMAN.
EL CERRITO, CALIr.,
July 26,1965.
President LYNDON B. JorSNsoN,
the White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I am appalled
at the military action being taken in my
name and in the name of all Americans in
Vietnam. I consider it to be foolhardy and
immoral. Moreover, I am certain that it will
achieve the opposite of its professed alms.
I feel betrayed as one who supported your
candidacy for the presidency.
I have previously expressed my belief In
this matter to you and to my Congressmen
by letter. I have expressed my belief publicly
on several occasions at debates and protest
meetings in the Bay Area, including a talk
before an audience In excess- of 10,000 at the
Vietnam Day "teach-in" held on the campus
of the University of California at Berkeley
in May. I have signed public statements op-
posing the war in Vietnam Including the
one sponsored by the "Scientists and Engi-
neers for Johnson" decrying your failure to
adhere to the policies implied and promised
in your campaign.
I am endorsing and working for the Viet-
nam Day Committee of Berkeley in prepara-
tion for massive protests this fall. I endorse
the Assembly of Unrepresented People To
Declare Peace and the other, associated ac-
tivities scheduled for Washington, D.C., Au-
gust 6-9.
These are scattered, perhaps desperate, per-
haps ineffective measures. They are the
product of people who are seriously alarmed
at the course of events. But these alarmed
people are also informed people, thoughtful
people and responsible people. The activi-
ties listed above are but a few of the many
such being carried out by a significant pro-
portion of the most Informed and politically
responsible segment of the American pub-
lic-many of them in colleges and universi-
ties, many of them in the clergy, many of
them in public service. Not a few of them
(like myself) make the study of human be-
havior their life work; some of them (like
myself) make the study of Asian society their
specialty. They act urgently, perhaps des-
perately, but not foolishly or carelessly.
They act from knowledge and conviction.
For an Indication of the variety of activi-
ties in this realm. I would refer you to the
recently Initiated "Biweekly Information/Ac-
tion Report of the Universities Committee"
(Post Office Box 7228, Detroit, Mich.).
To those in positions of political power,
such activities may appear useless, hopeless
or even ridiculous. But they are not to be
ridiculed. We find ourselves becoming impli-
cated in military and political adventures
which we fird utterly reprehensible and in-
defensible. We cry out for sanity before it
is too late for sanity. We do what we do be-
cause other means have been ignored.
We will continue to attempt to convey our
interpretations, our facts and our convic-
tions In ways which will be heard. Our
responsibilities as citizens and as men com-
pel us to do so. Many will resort to non-
violent resistance, refusal to serve in the
Armed Forces, refusal to pay Income taxes,
civil disobedience, to disrupt munitions
shipments to Vietnam, etc. I have not found
these means to be the appropriate ones. But
if no others are effective, then surely these
must be tried. Whether or not they will be
effective, they at least disassociate their pat-
t'cipants from the policies they protest.
They draw attention to the fact of the pro-
test and the sincerity of those protesting.
They are an anguished cry, but a cry which
will be heard. It is a sad day if this is the
only cry which will be heard.
At present I have taken steps to do two
things to register my personal protest:
1. 1 have undertaken to resign my com-
mission in the U.S. Air Force Reserve (in
which I served actively, 1953-55).
2. I have refused to participate further in
training programs for the Peace Corps or
other governmental programs sending per-
sonnel to Asia. These programs are sheer
hypocrisy In the present context. You can-
not buy friends in India while you are killing
potential friends in Vietnam, and I consider
it immoral to attempt to do so.
These are two activities or affiliations which
I-repudiate In light of the immoral war with
which they are associated.
I will henceforth do everything within my
power and conscience to oppose that war.
I am totally unconvinced by the.doubletalk,
doublethink, euphemism and hypocrisy with
which that war is rationalized by Mr. Bundy
and your other advisors, and by the Depart-
ments of State and Defense.
I wish with all my heart that before this
country wades deper into the morass which
is that war, you would listen thoughtfully
to its critics. Historians of the future,
should there be some, will know that current
U.S. policy is sheerest folly, If It-to aban-
doned it will be no more than an unpleasant
historical footnote. If it is not abandoned,
it may well be the end of the book.
The present course is hopeless. There are
alternatives as you well know. Please pur-
sue them.
Sincerely yours,
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
GERALD D. BERREMAN.
HAYWARD, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
SIR: Yours seems to me to be the most
vigorous and consistent voice for peace now
heard in our land. ,
I can't help - remembering the virtually
unanimous clamor after the Second World
War condemning the German people for
standing by while Hitler led them down the
path to ruin. I mention this, not because
I think the situation is in any sense analo-
gous to ours today, but rather to emphasize.
that perhaps there Is or ought to be some
action ordinary people might take now be
fore our country takes the final step in
Vietnam.
I'm doing the usual things. But Is there
some political action one might undertak,s
which could reverse the present trend? I'd
like to help if I could. If this were a presi-
dential election year, a lot of people would
like to see you and Senators GRtTENING and
Creuxci join together. But what can be
done now?
Respectfully,
BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICH..
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAr. SENATOR MoasE: This letter is in-
spired by your televised comments (of Jt:1y
27, 1965) regarding the U.S. bombing of
the two Russian-installed antiaircraft mis-
sile bases in North Vietnam. I should
like to convey to you my wholehearted sup-
port and approval of the position you have
taken in connection with this particular :In-
cident, and, mire generally, of your oppcst-
tion to the administration's entire policy in
southeast Asia.
I, too, find it impossible to understand the
President's policy In Vietnam, I believe it to
be Immoral, illegal, and dangerous. More-
over, even if one accepts the highly dubious
administration premise that an American
presence in southeast Asia Is desirable. It
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 August 3, Approved For R~,Jg s g 41j~ 1 A7B0 4! AFW0300190001-8
would still seem that current American 5642 introduced by BOB CASEY, of Texas. This
policy is the worst possible policy for achiev- bill is really against the criminal, not a bill
ing that goal. Indeed, it seems to me that to suppress firearms to the public under the
our aggressive action is succeeding, only in guise of a threat against crime.
consummation devoutly to be shunned.
I am keeping a file (for my own study and
for display to my friends) of material relat-
ing to U.S. involvement in southeast Asia,
which includes press clippings and publica-
tions of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee. I would be very grateful for any
material which illustrates your own views
that you would care to send me; especially
welcome would be copies of your Senate
speeches and public addresses on the subjinct.
Finally, I urge you to continue your very
constructive opposition to the administra-
tion's policy in Vietnam, even though it
seems to be falling on deaf ears at the White
House. It is of no little comfort to those
like myself who welcome evidences of sanity
in the National Government to know that
there are still a few reasonable men where
they are'so very necessary.
Sincerely yours,
GORDON C. GOSSARD,
Graduate Student in Philosophy, Uni-
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Is it true that our
young sons just out of high school are being
sent to Vietnam after a few months' train-
ing? I have heard this story so often and
have read newspaper accounts of the 18- and
19- year-olds fighting and dying in Asia. Why
are we fighting the Asiatic Communists who
are supported by Red China when many of
our former allies are trading with Red China,
thereby strengthening her against us?
Now we are going to double the draft call
and perhaps call up the reserves, although
we have hundreds of thousands of enlisted
military holding down civilian jobs on our
military posts. Why not send these men into
the war since that is the purpose of the
Armed Forces? The draftees and reserves
could replace these men both here and in
peaceful areas overseas, meanwhile getting
P.S.-I have just finished viewing the , additional training so that they could be
President's press conference, and unfortu- used as replacements in the theater of war
nately, my former fears are now increased.
I still believe the matter should be submit-
ted to a formal debate in the United Nations
as a first step toward extricating ourselves
from a wholly unwise entanglement in
southeast Asia.
MORRISON'S LODGE,
Merlin, Oreg., July 25, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am writing to ex-
press my feeling on the proposed gun bill
S. 1592.
From all the press releases and information
I have read on this bill it appears to me:
1. The proposed Dodd bill is not strictly
aimed at law enforcement as Senator DODD
implies, but it is aimed at controlling and
hindering gun transactions to all citizens,
law abiding and otherwise. This raises the,
question, Is it your function to restrict firearms to all?
2. Senator ROBERT KENNEDY (which I think
highly of) states, "Let's legislate nonvio-
lence." As I recall the last attempt to legis-
late morality, prohibition, failed miserably.
This is an absolute impossibility.
3. The license fees in section 3Za) will
prove a hindrance to both sportsmen and
the small businessman. I have a small busi-
ness and would not be able to continue to
sell ammunition It these fees were enacted.
This is an example, of which I am sure there
are many.
4. Interstate shipments, by the individual
for hunting or any other purpose of which
there are thousands, will seriously hamper
the sport hunting industry in many of our
States. What do we gain by this sacrifice? I
doubt seriously if the criminal will be dis-
suaded from his endeavors because of this
law.
5. Is this suppression of guns a Federal
problem? Certainly there is a big difference
in States like New York and Montana.
I could go into quite a lengthy discussion
on this bill and its different sections, how-
ever I will be brief, as I believe I have con-
veyed the main, thought.
I would very much like to know what your
stand is on this bill and if you intend to
vote for o. a~gains its passage. Please con-
Bider the intent oR this bill and how the
proosed bill does not accomplish it.
4 much better tool to accomplish the sup-
pre sion of fireams in crime, would be H.R.
No. 141=18
his lifetime career he does so with the full
knowledge that he can be sent anytime, any-
where into whatever war the United States
becomes involved. Why are we keeping these
professional fighters back home or stationed
in peaceful areas of the world and sending
teenagers with a few months' training into
hand-to-hand combat with a tough foe with
years of training and combat experience? No
wonder we are losing in Vietnam. Or is this
war merely an elimination of excess World
War II babies for whom there is not enough
employment or college facilities at this time
or in the future? Please, please do some-
thing to insure adequate training for our
teenagers.
Sincerely,
Mrs. GERALD BADCLIFF.
SAN DIEGO, CALIF.,
July 29,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Right you are, Senator, about the U.N. and
Vietnam. However, you, FORD, DIRKSEN, and
others relax, take it easy, and cheerio, for
efforts along the lines you suggest have been
taking place by yours truly, and the adminis-
tration, etc.-allies of late now, for weeks
now; but Rome wasn't built in a day; right?
Good luck. Wish me luck, too.
E. LANE.
BELLE HARBOR, N.Y.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a student who is
on the verge of being sucked into L. B. J. &
Co.'s Vietnam idiocy, I want to express my
sincere appreciation and respect for your
position on this issue and your courage to
speak out against the current horrible trend.
Your comment of today on the United
States abandonment of the U.N., our last
hope, seemed especially cogent and effective.
I am against this war, as you are. What
steps do you think I can take in order to help
try to avert the final catastrophe? We can't
just sit back and frown quietly as we sink
deeper and deeper. What can I do?
Unless it's too late. I hope it isn't.
With deep admiration,
JERRY L. AvoRN.
18445
BING-CRONIN & LEONARD
PERSONNEL, INC.,
New York, N.Y., July 29,1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a conservative
Republican I am seldom able to agree with
your policies. At this time however, I find
that you are the only member of the Govern-
ment who I can 'agree with. I commend
your stand on the Vietnam crisis and urge
you to continue to speak out against the
dreadful course which is being followed.
I have listened to and read the speeches
made by Members of the Congress and ad-
ministration as well as the many editorials
printed in support of Johnson's policy in the
press. I have also heard loudly condemned
the "leftist beatnick" groups which oppose
Johnson. What has amazed me is the lack
of publicity or attention given to the respon-
sible middle-of-the-road and conservative
elements who oppose our present course of
action in Vietnam.
My friends and associates are primarily
conservative thinking Republican and Dem-
ocratic businessmen of unimpeachable
patriotism. Naturally the Vietnam crisis is
discussed more and more each day-what
would come as a great shock to President
Johnson is the opinion that most of these
persons have-they are dead set against what
is being done.
I am not a Communist" or a pacifist, but a
person who sincerely believes in the Ameri-
can way. I fail to see, whatever arguments
are used, how as an honest, peaceful Nation
we can continue the terrible things we are
doing in Vietnam.
You are by no means alone in your convic-
tions. I am indeed grateful to you for tak-
ing the stand for our country's honor.
Sincerely,
MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY,
Woods Hole, Mass., July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Though I am not one
of your constitutents, I would like to express
my approval of your continued outspoken op-
position to the adventure for us becoming
more and more embroiled in Vietnam. Our
moral stance is a pure shame. We have in
fact abandoned all semblance of morality and
the beginning to abandon all reason also.
This war will profit no one, except possibly
China, and I hope you will continue to voice
your opposition.
Sincerely yours,
RUTH WALD
Mrs. George Wald.
DISCOUNT CABINET CENTER,
Chicago, Ill., July 29, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE: I feel that we are
going to enter into a terrible state of manu-
factured hysteria.
It "seems the American people are being
forced into a war that they don't need or
want when a nation for an individual can-
not decide on a a right course it ultimately
leads to disaster. The world is changing
and people are made restless by these lead-
ers who don't seem to lead but drift. We
all know that after the killings and torture,
the leaders will sit down once more and
divide the world again. When nations rebel
and refuse to be friendly with the power's
who want to help them than something is
wrong. It seems to me that the State De-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001,-8
 Approved For ONGRESSIONAL RECORD P6SENA ER0003001900August 3, 1965
partment and the Pentagon seem to run
this country. Why don't wehear from the
Members of Congress who were elected by
the people to run their affairs, instead of
supposed experts.
My wife is now in a mental hospital from
praying until she no longer could control
herself. These are sad days for people of
liberal feelings.
O' how long do we have to be deceived.
All free men should stand up and shout.
No more wars we are tired of killings.
Incidently, I would have voted for. you
as president if you were a candidate.
I too am a maverick.
Respectfully,
SPRINGFIELD, N.J.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: You are indeed a gal-
lant man. I admire your courage. Your
stands against war are most admirable.
I, too, believe a victory in Vietnam would
gain little. It would temporarily stymie
future efforts by the Communists to take over
these small second-rate countries.
Shouldn't our primary aim be to confront
and contain the giant Communist nations?
Why then did we not attempt to stop the
takeover of China by the Communists,
standing idly by assisting Chang to retreat to
Formosa?
We tolerate the Russian rape of Poland,
Hungary, and countless others, many being
the same countries ravaged by Hitler, which
drew the wrath of the free world and led to
his eventual defeat. Why did we not then
stand up and confront the Russians for these
horrible incidents?
Our efforts in the little brush fire wars as
Vietnam prove little. With our huge su-
periority of modern weapons in the air and
sea, and practically unopposed in these
mediums, makes us look the bully.
Being a pacifist I realize the futility of
atomic war and believe everyone's efforts
should be directed toward disarmament and
the establishment of a strong United Na-
tions to prevent abhorring systems as com-
munism from accomplishing its aims to sub-
jugate other coverted nations.
Do you think the masses of people will ever
wake up and refuse to be the tools of the
power hungry leaders and their henchmen?
Respectfully yours, 1
HAMDEN, CONN., July 29,1965-
Ron. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Once more, my
thanks for your courageous comments on the
new escalation of our Armed Forces in Viet-
nam.
I have just written President Johnson of
my misgivings and urged upon him several
suggestions to end the war.
We are heading toward a tragedy of enor-
mous proportions unless the bulk of the
American people speak up.
Sincerely, and gratefully yours,
Mrs. JOSE CASANOVA.
MIAMI, FLA., July 29i 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, D.C.
SENATOR MORSE: Is it too late? Is there
any way we can stop this before we have a
huge land war with nuclear weapons?
I hope that many of your colleagues now
regret that they did not openly oppose the
war buildup as you and Senator GRUENING
have. Are these men now scared into action?
Is there any checkpoint you. can see?
We feel there is nothing we can do. We
have spoken of a petition and could easily
collect signatures of people who oppose our
Vietnam policy, if we thought this would do
any good. We hope you make a Senate
speech soon and indicate what is a realistic
approach. I would like to be on your mail-
ing list.
I feel very thankful that you and Senator
GRUENING have been so outspoken, that there
are at least two Senators who are willing to
bear witness against the crime we are com-
mitting. -
BUFFALO, N.Y.
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to express my
deep admiration of your courageous, per-
sistent, and eloquent opposition to the ad-
ministration's policy of waging an unde-
clared war against the people of a small,
impoverished, and war-battered country.
There is no longer any doubt that the ma-
jority of the people of South Vietnam are
opposed to the Saigon government. They
are not Communists but are siding with the
Vietcong. At the very least, they have no
wish to fight the Vietcong. Their greatest
wish is for the war to stop.
Thus the United States, the richest coun-
try in the world, is waging war-with the
planes and bombs and increasing numbers of
American soldiers-against the people of
South and North Vietnam.
Although our intentions were honorable,
we are now embarked on a course which is
morally wrong and endangers the peace of
the world. The world must be shocked.
We must stop. A peacekeeping mission
must be brought in by some world agency,
preferably the United Nations.
Sincerely,
MARION HYMAN,
Mrs. Marion Hyman.
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIF.,
July 28, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
SIR: Having just concluded a letter to the
Vice President of the United States, re-
minding hint of his past record up to the
Vietnamese mess. I feel that I must com-
mend you for your forthrightly courage In
taking the stand so much in opposition to
that of our devious administration.
I have a normal circle of friends and
friendly acquaintances. They include Demo-
crats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives,
one or two leftists, and a few rightists. With
the exception of the few rightists, I find
among these friends and acquaintances, no
approval of our Vietnamese adventure-in
fact, for the most part there is downright
disapproval. -
The President is waging a war without
the approval of Congress, as unconstitutional
a procedure as any that has ever been at-
tempted. Must we risk the destruction of
humanity just to cover the errors and to
save face for a stubborn, misled, egocentric
man?
By continuing to speak out, as you have
so far, you wifl earn the gratitude, not only
of all Americans, but all of humanity.
Most respectfully yours,
GEORGE DREXLER.
MILWAUKEE, WIS.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: God bless you for
your stand against this foolishness in Viet-
nam. It's not even foolishness, it is mad-
ness. I never thought I would be ashamed
to be an American, but I am today. And to
think that I, a conservative Republican,
voted for Johnson to preserve peace because
of Goldwater's "fire and brimstone policy,"
is more than a bit of gall to drink.
Alas, alas.
Mrs. CONCETTA SAGERT.
P.S.-There are five registered voters in
this family who are against this "mercenary
army for hire" business we seem to be as-
signed.
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIF.
July 28, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE B. MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The Morse code of
decency and sanity doesn't fall upon a com-
plete sea of deaf mutes-lost as most Amer-
icans seem to be in their refrigerators.
Yours is a clean, strong voice in a wilder-
ness of fat and cynical toads. I wish, on
odd blue Mondays, I myself were cynical
toad enough to wish for the shallowy illit-
erate U.S. public-with its consensus sup-
port of the megomaniacal L.B.J. and his
neo-Forestal, McNamara-the nuclear way
it deserves.
Please keep talking-loud and clean and
strong. A few of us are with you-plus
hundreds of millions in Europe and Asia and
(if you will excuse the expression) the Soviet
Union.
Sincerely,
GLENDALE, CALIF'.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Thank you for
speaking out so clearly this morning on the
Vietnam crisis. I feel sorry for President
Johnson for I know the pressures must be
enormous, pulling him in different directions.
So it is especially good to have a Senator of
your stature reminding us all of the dangers
the world faces if we continue in our present
direction and the alternatives possible. I
agree, with you completely, and hope that the
dismal affair will soon be turned over to
the United Nations. If only we would do
things because they are right, not expedient.
Sincerely,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am grateful to
have at least one person in Washington who
represents my point of view. I admire your
courage in speaking for peace when every-
one in Washington speaks for war. I hope
you will continue to fight until the peace is
won.
I would appreciate it if you would include
me on your mailing list.
I hope my letter reaches you and not a
computer or a scale because I want to wish
you well.
Sincerely yours,
MILDRED M. TUTTLE.
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIF.
HAZELHURST, WIS.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am sure I join with
millions of Americans who hope you are
wrong but are certain you are right.
I am getting old. In my time I have seen
the last of the Hohenzollerns, the Romanoffs,
the Hapsburgs, and the Bourbons as they
walked the plank of lost or exhaustive wars
and passed into history. Hitler and Tojo
too joined them in my time. Likely we will
not live to see the end of this war but one
wonders what families are next.
Anyhow, I believe you are making a
notable contribution not only to American
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 August 3, 19p roved For RC G~RESSIINOAI. ECORPD7B Sf 4N6,R,Q00300190001-8
6
~~ ~~ ~~
o world civilization and
civilization but also t
history.
It takes not only courage but conscience
to chose the path you have chosen. It will
be hard and lonely.
May the greatest power of all bless you and
keep you safe.
Sincerely yours,
PHIL KRONENWETyER.
July 28, 1965.
DEAR S$NsTOR MORSE: I have been follow-
ing your views on the situation in Vietnam.
I cannot for the life of me see why Congress
(the voice of the people) does not put a halt
to L.B.J. and his group that is heading us
toward total doom. , The Bible tells us that
he who taketh the sword shall perish by the
sword and it looks like the United States is
going to test this saying. These are our sons
that are doing the fighting and dying. John-
son and his group will be safe in their bomb
shelters. Please do something to stop him.
I'm writing as a mother who loves her sons.
I'll sacrifice them to defend their homeland
but please not in some forsaken jungle. Let
the people decide by vote whether they want
war. They are the ones who will suffer.
Sincerely,
Mrs. HOWARD KLAUSS.
JULY 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I hope you continue
as an outspoken critic of President Johnson's
unsound policy in Asia.
As a private citizen it is difficult to know
how to effect public policy. If your office has
any suggestions as to how myself or others
who share my views can make a contribution
toward the adoption of a rational approach
to communism in Asia, I would appreciate
hearing from you.
I hope you will consider
Presidency in 1968.
LARKSPUR, CALIF.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
V.S. Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I have often appreciated
your courageous devotion to truth, but never
more than in your sharp reminders that the
Pentagon program means accelerating the
crisis in Vietnam, perhaps to the point of
war.
This would be a war nobody wants and
strategically foolish.
Is there anything we can do to enlighten
the Nation to the fact that we will reap a
harvest of devastation and war, if we keep
sowing seeds of acceleration.
Sincerely yours,
FARLEY J. STURKY.
NORTH ANDOVER, MASS.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: That there is one
man in Washington who protests this hor-
rible war in Vietnam lends one last ray of
hope to our rapidly dying faith and confi-
dence. After bloody Korea, how can anyone
want to repeat it? There were over 160,000
American casualties there (Boston Herald)
and it ended right where it,started.
At the polls in November 1964, the people
spoke loud and clear. Party, did not count.
There was only one issue. They voted for
peace. They voted against a war in Vietnam.
Do you believe that there is one parent, black,
white, or yellow, who believes that Vietnam
is worth his or her son's life? Washington
turned a deaf ear to our, pleas. The people
apparently do not count any more.
The late Adlai Stevenson so aptly said:
"The farmer wants higher prices; but he
wants peace more. The businessman wants
stability and the laborer wants security, of
course; but they want peace more." The
people want all of this but they want their
sons most. And now, after nearly a quarter
of a century, we see our sons still being
yanked from home and college at the whim
of Selective Service and sent to senseless
slaughter in rice paddies of a people who does
not want to fight. They are not free. They
have no choice. At least the men in World
War II believed in what they were fighting
for but these helpless pawns do not have even
that to sustain them.
Where are the Reserves? They are the
volunteers. But of course, it is cheaper to
send our boys. And so our boys die, cruelly
and needlessly, before they are 26. And the
seething volcano of parents"outrage and re-
sentment grows and grows and grows.
As I overheard one little old lady from a
backward country say the other day (she was
here for a visit) : "We got our sons. We got
everything. You don't have your sons. You
don't have nothing." She was so right.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
July 26,1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR Sin: The expected callup of Reserves
is another escalation leading up to a fullscale
ground war in southeast Asia that I feel will
end in disaster for all concerned. Please
continue your efforts to stop this path to
destruction.
WESTWOOD, MASS.,
`July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have followed with
interest your critical reactions to recent ad-
ministration decisions concerning activity in
Vietnam. I want to say that I wholehearted-
ly support your position. We need, in the
U.S. Senate, more voices like yours.
Even though I am from another State than
the State you represent, I feel that I owe it
to you to let you know that yours is not a
voice crying in the wilderness.
I have studied Far Eastern philosophy, cul-
ture, religion and history. All I have learned
leads me to the conclusion that what we are
doing in Vietnam is dead wrong. To use vio-
lenoe to settle problems in a culture which
in Its several thousand years has not known
the methodology of violence is a crime
against humanity. I hope we eventually
realize that a military solution will not work
in a strong Buddhist culture. .
Keep up your perceptive criticism for the
benefit of those of us who agree with the
stand you have taken.
Sincerely,
LEO F. JOHNSON.
Los ANGELES, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
To a Senator that is not afraid to talk over
radio:
And how about the Far East trouble. It
seems to me now that the United States
has rockets that go 2,000 and 5,000 miles
there is no need to have troops in the
Far East.
The people In the Far East live different,
and think different, so let them fight
amongst themselves. We, the people, are
supposed to be free and can vote for laws
that has to do with'the people here in the
United States.
So why not call for a special national
election, and let the people here in the
United States vote on whether we should
18447
stay in the Far East or to withdraw back
to the international date line at the Pacific
Ocean.
JOSEPH FRYER.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
TYLER, TEx.,
July 28, 1965
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As one who was born
in your State, I feel obligated to tell you of
my feelings on the present state of the
Union.
I am morally opposed to President John-
son's further involvement in the Vietnam
war. I am concerned about future involve-
ment In view of his press conference today,
and recent bombings of Russian-built missile
bases.
I urge you to convince him that his present
policy in Vietnam is not in the best public
interests, or in the best national security
interests of this Nation.
I will support you in your efforts to bring
about a change in foreign policy, and I hope
for the sake of the United States of America
that you will be successful.
Sincerely yours,
CHELAN, WASH.,
July 26, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MORSE: Through the years I have
come to respect your stand for the cause of
peace and rationality. Now I write to you
asking help. We are a typical young Amer-
ican family, with ordinary jobs, ordinary
hopes and dreams and a lovely, extraordi-
nary child whom we love, protect and hope
for with all our hearts. Now we live in
terror.
Each news bulletin of the increasing chaos
In southeast Asia brings the sick chill of
fear on us like a flood. We don't talk about
it, because it only serves to make the peril
.more real, and we feel so helpless.
Marvin is one of those in the Army Re-
serve who will be called to active duty if the
President and his advisors decide to do so;
and It looks more likely every day. He will
leave for Vietnam with the knowledge that
he may never return. To some of our mili-
tary leaders and perhaps to Mr. Johnson, he
Is expendable, a mere digit to be sacrificed In
order to demonstrate our patience and re-
solve in suppressing the threat of commu-
nism.
Patience and resolve are all very noble, but
this man is not expendable- He is far more
than a digit. He is our light, our warmth,
and joy and our strength. It would take
more'than patience and resolve to make our
lives meaningful if he were gone.
Isn't it possible to demonstrate our Na-
tion's purposefulness with equal strength at
the conference table? Must this man and
thousands like him be sacrificed on the altar
of bravado? Can we strengthen ourselves
by sending men to die? I only pray that
you will use your influence to see that this
does not happen, that you will urge that we
strive to find a nobler peace than that of
mutual destruction, to show the greater
strength, of reason.
Sincerely,
Mrs. MARVIN GRILLO.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
July 6, 1965.
Mr. CLIFFORD M. TURNER,
San Bernardino, Calif.
DEAR MR. TURNER: Thank you for sending
to me a copy of the suicide note of Alice
Herz.
I have not obtained a copy of the July-
August Issue of Fact, but I shall do so to-
morrow and read it.
Approved For. Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
I am enclosing tear sheets from the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD, containing the latest
major speech I have made in the Senate on
the shocking U.S. war in Vietnam.
In your letter, you asked me for my views
concerning your suggestion that steps should
be taken to impeach President Johnson and
perhaps some other officials. It Is my view
that such an impeachment attempt would be
a very serious mistake. All it would do would
be to divert attention away from the basic
issues involved in American foreign policy
in Asia and center attention on President'
Johnson, as an individual. It would cause
many people who disagree with his foreign
policy to rally behind him, because they
would consider such a movement to be an
ad hominem approach. Attacking Johnson,
personally, will not change his course of ac-
tion, and it will not win supporters for a
change of foreign policy in Asia, but to the
contrary, it will drive supporters away.
In my opinion, there is no question about
Johnson's sincerity or his patriotism or his
desire for peace. It is Johnson's bad judg-
ment and mistaken reasoning in respect to
the war in Asia that constitute the basis
of the crucial problems that confront us in
trying to get a change in Johnson's policies
in Asia. To attack him, personally, by pro-
posing impeachment would be the most seri-
ous personal attack that could be made
upon him. It would rally the Nation be-
hind him and result in his policies being es-
calated into a major war at a much faster
rate. Those of us who oppose Johnson's
foreign policies must meet his views on their
merits. We should never attack him, per-
sonally.
Although you may disagree with me on
this matter, I am giving you my honest ad-
vice in this letter.
I hope that the opponents of Johnsons'
policy in Vietnam will not fall apart by
adopting what we call splinter tactics in con-
ducting this struggle for peace in Asia.
With best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Eventually I shall write to my own Con-
gressmen and Senators regarding these
things. But I don't know them as yet; and,
little publicity as you have been given, I
am sure I am substantially in agreement with
you. I would be interested in all you have
said concerning international matters.
I am beginning to ask myself more and
more what distinguishes us from the Ger-
many of 1939? And I quote here from your
speech of June 8, "The Communists murder
and kidnap and maim the villagers; we burn
them with jelled gasoline. That is some
record of fighting for freedom." We are
driving Asians by the millions into the arms
of communism. Or I might add, into some
kind of totalitarianism.
Sincerely,
CLIFFORD M. TURNER.
P.S. I am marking this letter personal be-
cause I want to be sure you read it as soon
as possible. And the idea of removing John-
son and perhaps some others from office I
should rather not at present share with your
staff. It may be of some help to me if you
can inform me how such a movement could
be started. I recommend you read the ar-
ticle in Fact for July-August 1965. Alice
Herz may well have been wrong in some of
the things she said or did. But her suicide
was not the act of an insane person but a
brave, sincere, and humane one. I share her
feelings-have since August 1945-but I
have never been as courageous or energetic.
I was frightened--terribly frightened-in
August 1945-but I could not find people
around me who shared that fright. I am no
great prophet and no scientist. But I saw
or thought I saw-the horrors that such a
weapon as the then comparatively crude
atomic bomb could bring humanity. It took
no sage or seer to know that the thing could
be "improved." Since that . time, all my
worst fears but one have been realized; we
have not yet had a nuclear war.
We must have peace or nothing.
This subject is endless. I will leave it
now.
P.P.S. I imagine there were many people
like me-though certainly a small propor-
tion-who were deeply agitated but were si-
lent through sickness caused by ignorance
and apathy-mostly by that which sur-
rounded them rather than their own.
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF.,
June 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I copied the en-
closed suicide note of Alice Herz from the
July-August issue of Fact. I tried to type
it just as it appears in an article "The
Martyrdom of Alice Herz," by Hayes B. Jacobs
beginning on page 11.
Jacobs' article extends from page 11
through page 17.
There was some publicity about the flam-
ing death of Alice Herz in the San Bernar-
dino Sun-Telegram. About as much as you
got for your speech June 8 at Madison Square
Garden. I have a copy of that speech.
I am not as brave as Mrs. Herz but I share
her feeling. My own sentiment-dangerous
to express-is that Johnson should be im-
peached. Sonie other top officials should
go with him. Some such drastic attempt
is necessary if the world is to be saved for
mankind.
Our present actions are driving the Chinese
Reds and the Russians back together. Do
our great leaders think we can win a mili-
tary victory over their combined forces?
America and Russia in cooperation might
save civilization; opposed to each other they
will destroy it. We surely must have peo-
ple in each country who realize this.
"Civilized men everywhere have common
ideals and these ideals have a force that
unites. They may prove more lasting than
current conflicts." (U Thant, Reader's Di-
gest, July 1962, p. 172.)
Civilized people in this country and the
world over must somehow unite if the world
as Mrs. Herz said is not to "blow itself up
to oblivion."
MARCH 1965.
To the Nations of the World, to U Thant,
Executive Secretary of the United
Nations:
As a citizen of the world, In full possession
of my physical, mental, and spiritual ca-
pabilities, before the Creator of this world
I accuse Lyndon B. Johnson, President of the
United States of America, for having declared
his decision-and already started to enact
it; to use his amassed capacity of 400 times
overkill to wipe out, if necessary whole
countries of his choosing.
To the American people with the help of
the, colossal lie your Presidents Harry S.
Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, J. F. Ken-
nedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, have deceived
and misguided you. Through hatred and
fear, deliberately whipped up during the last
20 years, you have allowed your lawmakers
in Congress to appropriate endless billions
of dollars for an arsenal of destruction-
unlimited.
Awake and take action before it is too late.
Yours is the responsibility to decide if this
world shall be a good place to live for all
human beings, in dignity and peace, or if it
should blow itself up to oblivion.
God is not mocked. To make myself heard
I have chosen the flaming death of the
Buddhists on the Wayne State University
Campus of Detroit.
May America's youth take the lead toward
life.
[Signed] ALICE HERZ.
MARLTON, N.J.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I sincerely regret
that I am not one of your constituents. It
seems impossible that you stand alone, a man
of convictions who refuses to be swept along
on a bandwagon. Even men of my own
church, whom I know to be men desirous of
peace, of world brotherhood, etc., have been
found wanting (BARTLETT, of Alaska, CLARK,
bf Pennsylvania, HARRISON WILLIAMS of New
Jersey, and even the late Adlai Stevenson)
and have allowed their own beliefs to be
silenced in the interests of political unity.
Without thoughtful opposition, no matter
the cost, democracy cannot survive.
I hope you can raise up some little shadows,
or infuse some moral stamina into our
anemic doves, the war hawks have had far
too much opportunity to bring chaos into
our beautiful land.
Though I am not from Oregon, you con-
tinuously speak for me, and for others who
reside far afield. Thank God for at least a
single voice in the wilderness.
Sincerely,
EASTON, CONN.,
July 29,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: Hold fast, hold fast Sena-
tor, and know well, that you have the back-
ing of silent millions, who, tragically
enough, keep their thoughts to themselves,
and do not come out to be counted in these
dire times of contemplated destruction.
It was James Russell Lowell who wrote:
"They are slaves who fear to speak
For the fallen and the weak.
They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth that needs must
think,
They are the slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three."
ABRAHAM YOUNG.
BROOKLYN, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The "great manipu-
lator" (with apologies to Abe Lincoln, the
great emancipator) who may go down in
history-if there is any future history-as
the "great exterminator" has cleverly ad-
vanced us one fatal step further toward
doom.
L.B.J. and his whole "Napoleonic complex"
administration have brainwashed most of the
American people but haven't of course fooled
the rest of the world.
The grim farce must be stopped. We must
negotiate with the Vietcong. More troops,
more bombings of North Vietnam will pro-
duce nothing but further deterioration of
the situation, aside from dragging us into a
horrible conflict with China, and perhaps
Russia.
And except for a handful of people like
you, Congress abdicates its solemn duty--
allows the President to wage, and escalate an
undeclared war in violation of the Consti-
tution.
I do not ordinarily believe in filibusters
but I think that you and Senators GRUENING,
CHURCH, McGovERN, etc., must do this now
or else-goodbye world.
Sincerely,
SIDNEY ROSENBLATT.
JAMAICA, N.Y.,
July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
V.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I have seen you express your
views many times on television, and many
times I have wanted to write to you but
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 A ved for ReI se 2003/11/04 ? CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, w + ONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE.
have resisted the impulse. But in view of
the President's announcement today, I feel
as if I must.
Sir, in a world of insane voices, yours is
the only sane one I have heard express itself
on the Vietnam situation. I only wish more
people in high places had the insight and
wisdom you have shown in connection with
this terrible war. I am a young mother of
2'9, and I remember the Korean war which
started when I was 14. I remember veterans
of the. Second. World War saying that they
would "mop it up" before the summer ended,
but before it was over there wawa shocking
waste of young American lives and all for
nothing.
This war is just a repetition of Korea.
Nothing for the boys when they return
home because there has been no formal dec-
laration of war, so there will be no GI bill,
no mustering out pay, no compensation for
losing 3 or more years of one's life, not to
mention; possibly losing one's life, no ade-
quate pension for the widows, the orphans,
the lonely mother and very little thanks in
general for all the suffering our boys are
going through.
Every time I hear you speak, my heart lifts
a little. You are a tiny light in this sense-
less horror and senseless waste of our best.
If only you could make enough people listen.
You are in a position to be heard; I am only
one woman, a housewife and mother, in other
words, a nonentity. Must we, in every gen-
eration, waste and spend our best in every
useless war just to prove our point?
I have a 3-year-old son, just 3 today, and
I read in the paper that this war could last
20 years. It's just insane enough to be true.
I will not gladly send my bright, lovely boy
to die _in some God-forsaken mudflat for
something, that has begun before he was
old enough to understand it all.
Sir, I have faith in you, both as a Senator,
and as a, man who calls them as he sees
them. You are a plain spoken, honest man,
and God knows, there are pitifully few of
them in Washington. You are speaking the
truth, please make them listen, try and make
them see what they are doing, how they
are spending our best. When will we get
more? These are men, not just machines
to be wound up to die in Vietnam. That's
not what they were born for, educated for,
carefully nurtured for. If this is all that
faces our male children, then we ought to
kill them at birth and save the Government
the trouble.
I realize that you are a busy man, and I
won't take up any more of your time. But,
in conclusion, I'd just like to say, I wish,
and most sincerely, that you were one of the
Senators from New York so that I could say
that my vote helped send a sane man to the
V.S. Senate.
God bless you in all your battles for the
sanity of the American people.
Sincerely,
Mrs. ELLA WILLIAMS,
WASHINGTON, CONN,,
July 27, 1965.
.DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I was terrified to
hear of President Johnson's proposed fund
towards the war in Vietnam, and to think of
possible and probable results.
I always was opposed to the war in Viet-
nam, but now it seems that the United States
Is just asking for trouble, by trying to boost
the war fund.
In my opinion, the only result that could
come' troln this monstrous war fund is a
third world war.
Although, as a citizen of the United States,
I am powerless in this matter, I beg you to
do all you can to veto this fund.
Sincerely,
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
SONORA, CALIF.,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I just want to con-
gratulate you on your stand in the Vietnam
affair. I think you are right on all you
have said. What are we there for, and what
will we get out of it except the loss of a lot
of our boys and money. I was in the first
one, the war to make the world safe for
democracy, and the war to end wars. How
did we come out? Keep up your good work.
Respectfully,
KEW GARDEN HILLS, N.Y.
July 28, 1965.
Hon. Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate, Senate Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have been follow-
ing your position on foreign policy and In
particular on Vietnam. Your statements
have been very logical, mature, and sensible.
I wholly support your efforts to deescalate
our involvement in that war and with you
every bit of God's help in your efforts.
It sometimes becomes difficult for me
to retain newspaper clippings of your state-
ments. I would like to have as complete
a file as possible, and ask you to send me
any copies of your speeches you can.
If you do not have such copies, could you
please let me know where I could obtain
them. I would be glad to pay for them.
My best wishes for your continued health
and activities.
Respectfully yours,
ANTHONY PETERS.
MT. VERNON, N.Y.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR MR. Moss: I urge you to continue
your lonely cry against this most dreadful
act. Mr. Johnson has agreed to commit
unwarranted destruction upon a country and
ultimately, the world.
If you want to start a motion to impeach
him I am with you.
Sincerely,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
JAMAICA, N.Y.,
July 28, 1965.
Washington, D.C.
HONORABLE SIR: Our most profound respect
and admiration are with you for opposing
the President's stand in Vietnam.
We know you are a singularly courageous
and valiant voice of peace and truth in a
world very much gone mad.
You have ardent supporters and admirers
everywhere in this land. Would that we
could stop this holocaust. We continue to
write letters of protest to our President.
With deep gratitude and every good wish
for your continued efforts toward peace.
Respectfully yours,
ELEANOR KLEIN,
KALMAN KLEIN,
RICHARD STANLEY,
HAZEL STANLEY,
SHIRLEY MARGOLIN,
LEO MARGOLIN,
and hundreds of others known to us.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Bless you for keep-
ing your voice raised in the Senate as a
beacon of hope for the people of our beloved
country and the world.
I have written to my own Senator, Senator
CLARK, many, many times.
18449
And as long as I can walk and talk I shall
in my own small way do what I can with
others or alone to help stop this holocaust.
The average person to whom I have
talked-say, "this is all wrong but how do we
get out."
The answer is simple yet difficult but pos-
sible and rational-stop the slaughter, get
out-and give us the challenging opportunity
to stop the bloodletting and begin to heal
the wounds.
With the deepest of feelings,
Mrs. DOROTHY KUNKLE.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Re your statement of July 16, quoted in I. F.
Stone's Weekly, July 26, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
"WAR FOR THE SAKE OF JOBS?
"The other day a representative of a great
union sat in my office protesting my position
on the war in Vietnam. I listened patiently,
very much interested in a point of view that
is held by too many labor leaders in the
United States today. During the conversa-
tion, he mentioned the great interest his
union had in the helicopters, airplanes, mu-
nitions, and war materiel In Vietnam that
was being manufactured by their labor.
Senators know that I would be aghast. I
was shocked to think that even the thought
should go through his mind that any change
in my position should be dictated by the
alleged benefits to the economy of the United
States by fighting a war in South Vietnam."
(MORSE in the Senate, July 16.)
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Inasmuch as I serve
the American labor movement in a profes-
sional capacity, I want you to know that I,
too, am shocked by the position of the un-
named leader you cited in your statement.
I believe that the loss of even one life In the
war in Vietnam cannot possibly be offset by
the alleged economic benefits of such a war
to American workers. And I do not believe
that American workers themselves would be
so callous as to seek economic gains at the
expense of lives of fellow human beings,
Sincerely,
COLIN D. NEAL,
Research Intern, Collective Bargaining
Section, Industrial Union Department,
AFL-CIO.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have long admired
your unswerving determination to speak out
against our Government's war policies in
Vietnam. Those of us in New York who
have feared the steady escalation of the war
for a great many months and regard the
United Nations as one of the promising
arenas for discussion truly value your per-
sistent courage as you face the tremendous
odds on the Senate floor each time you de-
clare yourself on this subect.
I and my friends ask that you continue
to demand that the United States honor its
commitment to the Charter of the United
Nations by permitting the dispute to go be-
fore the Security Council. We are very
much behind you.
Sincerely yours,
JUDITH N. MITCHELL.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
NATICK, MASS.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR MR. MORSE: I am deeply disturbed by
the trend of.eventss in Vietnam, Although
Approved;;F-air Release. 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R00030Q190001-8
 18450
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
there is great disagreement about what is the
proper course of action, there is a large per-
centage of the American people which is
'convinced that the policy President Johnson
is following will lead this country to military
and moral disaster.
I urge you to speak out against the admin-
istration's policy. You will find much pop-
ular support behind you. The hostile tones
of the reporters' questions at President John-
son's press conference, of July 28, 1965, indi-
cate to me that you will find a favorable
press.
Sincerely,
ROBERT OLSHANSKY.
PITTSBURGH, PA.,
July 23, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Your television com-
ments on the Vietnam situation together
with two other Democratic Congressmen was
very informative. Your comments make
sense and I sincerely hope that you will con-
tinue to take the position and stand that will
give the American people an opportunity to
express displeasure with the method used in
our involvement. There are many Ameri-
can citizens who are deeply concerned about
the reckless method of pursuing a policy
that can only bring us disaster.
If sufficient Congressmen will follow your
stand and proclaim their position for a
complete discussion of all the facts, then
perhaps we will not become involved to the
extent that it's too late to change our course.
BUFFALO, N.Y.,
July 27, 1965.
SALLY ZANJANI.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Capitol Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have just heard a
recent speech of yours in which you, once
again, deplore the situation in Vietnam. It
seems that you are one of the few voices of
reason amid the turmoil, emotionalism, and
head-strong aggression that appears to char-
acterize the foreign policy of the present
administration.
My husband and I, as well as many stu-
dents here at the University of Buffalo hope
that you will continue to use your influence
to bring about a negotiated settlement and
peace. We only wish there were more Sen-
ator MoasEs.
Most sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT BINCKERHOFF.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I want to express my
gratitude to you for your consistent and
outspoken criticism of administration poli-
cies in Vietnam on this latest and most
drastic occasion as in the past. Although I
am not one of your constituents, you have
given far better expression to my views than
any of the representatives from my locality,
and it increasingly appears that you are the
last sane man in Washington. Although
this may not seem to be a good deal to be
grateful for. I am nonetheless extremely
grateful that you are there.
BROWNSVILLE, TEX.,
July 28, 1965.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: While I am writing
this to you on the stationery of the church
of which I am the minister, yet let me make
it crystal clear that I am speaking and writ-
ing for only myself as an individual.
, With full attention and great interest did
I listen to and watch you. on TV this morn-
ing as you held your press conference. Again
you confounded the prognosticators as to
what you would probably advocate and say.
I was delighted with your appointments of
Mr. John Chancellor as the new head of the
Voice of America and Mr. Abe Fortas as a
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. May I
say, also, that I think your appointment of
Mr. Arthur Goldberg as our Nation's, Ambas-
sador to the United Nations was an excellent
choice.
I am sure that the decisions you an-
nounced about the war in Vietnam, the call-
ing up of more troops and the more than
doubling of the draft quotas per month were
reached only after hard, long, and painful
thought. I can only commiserate with you.
While I am more than pleased that the
number of troops to be called up for duty in
Vietnam is smaller than the news media pre-
dicted, yet I am concerned, even distressed,
about what is now our Nation's official pol-
icy, posture, and stance regarding the Viet-
nam situation. As I see it, it is a war pol-
icy, posture and stance rather than a policy,
Believe me, Mr. President, you have my
prayerful thoughts as you discharge your
difficult duties and responsibilities.
Very cordially yours,
ALBERT F. HARKINS.
DENVER, COLO.,
July 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Although I am not
one of your constituents, I have followed
your congressional activities and efforts for
20 years and I might add with admiration.
Why Is President Johnson pursuing this
Vietnam thing?
Can we win this fight short of an all-out
atomic war? What kind 'of an exercise is
President Johnson putting us through?
The only voice in the Senate that I have
heard opposing this war has been yours. I
would appreciate any information you might
send. Thank you.
Yours very truly,
MAPLEWOOD, N.J.,
July 29, 1965.
posture andstance of peace. This I deeply
and sorrowfully regret. For, again, as I see
it, the Vietcong will have no other alterna-
tive than to react in kind as well as the
forces associated with that nation. Thus we,
the Vietnamese and the Vietcong will be, I
believe, enlarging a vicious and widening
circle. To me, Mr. President, there is no
such thing as a "just" war; war is always
and inevitably destructive and noncreative.
It destroys persons, and persons regardless
of their nationality, political allegiance, race,
creed, educational attainments and economic
status, are of supreme and unconditioned
worth-the most precious thrust of all cre-
ation. War destroys cities, towns, villages
and much valuable material. However lim-
ited the war may be, nobody wins, but every-
body loses.
Because of these convictions may I be so
bold and brash as to suggest what seems to
me to be a possible creative way out of the
present impasse: (1) that the U.N. be re-
quested to establish a mediation commis-
sion consisting of representatives of the de-
mocracies, the Communist bloc, and the
nonalined nations in the U.N. Excluded
from membership on the mediation commis-
sion should be any nation currently involved
in the Vietnam war; (2) that a cease-fire or
truce be effected for an indefinite period so
as to allow ample time for the mediation
commission to organize and do its work (3)
that there be agreements among the nations
currently involved in the war that they will
abstain from any activity whatsoever that
would tend to influence negatively the na-
tion they regard as their enemy; (4) that the
mediation commission work with all delib-
erate speed in attempting to work out a mu-
tually satisfactory settlement of the disputes
and issues between the nations now involved
in warfare; and (5) that upon completion of
the mediation commission's efforts its find-
ings, proposals, recommendations and sug-
gestions be announced before the General
Assembly of the U.N. and given the widest
possible publicity.
I am well aware that it is easy for one
who is not an expert in international affairs
to engage in typewriter desk quarterbacking.
I am aware, also, that there are risks in this
proposal-it may not work out. But it does
seem to me to be worth a try in an effort to
bring a permanent halt to this horrible and
terrible carnage and to bring about a state
of permanent peace-a just peace and a posi-
tive peace. And surely this proposal is in
accord with the Charter of the United Na-.
tions; to save succeeding generations from
the scourge of war.
Mr. President, I am taking the liberty of
sending copies of this letter to those named
below. This may violate accepted protocol
but when the world is threatened with a
conflagration of immense proportions, I
think protocol can be suspended.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: We want you to know that
we support your views on Vietnam, that is,
for stopping the bombing, and negotiation
with the National Liberation Front, as well
as with North Vietnam.
We realize the difficulties but we must try.
We have long hoped for China to be in the
United Nations but now that seems remote.
Having lived In the Far East, as well as in
Europe, my husband and I understand the
difficulties, but also the absolute necessity of
avoiding world war III.
Sincerely,
Mrs. H. B. ALLINSMITH.
BIRMINGHAM, ALA.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I wish to express my approval
of your outspoken criticism of President
Johnson's Vietnam policy.
I am a loyalist Democrat, but to me Presi-
dent Johnson is doing in Vietnam the very
things feared Senator Goldwater would do.
Keep up the good work and I wish you
the best of luck.
Sincerely,
MAYMIE C. RUSSELL.
GLEN HEAD, N.Y.
Senator WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR SIR: I am writing to tell you that
I support your stand concerning Vietnam.
You have 'given me at least a little hope.
Please continue to fight for peace in the
world. You are one of the bright lights
in a country which I am growing con-
tinuously more ashamed of.
Thank you for your great contribution.
JOHN M. MoNDEO, Jr.
WILMINGTON, OHIO,
July 27, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: You have tried so
hard to stop that war in Vietnam and there
are. many of us that appreciate all you are
doing.
I just can't understand the President,
either, especially since he had promised no
wider war last September when he told us,
"We think that losing 190 lives in the period
we've been out there is bad but it is not like
190,000 that we might lose if we escalated
that war."
It looks as if that was nothing more than
a campaign promise to be broken as soon as
he was elected.
According to the papers he wants to go
down as the great President. It looks more as
If he wants to be the last President. I, for
one, get tired listening to a lot of pious talk
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 For Re 3/ vp4 C~-gpP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, ~a oved Fo ~ 1 G 5S1f f KE40RD - S N E 18451
while we are bombing those poor souls who NORWICH UNIVERSITY, ST. JOHN'S UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST,
have never harmed us in any way. Northfield, Vt., July 28, 1965. Powhatan Point, Ohio.
What they need is a better way of life Senator WAYNE MORSE, DEAR MR. MORSE: Please keep up your
and we could give it and have no fear of U.S. Senate, witness against our present increasing in-
tbeir going Communist. Washington, D.C. volvement in Vietnam. Read your state-
Sincerely yours, MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The newscast meats in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Let's go to
Mrs. HELEN GONA. has just quoted you as taking violent ex- United Nations. Stop this madness. Help us.
ception to the President's noonday press BERNICE BUEHLER.
BROOKLYN N.Y., conference.
July 29, 1965. I heartily endorse your position. I was of RYE, N.Y.,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Hats off, to a real the opinion that only Congress could de- July 30, 1965.
patriot. We in the 13th Congressional Dis- clare war, but there was the tacit admission President LYNDON JOHNSON,
trict in Brooklyn, N.Y., are behind you in by the President that our country is at war The White House,
your fight. against our immoral intervention Washington, D.C.
in Vietnam, and the declaration of deeper and deeper DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: While
Please continue our work so that we will involvement. your
Y speech was welcome in that invited the
he
all be proud again to be called Americans. There should be a thorough congressional United Nations to assist in trying to make
GEORGE HOISMAN. debate on our involvement in Vietnam. The peace, I believe that we will have to take
U.S. Senate is said to be the most delibera- more concrete steps before this hideous war
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I'm with YOU. I tive body in the world, but have they abdi- can be ended. I think we should stop the
think Congress should be required to go on cated their responsibility? The President aerial bombing and withdraw some of our
record either for or against war in Vietnam. should not be permitted to commit the coun- troops to show that we are truly seeking
I frankly admit that I don't know what is try through unilateral action. I felt that peace. A 10 years war in the jungles Is
best but I don't want any drawn-out land his position was perfidious, illogical and ir- unthinkable, when we have commitments
war on the mainland. Let's either destroy responsible. I trust that you will continue elsewhere in the world. You will have the
Red China now or get out. We must not to speak up. whole Nation under arms.
take on both Russia and Red China. Most sincerely yours, Also, I think the question put to you at
JAMES D. BRYSON. Rev. HERSCHEL G. MILLER, the press conference, about consulting with
Chairman of the Department of Reli- Congress, was very pertinent. Before any
MY DEAR SENATOR: May the Lord bless you gion and Philosophy.
Y more money is spent or troops are sent, 2
to continue to speak up against this "stupid think hearings should be held by Congress
war." Our boys are being sent to their GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, and expressions of opinion from all over the
doom and will die like rats. Washington, D.C., July 27, 1965. country sought. We all have much at stake
FRED KUPPERMAN. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I had the privilege in this and our representatives should be
of sitting in the Senate gallery today to hear heard, as well as ourselves, and Congress can
LONG BEACH, CALIF., you deliver your courageous and vigorous then decide.
July 26, 1965. speech on our suicidal adventures in Asia. Sincerely yours,
Senator WAYNE MORSE, As a teacher and a Fulbright grantee soon to
Mrs. R. G. WEBBER.
Washington, D.C. leave to teach English for a year in Japan
MY'DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for your
valia}It . efforts for peace. You have shown
courage where lesser men have weakened.
Your. efforts may be in vain, but at least
you have a clear conscience.
Mrs. EVY DAWSON.
SEATTLE, WASH.,
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: My congratulations on your
Stand on settling the Vietnam crisis. It
takes courage to speak out for your convic-
t tlon. The American people are with you.
What can we do to support you in stopping
this mad war? I have written the President
and have urged others to do so.
Please continue to fight for peace.
Sincerely,
Mrs. AUDREY HURLEY.
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF.,
July 27,1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We just sent this
telegram to KUCHEL, BALDWIN, MURPHY:
"Speech shocking-no formal declaration
of war-U.S. action unconstitional-immoral.
"You share guilt.
"Voters."
Please keep up your work for peace and
sanity.
Sincerely,
CLARENCE AND DALE ANDERSEN.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
i reel especially keenly and close to the truth
of your repeated and too often ignored warn-
ings. Of course, when I had the temerity to
applaud I was hustled from the gallery. I'm
not sure but some of the other visitors would
have liked to throw me out onto the floor.
But even there, some faces registered agree-
ment with you.
One other thing. I was sitting in the
Orient Restaurant the other night when you
and Mrs. Morse were also there having din-
ner. You look far too tired. All of us need
you too much for you to look as weary as you
did that evening. Please do your duty by
the world only as far as you can maintain
your personal health as well.
Sincerely,
SAN RAFAEL, CALIF.,
July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR SIR: Yours is the only sane voice I
have heard in this wilderness of confusion.
Keep it up, sir. The American people are
listening. As a Californian, I cannot vote for
you, but I am with you, and I pray to God
that you will continue to speak the truth as
you have been doing.
F, MCMALLEN.
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.,
. August 2, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Yours seems to be
one of the few courageous voices of wisdom
and moderation still raised in the Senate
against the wrong and dangerous policies of
President Johnson in Vietnam.
One can admire much that he has done
domestically, but in the international situa-
tion he seems to have done all we feared
Goldwater would do and to have led us
down a path that can end only in the third
world war which none of us want. Can you
not rally your colleagues to oppose or restrain
such a policy? We would be the first to say
that the United Nations should handle this
matter were another country engaged as we
are in a foreign nation.
Sincerely yours,
DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for coura-
geously opposing President Johnson's policy
in Vietnam. I wish you Godspeed in your
efforts. I think you express the real
thoughts of the American people; thoughts
they would express far more vocally If not
for the stigma of being labeled "unpatriotic."
Sincerely,
AUGUST 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The following telegram was sent
to President Johnson today:
"As American mothers, we implore you to
stop the undeclared war in Vietnam. You
talk of peace, but you have devastated a
country. Now our young men are to be
sacrificed. You must halt this madness by
withdrawing American troops."
Signed:
Mrs. Rose Kogan, 55 Calhoun Avenue, New
Rochelle, N.Y.
Mrs. Ida Hoffman, 14 North Avenue, New
Rochelle, N.Y.
Mrs. Hetty Applebaun, 33 Parcot Avenue,
New Rochelle, N.Y.
Mrs. Esther Bass, 461 Stratton Road, New
Rochelle, N.Y.
Mrs. Ofie Mayer, 1
Rochelle, N.Y.
Mrs. Betty Reiser, 74
Rochelle, N.Y.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y.
DEAR SIR: We have sent the following
message to President Lyndon B. Johnson,
today:
"We wish to express horror at the Ameri-
can policy in Vietnam. We voted for you as
a peace candidate and find you embarked on
the road to a world holcaust. As American
mothers, we urge you to stop this undeclared
war."
Signed:
MRS. RUTH ELTON,
MRS. HANNAH GINSBERG,
MRS. CAROLYN BLACKER,
MRS. NAOMI UNGER,
MRS. EVELYN LANDS,
MRS. MARILYN KATZ.
NEW YoRK, N.Y.,
August 2, 1965.
SIR: The United States can use the U.N.
to extricate Itself from a losing war In Viet-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18452
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
nam. Let the United States ask U Thant to
make a statement that he is going to send
U.N. representatives to Vietnam to hold a
plebiscite. The plebiscite: Do you want to
unite with North Vietnam? would be voted
yes according to most observers. A yes vote
is tantamount to the Vietnamese people ask-
ing us to go. The United States could then
gracefully withdraw. And even if the vote is
no, the United States has nothing to lose.
Very truly yours,
ALAN COOPER.
CORVALLIS, OREG.,
July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: On several occasions
in the past I have disagreed With your ideas
and policies. However, I now wish to con-
gratulate you on your opinions you have
voiced regarding our Vietnam policies.
You must continue to express these views.
Only through influential people as you will
we hope to impress the administration.
There are many other people who share our
views.
We simply cannot afford to escalate the
war in Vietnam. The United States must be
much more willing and desirous of initiating
negotiations, and every possible effort must
be made to urge the United Nations to start
efforts in bringing about a settlement. As
of now, we are only subjecting ourselves and
millions of others in the world to world
war III.
Our poor judgment in foreign policies
should have long been corrected. We are
now reaping the results. It is time we wake
up and live in the 20th century, instead of
100 years ago.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. W. H. SLABAUGH,
REDWOOD CITY, CALIF.,
July 27, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I grieve for my
country and the world. The "last, best hope
of earth" cannot long survive on a diet of
delusion. We will probably survive Vietnam,
but this disastrous display of self-deceit
portends a dismal future.
Democracy is by nature slow to adjust, it
may be too slow to survive. Please hang in
there and fight for the truth. You and the
few cool heads in the Senate may be the last,
only hope of earth.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. L. J. MARSHALL.
Copies to Senator WILLIAM FULBRIGHT,
Senator ERNEST GRUENING, Senator GEORGE
MCGOVERN, Senator FRANK CHURCH, Senator
TED KENNEDY, Senator ROBERT KENNEDY,
Senator JACOB JAVrrs, Senator THOMAS KU-
cHEL, Senator GFIORGE MURPHY, Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara, Secretary of
State Dean Rusk, President Lyndon Johnson.
I'm sure you recognize that this would be
a bad nonliberal thing.
DIVISION OF PEACE AND WORLD OR-
DER, GENERAL BOARD OF CHRISTIAN
SOCIAL CONCERNS OF THE METH-
ODIST CHURCH,
Washington, D.C., August 2, 1965.
The Honorable WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I amsure that you
have noticed the article in the Friday, July
30, New York Times by Tom Wicker suggest-
ing that the positions taken by Members of
the Senate played an important role in mod-
erating the decisions made by the President
in regard to Vietnam.
While we appreciate fully the great difficul-
ties confronting President Johnson in the
very involved Vietnamese situation, we also
believe that the restrained and thoughtful
attitudes of many Members of the Senate
have made a constructive contribution in the
shaping of policy at this time. Certainly,
any steps taken in regard to the war in Viet-
nam must be taken with full appreciation of
their consequences and with every effort to
achieve the declared goal of negotiations con-
tinuing at the same time.
This note will serve to express to you our
appreciation for whatever role you may have
played as the leaders of our Government
faced very difficult problems and fateful
choices during the past 2 weeks.
We earnestly hope that Members of the
Senate will continue to advise with the Pres-
ident concerning their judgments of the sit-
uation, for in many ways they are closer to
the concerns of the people of the Nation than
policymakers often can be due to preoccupa-
tion with study and detail.
Sincerely yours,
HERMAN WILL, Jr.,
Associate General Secretary.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
July 31, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I believe that your
same courageous views on Vietnam reflect the
true interests of the American people. I be-
lieve the United States has no more right
to intervene in South Vietnam than the
British had in the South during our Civil
War.
Please keep fighting for an honest for-
eign policy.
Very truly yours,
SYDNEY G. BILDERN.
TRIBUNE,
Los Angeles, Calif., July 28, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: Since you are one one of
the few consistently principled men in Con-
gress, I am appealing to you. The American
people did not elect Lyndon Johnson to
mount a war in Asia, or anywhere else. His
was a mandate from the people to proceed
in the opposite direction from Barry Gold-
water. Today, he might as well be Barry
Goldwater.
I call upon you, as conscientious public
servant, to call for the impeachment of
President Johnson. He is a vain, capricious
and willful man, and his recent actions
demonstrate the foolhardiness of electing
a southerner. Militarism and deviousness
have been inbred in them by hundreds of
years of brutalizing and deceiving the Negro.
Mr. Johnson does not have the right to
throw away lives while he holds out for a
cease fire before negotiations. Americans
have continued to fight when they have
known that the peace had already been made
and while they awaited the official word, in
past wars, that is. Why stand on such a
stupid piece of intransigence now?
You have taken drastic action before for
a principle. You owe it to the thousands
who will the futilely to do something now.
Sincerely yours,
ALEMENA LOMAX,
Editor-Publisher, Tribune.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
July 29, 1965,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to express my
support of your stand on foreign policy in
general, and especially on the Vietnam war.
The American. people in time will rally be-
hind you and others who condemn the John-
son administration for its suicidal actions in
the field of our policy in Vietnam and the
whole gamut of giveaway American tax dol-
lars for this or that reason.
We need more men like you to trumpet the
policy of getting our nose out of everyone
else's business. Send no arms and no aid.
Let them solve their own problems. Our
relations should be on a congenial trade
basis.
Keep the pressure on Johnson.
Respectfully yours,
HOWARD W. HARRIS.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
May 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate Building
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to express my
heartfelt commendation and admiration for
you in the courageous and forthright stand
you have taken against President Johnson's
foreign policy-especially that of Vietnam.
In my opinion, most of our foreign policy
is idiotic and self-defeating, and that in Viet-
nam is positively suicidal. If we are too
stupid to learn from history, I suppose we
deserve what we will eventually get.
I sincerely believe that what we are doing
in southeast Asia is wicked. I cannot under-
stand the double talk that comes from our
President-"war is peace," etc., and the
double think that goes on in our country.
You are a man of conviction and integrity.
Would that every State had at least one like
you. Long may yourepresent Oregon.
Sincerely,
NINA M. HARRIS.
JULY 30, 1965.
DEAR SIR: I want to thank you so much
for your stand against the war.
I thought that is what we put so much
money into the U.N. for-to solve these prob-
lems. It makes me sick for all these men
to have to go over there when there is so
much to do and live for in this day of knowl-
edge in every field.
It doesn't make sense to say we are going
to fight poverty and then go ahead and make
more.
I heard a reporter that was hurt and back
here now. He said the people over there
didn't care who won. He said they worked
beside you in. the daytime and at night would
go out and sabotage the United States.
Maybe some countries would appreciate what
they are doing. But I have felt those people
don't care.
I wish men like you could make others
see how foolish this war is.
Yours truly,
ASTORIA, ORnG., July 29, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: First, please let me
congratulate you on your stand and voice
about the policy in Vietnam. I think as you
that we are wrong there now and all my
World War II veteran friends think so too.
We should quit militarily. Very interesting
that Mark Hatfield thinks as you do on this
and I'm very glad to have seen his vote at
the Governors' conference.
Please recognize this also as the hearty
hope of myself and my wife (me a doctor of
the common people, she a career social
worker) that you will vote nay on the repeal
of section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act.
TACOMA, WASH.,
July 29, 1965..
WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I have never written a Congress-
man before, but being an Oregon resident
all my life until this month when I moved
to Washington; I felt obliged to let you
know my views on this Vietnam mess.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 August 3, 1 droved For Pd&qUhfWRWi: fi&&567BRR lq 00300190001-8
It seems to me you are right when you
say we have become the aggressor nation.
This is a position that I, as an American
citizen do not enjoy being in.
It seems to me Congress is playing follow
the leader with the President. I believe as
I am sure millions of Americans do, that it
is up to.Congress to put a stop to this non-
sense over there.
It was particularly heartening to hear
Governor Hatfield come out against John-
son's policies. How long does the President
think we can continue supporting the world
and fighting everyone's battles? I hope
others in Congress will have guts enough to
object and stop this mess. Or are we slip-
ping into a dictatorship too?
Yours truly,
GORDON D. PECK.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
August 1, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am writing to
thank you for your stand on Vietnam. You
represent many of us wllo are otherwise un-
represented in present national politics on
this tragic issue. It is difficult to understand
how our Government can proceed so re-
lentlessly on the road to international war
when so much stands to be lost, so many
stand to perish.
Would it be possible for your office to send
me copies of your major addresses on Viet-
namese situation? It would be greatly
appreciated.
Again, thank you for speaking for me in
this time of tragedy.
Sincerely;
JOEL R. HARRIS.
DOWNERS GROVE, ILL.,
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Ofce,
Washington, D.C.
Sm: Millions of people all across our land
appreciate your great courage in speaking
out against the criminal war we are carry-
ing on in Vietnam.
I have enclosed a copy of my letter to the
President.
I hope you will read it.
Yours truly,
Mrs. ALBERTA DAUNELLS.
DOWNERS GROVE, ILL.,
July 31, 1965.
President L. B. JOHNSON,
White House, Washington, D.C.
Sm: Please be willing to accept the Na-
tional Liberation Front of. South Vietnam
as a necessary party for negotiations in the
war in Vietnam.
Let us use the U.N. to solve the difficult
problem.
Yours truly,
Mrs. ALBERTA DAUNELLS.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: We followed your advice and
wrote letters to your colleagues and the
President expressing our opposition to our
increasing involvement in the fruitless war
in Vietnam. Your courageous pioneering
'plus a considerable slice of more articulate
public opinion combined with real pressures
from friend and foe alike seem to have led
to a more realistic evaluation of the actual
factors involved. This in turn has made
the outlook for an honorable solution to that
terrible conflict somewhat brighter. We are
thinking of the implementation, under
United Nations supervision, of the terms
of the Geneva agreement by all sides, and
the subsequent undertaking of a southeast
Asia development program which might give
those sorely tried peoples new hope for a
better life.
The first order of business would seem a
renewed suspension of aerial raids on North
Vietnam in order to clear the atmosphere
for meaningful negotiations.
Meanwhile let us express to you again
our heartfelt gratitude for your courageous
work on behalf of the most lofty of human
objectives, peace.
Sincerely,
ERNEST AND MICHCLE BUCHHOLZ.
EUGENE, OREG.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I oppose the war in
Vietnam and will do anything I can to stop
it. I am very proud of your courageous stand.
But with the administration's recent affirma-
tion of their old senseless policy, we have got
to renew our efforts to thwart this path to
oblivion. Please continue your dissent. The
Governor's recent position has given me a
glimmer of hope (but it is only a glimmer).
I have written Congressman DUNCAN asking
him to state his position in regards to Viet-
nam. I hope he supports us.
Yours very sincerely,
RICHARD REED.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: Your voice is as
that of one "crying in the wilderness." The
peace forces of this country do feel encour-
aged, though, to have one person with the
courage to speak out against what seems to
us as a suicidal policy being followed by our
President and his so-called expert.
I am enclosing my most recent letter (copy
of) so that you may see how one citizen has
tried to work for peace. Please feel free to
use it as you see fit.
Sincerely yours,
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
White House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
HONORABLE SIR: Again and again, and yet
again, I have written imploring you to use
your influence to stop this senseless war in
Vietnam. However, you seem only to listen
to the experts (so-called), and they appar-
ently advise to escalate this war.
You talk about our "commitments" and
"keeping our word." Well. Were there not
promises to the voters to keep the peace?
Let me remind you that- we voted you into
office, as we did Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ei-
senhower before him, believing all of you
to be men of peace. Now, we feel as if what
we think means nothing to you,. but that
what you four or five "experts" think is all
that counts.
If this Nation continues on its present
policy, it will become, in my opinion, the
most hated and distrusted among nations.
And one might add, that instead of being
known as a great and good president; you
may be spoken of as one who "ruled" without
regard to the voters' opinions, or the man
who became a dictator.
It is a sad commentary on this Nation's be
havior when the neutral nations feel im-
pelled to attempt to bring about negotia-
tions. Were I a Chinese or a Soviet citizen
I would feel the same way about my nation.
Respectfully yours,
CLAUDIA PARNELL.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senator from Oregon,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Sm: In agreement with your evalua-
tion of the Vietnam situation 100 percent.
18453
As a life-long Democrat I supported Johnson
wholeheartedly but now what am I and
others supposed to do? We can't sit idly
by and see destruction and slaughter
brought on by our own party. That was
"Goldwater's" theme. What has happened
to our idealism in the Democratic Party?
God preserve you.
MRS. MARY SPARKNHL.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Almost every day I
read or hear a statement by you on the
Vietnamese war. And everyday I thank you.
So for once I thought I would say, directly
to you, thank you for your courage and
integrity.
Sincerely,
CONSTANCE MILLER.
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CALIF.,
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I wish to express my approval of
your stand concerning the Vietnam situation
and my admiration for your courage in speak-
ing out on this apparently unpopular view.
Although I can see no good solution to the
Vietnam situation at this late date. I feel
the escalation of the war there is the worst
of possible approaches to the problem.
Basically, it seems that this is the common
problem of an emerging, uneducated, unpre-
pared people- struggling with their many
ambitions and also weaknesses. While I hate
to see the people dominated by Red China.
I feel that we have no real right to insist
that Vietnam be dominated by the West. I
am also aware that an independent Indo-
china. was organized soon after the Japanese
left only to be squelched by the French with
American and British approval. In any case,
I do not feel it is a cause worth having Ameri-
can boys (or any other boys, for that matter)
killed for.
Again, let me express my appreciation for
your courage and articulation on this matter.
Very truly yours,
LEWIS E. UNNEWEHR.
LITTLE NECK, N.Y.,
July 25,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I write this letter to give you
my support of your opposition to the war
in Vietnam and to let you know that there
are people all over the country that are also
opposed to this ridiculous but impendingly
tragic war.
Senator, you and Senator GRUENING are
our representatives. I write to thank you
for your courage in taking the dissenting
stand and to assure you that those of us
who are opposed to this war have full con-
fidence In you-and that you will act with
rationality and ethics, as you have in the
past.
Sincerely yours,
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF.,
Senator THOMAS KUCHEL, July 29, 1965.
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I have voted for you, Sen-
ator KUCHEL, Senator MURPHY, and Con-
gressman TEAGUE because I believe you are
good men. After years as a Republican,
because of the hate groups, war-provoking
groups, the senseless Communists-under-
every-bed scare groups in the Republican
Party, I changed to the Democratic Party,
and now their actions are equally distressing.
Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, I be-
lieve, stands above most Americans today
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18454
Approved FoCONGRESS0~ 1~1 U ftW 6~ 0003001900'RIttst 3, 1965
because he has the knowledge of Asia, the
integrity and courage to speak out for what
is right. His speech of July 2 in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD is true. And being true,
what reason has the present administration,
and the passel of politicians who follow
along, have in causing the increased killing
of American men in Vietnam? What honest
reason can be given?
Another fact: since 1927 when Mao Tse-
tung came to power in China's communistic
world, the U.S.S.R. (Stalin until his death)
has used every means to destroy Mao. This
condition still exists. These two powers
will fight each other to the end. Anyone
who has studied their history should know
this. Surely the administration knows this.
Yet, they are doing exactly what communis-
tic Russia has planned, if we go to war
with China.
If you and the, administration cause the
death of thousands of American. men, as
happened in Korea, to take Vietnam, we are
face to face with 600 million or more Chin-
ese who have good cause to hate us. Mao's
maggot-type armies of millions have been
warring for the past 40 years or more. It
is a way of life with them. On their own
soil they can go on fighting for another 40
years or more, slaughtering Americans and
eventually driving them out. The situation
is like a great diseased bed of quicksand.
in view of the foregoing facts, don't you
believe that the administration's causing
American men to die in Vietnam is nothing
short of criminal? Without reason? The
Vietnam article in Time magazine, July 9,
gives facts of the complete degeneration of
the Vietnam government and economy caused
by the U.S. presence.
I thought .Johnson would make a good
president. His ability in. domestic affairs
has been good. But I have no faith in his
actions regarding Vietnam. I wonder about
the caliber of men surrounding him, their
integrity and their motives.
Surely there must be other men of cour-
age and integrity in Washington such as
Senator MORSE, Senator GRUENING, Senator
YoUNG, Senator MANSFIELD, and Senator
FULBRIGHT.
I do not know anything of your view-
points on Vietnam. What course of action
are you taking to bring peace? I most sin-
cerely want to know. My son is one of a
very fine group of officers going to Vietnam
soon. If anything should happen to these
men, the responsibility rests directly on your
shoulders and on your conscience.
I would appreciate hearing from you.
Respectfully yours,
J. HOWARD CAMPBELL.
(Copies to Senator MORSE and President
Johnson.)
against the seasoned and well trained sol-
diers of jungle war. You cannot fight a war
in the jungles with a modern Army and the
Communists have unlimited manpower and
get help from Russia as well as China. That
war might well mean a catastrophe for our
country. We did not have any business in
the first place to start this war there; if
we wanted to oust the Communists why did
we not oust Fidel Castro from Cuba which
is only 50 miles from our shore and clean
up the mess in the Santo Domingo? This
is an immediate danger to our country, but
the Johnson administration and the State
Department do not seem to be concerned
about the Communists there. Congress
should take more action concerning these
danger spots close to our home. Hoping you
will continue to fight against the undertak-
ings in Vietnam, I shall remain, with kind-
est greetings and wishing you much success.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. G. MILLER.
MIDDLETON, WIS.,
August 2, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: It is not easy to
write this letter, believing as I do that you
feel sincere in your desire for peace in Viet-
nam. I have followed your statements to
the press and understand your feeling that
you are only doing what must be done. At
the same time, however, I cannot help but
feel sorely disappointed, that the man for
whom I and millions of other Americans
voted last November has now felt compelled
to carry out essentially the same foreign
policy that we then so resoundingly defeated.
I do not believe that our Nation's "honor"
requires military victory in Vietnam, even
if that were possible. What is being hurt
is our Nation's pride-pride in our mili-
tary power, and our ability to use it to make
others do as we desire. This Nation has
stamped on all of its money the words "In
God We Trust"; perhaps "in Guns We Trust"
would be more appropriate.
Mr. President, Christian morality compels
us to end this conflict, even though our na-
tional pride may suffer as a result. Im-
moral means always lead to immoral results,
and continued killing of the South Viet-
namese people (whether guerrillas or non-
combatants) can never contribute to a last-
ing peace, either for Vietnam or for the
world.
Commendable as your call for negotiations
and for United Nations participation are, I
fear that what your more war-minded ad-
visors have in mind is negotiations on our
terms only. On the contrary, we must be
prepared to take unilateral steps to end the
war. Only in that way can We hope to
achieve a settlement that is consistent with
both the good of the people of Vietnam, and
our own profession of commitment to Chris-
LYONS, OREG.,
July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I take this oppor-
tunity to congratulate you for your cour-
ageous stand you are taking against and
concerning the Vietnam war. I am very glad
to hear also that Gov. Marek Hatfield, of
Oregon, also is taking such a courageous
stand against the Vietnam war In the Gov-
ernors conference in Minneapolis, Minn., and
in Washington, D.C. Thus I am very proud
that two Representatives of the people of
Oregon are taking this attitude against and
concerning the war in Vietnam. I would
only hope that more Congressmen would do
the same and support you because you are
fighting a lone battle against the forces that
would take us into World War Three if It
goes worse in this war. As I wrote you al-
ready before we will never win this war,
the French have tried it for over 20 years
and lost out and they knew that country
and its people far better than the Americans
do. Our boys over there are greenhorns
tian principles.
Yours truly,
Labor, under Mary Anderson; formerly for
several years instructor at University of Vir-
ginia.)
(Copy to Senator MORSE.)
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
Mr. LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
President, White House,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Continued inter-
vention through escalation as the civil war
in South Vietnam is a futile policy. The
one sure result is thousands of dead men,
women, and children, Vietnamese and Amer-
ican. But certainly this is not our aim.
I plead for a policy of communicating with
the National Liberation Front in genuine
desire for a cease-fire at once, followed by
negotiations.
Respectfully,
HARRISBURG, PA.,
August 1, 1965.
Senator WAYNE L. MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
SENATOR MORSE: Having read an editorial
in the Harrisburg paper of your support for
Senator GEORGE MOGOVERN, I want to com-
mend you for stating your opinion. It seems
no one is allowed an opinion that doesn't
follow the wishes of the power that is In.
Hoping for more men like you in Congress.
I remain sincerely yours,
P. VINCENT MYERS.
ROSEBURG, OREG.,
July 29, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. MORSE: For what little it seems
to be worth, you have my wholehearted sup-
port in your courageous stand against pres-
ent U.S. policy in Vietnam.
Many of my friends are with you also-
and those who are not concede that there is
no possibility of political "hay" in your
stand.
In a way, it must be a lonely feeling-
your forecasts proving correct, but your
stature being such that "I told you so" is
not a satisfaction available to you. When
this is all over, and the appraisals are made
(if there are any appraisers still function-
ing), my bet is that there are going to be
many wishes that the "voice in the wilder-
ness" had been heeded.
To me, the indications are that we are
becoming a garrison state with a rubber-
stamp attitude toward military demands,
and a smug self-satisfaction in our inter-
national affairs. I am anxious to support
any movement to reverse the trend.
Again, you have my deepest admiration
and appreciation for your rational and self-
less opposition to the course being pursued.
Sincerely,
Copy of telegram sent to President John-
son, August 2, 1965, on extension of the draft
and military policies in Vietnam:
AUGUST 2, 1965.
To President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House, Washington, D.C.:
Finding Americans increasingly shocked
by drafting more men for Asian death and
by saving military face through destruction.
Constructive alternatives announce cease-
fire for several weeks permitting Vietnam
softening and pursue revival Geneva agree-
ments. commitment is to humanity in sav-
ing lives. May your hand be strengthened in
this.
M. E. PIDGEON.
(For many years Chief of Research Divi-
sion, Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of
ST. PETER CLAVER CATHOLIC CHURCH,
THE JOSEPHITE FATHERS,
Baltimore, Md.
Dear SENATOR MoRSE: An inadequate word
of commendation and gratitude for the stand
that you have taken on foreign policy, and
more particularly, on the Dominican Repub-
lic and South Vietnam. Among people who
are attempting to preserve some fidelity to
our heritage and Christian values, you have
been a model and an inspiration. I have no
doubt, that had it not been for your presence
in the Senate, opposition to present foreign
policy would be immeasurably weaker thar.
it is. This contingency is hard to imagine,
but undoubtedly, it 1s possible.
In my own feeble way, I have been on the
line in this issue for many months now, and
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA DP67B0044gg~ ~20p00300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENt4TE
like yourself, have experienced the stupidity
and malice of the superpatriots through the
extensive measures at their disposal. So I
have some idea what this has cost you. But
I want you to know that I support you total-
ly, and that scores of my friends do also, and
that many of us are literally willing to face
any eventuality to stop this fiasco and restore
reason and Christian political values to the
scene.
It may be possible for you, I do not know,
to continue your efforts to have the Congress
reevaluate our whole position in South Viet-
nam. And it may be possible too, for you to
call upon the country for nonviolent protest
against that policy. These two meas-
ures, it would seem, are the only check against
the consensus which will logically lead to
a large-scale land war in Asia, and World
War III. Whatever you can do, I know that
you will do. In this I have full confidence.
My prayers and admiration go with you-to
me, it is very clear that you are doing Christ's
work. May He give you His wisdom and
strength.
Gratefully in Him,
Rev. PHILIP F. BERRIGAN, S.S.J.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
August 1, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I am writing to
implore you to order a cease-fire in Vietnam.
The slaughter of women, children, and other
noncombatants is described daily in our
newspapers, and the extent to which our
country is willing to make war in that
wretched country has been made abundantly,
horribly clear. What is not clear is what we
are willing to do to obtain peace, for to con-
tinue to kill people until their survivors ac-
cede to our demands can give us, at best, only
a military victory, not peace. How we are
hated everywhere.
Respectfully,
RUDOLF B. SCHMERL.
(Copy to Senator WAYNE MORSE.)
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
July 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE, _
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Enclosed is a copy of
a letter which I have mailed to President
Johnson. It expresses my feelings on the
situation in 'Vietnam.
I wish to thank you for your long and
dauntless fight to bring some sanity into our
policy concerning Vietnam. You and a few
other daring souls in our Congress and Sen-
ate give one hope that the democratic sys-
tem has some hope of survival. The Presi-
dent may be mad at you, but you keep from
utter despair the many, many thousands who
have been waiting for our elected representa-
tives to speak out against this crazy, hopeless,
immoral war. Please let us know if there
is anything we can do to help you.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. JOEL ISAACSON.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
July 31, 1965.
President JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Certainly- you will
agree that saving the whole bodies of Ameri-
can young men and Vietnamese soldiers and
civilians is more important than the saving
of face. I am very pleased that you called in
your most recent speech on Vietnam for the
United Nations to try to seek a solution to the
terrible disaster that Is taking place there.
However, r believe that we still seem to be
too concerned with an honor that is dis-
associated from morality. We therefore lose
our chance to gain true honor and glory, to
show that we act on the principle that
human life-the lives of citizens of other na-
tions as well as those of our own-is more im-
portant than some abstract idea of national
greatness.
I therefore call upon you to consider the
following suggestions: (1) that we again in-
stitute a period of stopping our bombing of
North Vietnam and of suspected Vietcong
areas of South Vietnam. Indeed, I hope you
would even consider the more extreme idea
of calling for a cease-fire. Is it not worth it
(so many lives would be spared) to try rea-
son and good will before we resort to such
horrific use of force, and (2) I would ask that
you say not only that you would negotiate
with all governments, but that you would be
willing to see- the national liberation front
co=ne to the conference table as a separate
entity and not merely as a part of the North
Vietnamese delegation. Would it not be to
our advantage to have an NLF that might be
able to show some independence from North
Vietnam? I realize that our entire position
is based on the assumption that Hanoi pulls
the strings and that the NLF is not independ-
ent, but isn't it worthwhile exploring the pos-
sibility that there might be some independ-
ence in the relationship and that it would
be a good thing for the country of Vietnam
if we encouraged any independence? I be-
lieve that our foreign policy in general suf-
fers from a blind spot in differentiating be-
tween different kinds of nationalisms, social-
isms, and communisms. We should always
make every effort to encourage independent
nationalist movements when they may wish
to not be beholden to some larger and more
powerful Communist state.
We have not been able to help the people of
South Vietnam to form a stable and demo-
cratic government. I believe they will be
able to achieve one only if the war ends. Let
us then make every effort-in deed as well as
word-to help them establish peace in their
land,
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. JOEL ISAACSON.
ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
July 31, 1965.
President LYNDON JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I am writing to
protest the continued step-up of the war in
Vietnam. I strongly believe that this war
is neither pragmatically nor morally justi
fiable on either side.
I strongly support your recent, though be-
lated, attempt to take the matter to the
United Nations.
I urge you most sincerely to announce an
immediate cease-fire for an indefinite period
and to seek a political settlement with all in-
volved parties (including the Vietcong if
necessary).
Sincerely,
PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y.
August 1, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Just a word to let you know how
much we appreciate all the effort and deter-
mination you have shown toward bringing
about a peaceful solution to the Vietnam
situation.
Apparently we seem now finally to be mov-
ing in the direction which you have so ably
advocated. Every American and peace-lov-
ing person in the world is indeed indebted
to you.
Sincerely yours,
JOSEPH N. DEBLINGER.
18455
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
President LYNDON R. JOHNSON,
White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I view with hor-
ror the slaughter which is taking place on
both sides in the war in Vietnam. Eventu-
ally a way will have to be found to end the
bombings, to have a cease-fire, to have talks
at the negotiating table.
I ask that you use your power and your
high office to find new ways leading to an end
to the war in Vietnam; to prevent a horrify-
ing third world war which may lead to the
complete destruction of civilization.
Senator MORSE.
DEAR SIR: I agree that Congress should stay
in session during this terrible situation in
Vietnam. As you seem to be the only one
that is using any commonsense of things, I
am sending you some clippings, I don't
think we should have to fight everyone's
wars. Our boys have no future any more,
and I think a great many of the T
is caused by that. I am very much worried
about things. I am a widow; have no chil-
dren, but know a great many of the ones
that are going to have to go.
Sincerely,
Mrs. A. B. PECx.
NORTH BEND, OREG.,
July 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am a disheartened,
confused disgruntled, upset, saddened, mid-
dle-aged American mother, surrendering one
freedom after another, and much of my
woman-geared income in the name of patri-
otic duty. Why?
Now I am faced with making the ultimate
sacrifice-two fine, intelligent, hope-of-the-
future, teenaged sons fast approaching draft
status. Why? Where is the hope? Where
is the future? What's the use?
Sincerely,
BROOKLYN, N.Y..
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
The Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I trust you will
present as strong a plea as possible to the
Senate in support of your position for an
end to the war in Vietnam. I am appalled
at the constant increase of American troops
and at the admission that they are no longer
there as advisers, but as an actual fighting
force.
Sincerely yours,
LONG BEACH, N.Y.,
August 1, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I wish to express my
deep gratitude to you for your consistent
opposition to the escalation of the war in
Vietnam. What I don't understand is that
your voice seems to to go unheeded though
your thoughts and reasoning seems so clear.
I believe that your constant prodding has
finally led the administration to put the
question before the United Nations, however.
Please. continue your crusade against our
Involveent in an unnecessary war.
Respectfully,
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18456
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD -SENATE August 3, 1965
SOUTH NORwALK, CONN.,
August 2, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Just to tell you I
applaud your courageous stand on Vietnam.
I wrote President Johnson today urging him
to make you Secretary of State.
JOSEPH LASKER.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 1, 1965.
the Vietnam situation but feel it useless to
do anything about it.
God bless you on your courageous stand
in this terrible situation. I feel like a lot
more Senators and Congressmen feel as you
do but find it easier and more comfortable
to go along as "a nation of sheep."
A concerned citizen,
MRS. COLETTE GALLI.
YPSILANTI, MICH.,
August 2, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Our eternal thanks
go to you for your intelligent, humane, and
courageous stand on Vietnam. I am en-
closing two editorials by Jud Arnett who
sums up the situation very well.
Sincerely,
GLADYS SWEET,
ARDON SWEET.
From the Detroit, (Mich) Free Press,
July, 1966]
ANOTHER WRONG WAR
(By Judd Arnett)
TODAY AND YESTERDAY
What did Lyndon Johnson mean Wednes-
day when he said of the fighting in South
Vietnam-"It is really war"? In a hundred
newspaper offices across the land the editorial
writers are probably weighing the first use
of those words by the President in describ-
ing our participation in that unhappy affair.
In due course there will undoubtedly be a
hundred interpretations.
To me, the words brought back memories
of another man and another crisis. I remem-
bered the poignancy of Franklin D. Roose-
velt's farewell to a group of well-wishers at
Warm Springs, Ga. "I will see you next
year," he told his friends, "unless there is a
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR Moass: The enclosed mes-
sage was telegraphed to the President on
August 1, 1965.
I thank you beyond the power of words
for all your words, votes, speeches and stand
for peace, truth, justice, and honest gov-
ernment.
Respectfully,
GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 1,1965.
MR. PRESIDENT: I implore you to exert
your full power to stop the war in Vietnam
and use the United Nations for peaceful
negotiations.
GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS.
CAMP HILL, GA.,
August 1,1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE.
DEAR SENATOR: Undoubtedly you receive
many letters in regards to your stand in
Vietnam. Personally I admire your posi-
tion. This war is really a planned effort on
the part of a few people.
You have given many speeches on this
subject. I would like to have copies of
them. As I recall you related the steps we
have taken to be in the position we are in at
present.
It is most unfortunate President Johnson
is incapable of turning his ear to the mili-
tary. He seemingly deserves to be generous
to the old and now generous in giving lives
to a cause that has no value. In my opinion
he has fooled our entire Nation. He appears
to be mad for publicity and does desire to
be a so-called war President.
Would you mail me copies of your speeches
and by all means keep the torch burning for
peace.
M. E. ACKERMAN.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
August 1, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: The following is a copy of a
telegram I have just sent to President John-
son as a public opinion message:
"Oppose undeclared war in Vietnam.
Withdraw American troops. Honor Geneva
Convention agreement."
Very truly yours,
Mrs. AMELIA K. LLPPIN.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
July 29, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We are in full
agreement with your outspokenness with
regards to Vietnam. Please continue to
speak for us. I have written to President
Johnson and would like to help you any way
I can. Today Mr. Johnson likened the situa-
tion to World Wars I and II. We fought to
protect freedom then, now we protect Gen-
eral Ky, who reportedly said his hero is
Hitler. I would like to hear from you.
JAMES F. MCILROY.
EGG HARBOR CITY, N.J.,
August 2, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: If only all your sup-
porters would write to you. It seems as
though so many people feel as you do about
"What did he mean?" a hundred editorial
writers then asked in a hundred different
ways, but it was some months before the
true significance of the President's goodby
was commonly grasped. Then it was realized
that F.D.R. had, indeed, been trying to tell
us something.
Was the later President, caught in the web
of still another international catastrophe,
trying to tell us something at his rather
strange and curious press conference of July
28? Quite possibly. As well as he could
under the circumstances, he may have been
intimating that we have reached the point
of no return with the Red Chinese. The war
in Asia every American military leader of
this century has dreaded may become a real-
ity unless the last dove of peace can some-
how penetrate the air cover raised by the
hawks. What a tragic circumstance. How
did it come about?
A good deal of our share of the responsi-
bility has stemmed from the American obses-
sion with communism, bordering,at times on
hysteria. Off and on since 1919 we have
been witchhunting in this country,,at times
paying homage to nitwits who had no other
credentials beyond the ability to shrill-
"There goes a Communist!"
The result has been a gradual creation of
a mass inner-instinct to look up on every
Communist, real or fancied, regardless of
his location, as a mortal enemy, to be eradi-
cated by any means. That communism,
particularly when it followed on the heels of
czarism or some other form of tyranny, might
be a first step toward freedom has not oc-
curred to many of us. We have crusaded
instead for instant democracy, little realizing
that it has small chance in this world under
existing circumstances.
This obsession has led us into faraway
places, in the role of the policeman, where
we had no hope of success. Vietnam was
such a place, but we went there, and stayed
there, because of the assurance that we were
"fighting communism." Bosh. To this day
the average citizen of that hellhole, north
or south, does not know the difference be-
tween Marxism and the Bill of Rights. Nor
could he care less. What he wants, in es-
sence, is what Douglas MacArthur once said
all Asians were seeking: a roof over his head,
clothes on his back, food in his belly, and
the chance to express a bit of nationalism.
He would appreciate help from all sides, then
would the foreigners kindly go home, please?
For years in this country the atmosphere
has been such that if a decent citizen car-
ried a sign in a parade, advocating peace,
he was immediately classified as some kind
of a nut. We have even made fun of the
Quakers, the gentlest people with whom
our society has been endowed.
A Quaker, mind you, saying that there
might be something to brotherly love if only
we pursued it, has been an object of scorn.
That obsession, again; that inner-instinct;
that inner-fear; that disregard for the evolu-
tion of political ideas; that reluctance to pro-
vide a trouble world with moral and spiritual
leadership; that substitute for warmth and
compassion-dollar diplomacy.
Well, here we are. At least, here we are
if I interpret the President's remarks with
any degree of accuracy. Another wrong war,
in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Sure we will fight it; "My country, right
or wrong"; certainly we shall win it. But
isn't it about time more of us asked: Was
this war necessary-and how do we avert
the next one?
[From the Detroit (Mich.) Free Press,
July 1965]
BEHIND THE MASK
(By Judd Arnett)
Persistent visitors to this outpost may
recall that a sense of uneasiness has been
weighing upon the sentry who mans it.
The night has been dark; there have been
rustling noises out beyond the barbed wire;
in the distance a dog has howled; to the
corporal of the guard the sentry has said-
"There is - something wrong with America."
But what? Until now, therehave been no
proper words for it. Just mumblings of
things half seen and whispers half heard.
Oh, for the power of communication; oh, to
be able to draw a word picture for the
corporal of the guard.
So thank heaven for Seymour Melman,
who has put the gist of my uneasiness into
disturbing sentences. They appeared in the
July 31 edition of Saturday Review in an
article entitled "Behind the Mask of Success."
They were but a preview, we are told, of what
he has written in a book-"Our Depleted
Society."
Dr. Melman is a professor of industrial
engineering at Columbia University and he
has looked at America through the eyes of a
man appalled at the erosion occurring in
our productive capacity. He states what he
has seen in this fashion:
"A process of technical, industrial and
human deterioration has been set in motion
within American society. The competence
of the industrial system is being eroded at
its base. Entire industries are falling into
technical disrepair, and there is massive loss
of productive employment because of the
inability to hold even domestic markets
against foreign competition.
"Such depletion in economic life produces
wide-ranging human deterioration at home.
The wealthiest Nation on earth has been
unable to rally the resources necessary to
raise one-fifth of its own people from poverty.
"The same basic depletion operates as an
unseen hand restricting America's relations
with the rest of the world, limiting foreign-
policy moves primarily to military-based
initiatives."
What has caused this erosion? High
wages? Pleasure seeking? A breakdown in
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 August 3, roved For Reel ftJ( /I16RJiC 87B0gJ4MNR0300190001-8 18457
public morals? Widespread unrest because
of the civil rights revolution? No, no-none
of these.
"The deterioration," Dr. Melrnan writes, "is
the result of an, unprecedented concentra-
tion of America's technical talent and fresh
capital on military production. * * ' Military
extravagance has been undermining the
world value of the dollar and with it the
world banking position of the United States."
What is wrong, you may be asking, with a
Nation that in 1964 produced goods with a
total value of more than $600 billion? Did
any of our enemies approach this outpour-
ing, or any of our friends? Again, no; we
were in a class by ourselves. But statistics
can be deceiving. To get at the truth you
have to rephrase the question, How much
of our production, our growth, was healthy,
and how much was parasitic?
Too much was parasitic. Bad enough was
the fact that. $50 billion of the Federal
budget went into the arms and space races,
which expended manpower and materials
without, contributing to the Nation's eco-
nomic health or to future. production.. But
even worse was the siphoning-off of the
technicians and scientists so sorely needed
in industry.
Very few American companies, Dr. Melman
notes, are now undertaking extensive re-
search programs. For every 100,000 Ameri-
cans, there are 11 fewer physicians in prac-
tice than in 1950. We were short 118,000
schoolteachers at .tile start of the 1964, au-
tumn term. Only 9 percent of our foreign
trade is carried in American ships-because
our shipyards have been oriented primarily
to serving the Navy. And this, if you please:
"Americans must begin to face the bitter
fact that, in many areas of industrial tech-
nology, the United States has already become
second-rate."
Our emphasis, and much too much of our
brainpower, has been devoted to overkill.
Today, we can deliver the equivalent of 6
tons of TNT for every person on this planet.
In overkill, things are booming, you might
say. But this is progress?
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 2, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: We understand you are tak-
ing steps that might call a halt to Vietnam
and its impending holocaust. I and all I
have talked to are against any involvement
there and for a complete reversal of our steps
and thorough withdrawal from that area.
Our naval control of the seas is ,enough. We
appreciate your attitude and know it's that
of an overwhelming majority of our people.
Let's get out for good and all. Our potency
will supply the grace for such a step.
Respectfully,
MARCUS CHADWICK.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
HONORABLE SIR: I have just written to
President Johnson regarding his action in
Vietnam.
America is looking to you to open up the
discussion. Believe me, the"people are very
fearful and worried.
We are counting on you.
Gratefully yours,
TOBEY SCHEIN.
President JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: I write to express my concern
over the crisis in Vietnam. I think that
the increased war is a mistake. We must
use our ingenuity to arrange a cease-fire.
The. reputation of our country is being se-
verely damaged by our military action. Let
us call for a continuation of the Geneva
Conference, or turn the, entire matter over
to a United Nations decision.
Sincerely,
HERBERT ,E. ANDERSON,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Chambers,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I fully support your
position for letting the Vietnamese settle
their differences by a return to the 1954
Geneva Treaty Agreement.
We must honor that agreement and stop
the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese women,
children, and patriotic citizens. Our soldiers
should be home.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
ACCOKEEK, MD.,
July 1965,
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
MR. SENATOR: Three cheers for a man with
courage enough to shout down the United
States latest political endeavor.
I am against the Vietnam fray and glad
to see at least one Senator is also. There is
no justification to sending Americans to
their death in a country which doesn't want
us, will throw us out if "we" win (win
what?), and imprison all Americans if we
lose. I can hardly believe that once again
our country is in such a worthless mess.
Sincerely,
Mrs. MARILYN WITHERS.
NEW YORK, N.Y.,
July 31, 1965.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
President, The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: It is a tragic mistake
for us to be involved in fighting an ever-ex-
tending war in Vietnam. Our present posi-
tion in Vietnam brings us more fear among
our allies and more enemies than any Com-
munist regime could hope to do.
The United States must join with the
United Nations in bringing about negotia-
tions for a peaceful settlement In Vietnam.
It is imperative that the Vietminh, as well as
all other parties involved in the war, be
brought to the negotiating table. This is
the only way in which a real solution could
be achieved. The Vietnamese people must
be allowed to determine their own political
and economic organization and must be
guaranteed by the United Nations from in-
tervention by China, the U.S.S.R., the United
States, or any other country.
The war in Vietnam cannot be won by us
with guns, bombs, fire, the torture of Viet-
namese guerrillas, or by the destruction of
the face of Vietnam. On the other hand,
your idea of calling for international aid in
developing the Mekong River Delta is far-
sighted and humanitarian. Such ,a develop-
ment would go down in history as one of the
great achievements of mankind and your
name would become one of the bright stars
in the memories of all peoples.
Respectfully yours,
Mrs. PATRICIA M. CAMPBELL.
V?LPARAISP, IND.,
Senator WAYNE Moans, July 30,1965.
DEAR SENATOR:., Enclosed j s, an_ article I
read from, a Catholic magazine, I knew you
would like to read. Please hang this clip-
ping on a bulletin board, so all of your col-
leagues can read, and see the blunders being
made in Washington, for which the people
of this country must suffer for in the not-
too-distant future. I go along on your way
of thinking, we have . nothing to gain in
Vietnam only to kill our young, innocent
men and have a large debt to pay. We know
France is still suffering from the ravage of
her war in.Vietnanl:.
Senator MORSE please help us not to make
the same mistake. We need more Senators
like you, so please keep up the good work.
From an American citizen.
Mrs. M. MAHRINGER.
P.S.-What good is the U.N. if our dif-
ferences cannot be straightened out in a
peaceful way, or are we just the suckers that
pay the bills?
[From the Sunday Visitor]
RIGHT OR WRONG AMBASSADOR LODGE RETURNS
(By Rev. Daniel Lyons, S.J.)
Two years ago our commander in South
Vietnam, General Harkins, declared that the
war was almost won.- Secretary of Defense_
McNamara told us that most of our troops
would be home by Christmas. Sir Robert
Thompson, who was head of the British
Advisory Mission to South Vietnam, noti-
fied his superiors at Whitehall that the
Vietnamese Government "had turned the
corner and was winning the country back
from the Communists." Our distinguished
career Ambassador, Frederick E. Nolting, _Jr.,
agreed wholeheartedly with these reports
and -continued backing the Diem regime.
President Diem, was so successful that the
Communists were determined to get rid of
him. It ,was their only chance to avoid de-
feat. In order to get him out, the Com-
munist concentrated on a propaganda cam-
paign against him. They soon convinced
reporters that the Government was perse-
cuting the Buddhists. Ambassador Nolting
said that in 21/a years he had not seen any
signs of religious persecution, but the cor-
respondents kept reporting that there was.
Their proof was the fact that several Bud-
dhists committed suicide. A suicide actually
does not prove anything, but pictures of
two or three suicides in Saigon electrified
the world. They even made a great impres-
sion on the White House.
Averell Harriman had been urging Presi-
dent Kennedy to appoint Henry Cabot Lodge
as Ambassador to South Vietnam, and when
Lodge walked into the President's Office in
June 1963, the President exclaimed: "Just
look at this. Where is It all going to end?"
He showed Lodge a newspaper photo of a
Buddhist committing suicide. Kennedy told
Lodge that the people in Vietnam were
against President Diem and our policy there
was liable to fail. He urged Lodge to go to
Saigon and take over.
THE FIRST MISTAKE
The biggest single mistake about Lodge
was for the administration to send him there
in the first place. He did not have any ex-
perience in Asia, or as an Ambassador to any
country. Both former President Eisenhower
and former Vice President Nixon advised
Lodge not to take the appointment. But he
did, and he arrived in Saigon in August 1963,
only to commit blunder after blunder. His
first mistake was to present himself publicly
to the leaders of the Buddhists before he
called on the President of the country. Less
than. 2$ hours after he_ arrived, he wired
Washington that Diem would have to go.
,His next blunder was to grant asylum to the
Buddhist monk, Thich Tri Quang, who had
been trained by the Communists, and whose
three brothers were Communists, Tri Quang
had been giving the Government a great deal
of trouble, and Lodge gave him sanctuary in
the Embassy for 10 weeks, until Diem was as-
sassinated, even though it was against our
regulations. Trf Quang's pagoda was the
headquarters for the Communist Youth Or-
Approved For Release 2003111/04 CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8'
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE August 3, 1965
ganization. Father Raymond de Jaegher has
since testified that Tri Quang was a Commu-
nist all along.
The Communists had gained control of
only 14 of the 3,500 Buddhist pagodas in
South Vietnam, but the 14 got all the atten-
tion from the press, with their cries of per-
secution. The Communists also spread the
rumor among American officials in Saigon
that Diem was trying to make a Catholic
state out of the country, and that the 500,000
Protestant in South Vietnam were going to
be persecuted.
Ambassador Lodge told President Diem
that he said send his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu,
away. Lodge gave no real reasons for this,
and Diem pointed out that it was like asking
President Kennedy to get rid of his brother,
the Attorney General. Shortly before his
death, Counselor Nhu declared that at first
they thought Lodge, being a Republican,
"would possess good anti-Communist feel-
ings, but he did not. His political views
seemed to be dominated by Linus Pauling in
the New York Times, and the neutralist
preaching of Walter Lippmann. * * * Lodge
never stopped working against us. His only
care has been to intrigue against the legal
government to which he was accredited."
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE
When President Diem requested Lodge to
send four Americans away for plotting
against Diem, Lodge failed to do-so. Lodge
told Diem he should replace his ministers,
who were civilians, with army generals. He
even had the generals polled to see If they
would lead a coup. None of them wanted
to, but as Marguerite Higgins wrote: "Every-
one in Vietnam knew that America had de-,
clared political war on Diem."
Secretary of State Rusk had praised Presi-
dent Diem highly just a few months before
we instigated his death. So had Vice Presi-
dent Lyndon Johnson, and Senate Majority
Leader MIKE MANSFIELD. Secretary of De-
Tense McNamara described the magnificent
work done by Diem as "a near miracle."
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
a few weeks before Diem's death, declared:.
"In the 8 years since Diem took power, Viet-
nam has acquired full independence, written
a constitution, and held the first four na-
tional elections based on universal suffrage
ever conducted in Vietnam."
To refute the Communist charges that
'Diem was persecuting the Buddhists, Diem
had asked the United Nations to send a
factfinding mission to Investigate. The
report was due to come out that fall, but
after Diem was killed the United Nations
did its best to suppress It. It was finally
uncovered by Senator THOMAS J. DODD, and
published by the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee. It completely cleared the
late President from charges of persecution.
South Vietnam had enjoyed nearly 10
years of stable rule under. President Diem,
and both American and British officials had
declared that the war was being won. When
the Communists in Vietnam heard about
Diem's death, they exclaimed that it was
"too good to be true." Of the 8,000 stra-
tegic hamlets that President Diem. had built
to protect the peasants from the Vietcong,
5,000 were taken over by the Communists
after his death. The war was prolonged
several years by the death of Diem, a death
brought on by the policy of American of-
ficials. Somehow, through a merciful pro-
vidence, it is hoped that this time Ambas-
sador Lodge will not impede the defeat of
communism, but expedite it. In either
case, his appointment remains a mystery.
TowACO, N.J.,
July 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE B. MORSE,
MY DEAR MR. MoRsE: Please continue to
urge as boldly as you always have negotia-
tions on the Asian war. We hope the Presi-
dent doesn't get the idea he has a mandate
on that issue-we are so happy when we see
that you have "spoken up."
Sincerely,
PORTLAND, OREG"
August 1,1965.
GOV. MARK HATFIELD,
State House,
Salem, Oreg.
DEAR GOVERNOR HATFIELD: Thank you for
your courageous stand at the Governors'
conference and later at the Presidential
briefing. Your interview by Reporter A. Rob-
ert Smith, the Oregonian, July 30, deserved
most thoughtful bipartisan reading and con-
sideration. Viewpoint was obscured by
misleading headlines.
I am grateful that you joined Governor
Romney in calling for action by the United
States in accordance with (1) our own Con-
stitution and (2) that of the United Na-
tions. This is indeed a crisis which threat-
ens not only the peace but the very existence
of all people.
Oregonians may well be proud that a
leader in each party is willing to speak out
and voice scruples which constituents feel
but are hesitant to express.
Very sincerely yours,
Miss ALICE B. PLYMPTON.
CHICAGO, ILL.,
August 2,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I have just written to Presi-
dent Johnson, to protest the escalation of the
war in Vietnam, and to implore him to do
everything in his power to bring about a
peaceful settlement.
Sincerely,
DARIEN, CONN.,
August 2, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I endorse what the
Clergymen's Emergency Committee for Viet-
nam has to say in the newspaper ad, New
York Times, August 1.
Indeed, I go further than the committee
does and say that I believe we should with-
draw from Vietnam forthwith.
Mr. President, you have said our "national
honor" is at stake and that we can't with-
draw now. - With all due respect, may I say
that leaders In all wars and on all sides have
said that-all have believed they were right
and that God was on their side. This think-
ing has caused countless millions to the and
countless millions to be orphaned. We can
no longer think in this way if we wish civili-
zation to survive.
If the Communists act dishonorably that
is no moral defense for our acting so. Un-
less I am completely wrong about the facts
of the Geneva agreement and our promises
in connection therewith, I do not feel that
we acted altogether with honor there.
So, I believe we should leave Vietnam now,
and I say this being fully aware of our com-
mitment. A much larger thing is at stake
than this. Besides I have a hunch the great
mass of the people In South Vietnam would
be very glad to see us go. Present withdrawal
would take great courage, perhaps too much,
for the political wolves would surely be at
you. But I think the world would salute
you.
Aside from the moral question involved, I
believe our present policy in Vietnam is un-
sound. We might succeed in killing and
maiming an awful lot of Asiatics but our
policy would fail. You can't create anti-
Colnmunists by killing people-you only
create more Communists, or some Other dis-
tasteful breed of 'late.
Mr. President, I voted for you and I admire
you for what you have done in several im-
portant directions. It is not the purpose of
this letter to carp, but only to express a
simple-deep-seated conviction.
Respectfully,
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield to
the distinguished majority leader with-
out losing my right to the floor.
CREATION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS
COMMISSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calen-
dar No. 512, S. 945.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
945) creating a Joint Commission of the
United States and the State of Alaska to
make administrative determinations of
navigability of inland nontidal waters in
the State of Alaska for State selections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill, which had
been reported from the Committee on
Commerce with amendments on page 2,
line 2, after the word "with", to strike
out "a similar" and insert "an equal";
on page 3, line 18, after the word "navi-
gability.", to insert "Notice in advance of
Commission hearings, including a state-
ment of the time and place of the hear-
ing, shall be published in the Federal
Register and may be published elsewhere
as the Commission deems appropriate.";
on page 4, line 10, after the word "by",
to strike out "statutory, common law,
and judicial authorities on the subject of
navigability of waters" and insert "the
law and usages recognized and applied in
the Federal courts"; in line 15, after the
word "shall", to insert "be published in
the Federal Register and shall"; in line
17, after the word "all", to insert "ex-
ecutive"; and in line 24, after the word
"in", to strike out "the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska
within one year after the publication of
such determination in the Federal Reg-
ister. Such judicial review shall be on
the basis of the record" and insert "the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. As a part of its answer
the Commission shall file a certified copy
of the transcript of the record, including
the evidence upon which the findings and
decision complained of are based. The
court shall have power to enter, upon
the pleadings and transcript of the
record, a judgment affirming, modifying,
or reversing the decision of the Commis-
sion, and may, in its discretion, remand
the cause for a rehearing. The findings
of the Commission as to any fact, if sup-
ported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive."; so as to make the bill read:
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CPA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248)
is amended by adding after subsection (j)
the following subsection:
"(k) To` delegate, by published order or
rule and subject to the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, any of its functions, other than
those relating to rulemaking or pertaining
principally to monetary and credit policies,
to one or more hearing examiners, members
or employees of the Board, or Federal Reserve
banks. The assignment of responsibility for
the performance of any function that the
Board determines to delegate shall be a
function of the Chairman. The Board shall,
upon the vote of one member, review action
taken at, a delegated level within such time
and in such manner as the Board shall by
rule prescribe,
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an excerpt from the report
(No. 533), explaining the purposes of the
bill.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
S. 1556 would authorize the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System to
delegate any of its functions, other than
those relating to rulemaking or pertaining
principally to monetary and credit policies,
to one or more hearing examiners, members,
or employees of the Board, or Federal Reserve
banks.
The Chairman of the Board would be au-
thorized? to assign responsibility for the per-
formance of. functions delegated by the
Board. Any one member of the Board might
under the bill require the Board to review
actions taken under the delegation.
S. 1556 would give the Federal Reserve
Board the same powers of delegation which
have been granted to most independent
boards and commissions. Such authority is
possessed, for example, by the Interstate
Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Fed-
eral Maritime Commission, and the Securi-
ties and Exchange Commission.
The situation with which the Board of
Governors is presently faced because of its
lack of specific authority to delegate any of
its functions Is, described in the following
excerpt from a message sent to Congress by
President Kennedy on April 13, 1961:
"The reduction of existing delays in our
regulatory agencies requires the elimination
of needless work at their top levels. Because
so many of them were established in a day
of a less complex economy, many matters
that could and should in large measure be
resolved at a lower level required decision
by the agency members themselves. Even
where, by the force of circumstances, many
of these matters are now actually deter-
mined at a lower level they still must bear
the imprimatur of the agency members.
Consequently, unnecessary and unimportant
details occupy far too much of the time and
energy of agency members, and prevent full
and expeditious consideration of the most
important issues."
Under the bill the Board could not dele-
gate its rulemaking functions or those per-
taining principally to monetary and credit
policies.
The Board pointed out that in recent years
its responsibilities have increased tremen-
dously, both in the field of monetary and
credit policies and in the field of bank su-,
pervision and regulation. For example, the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Bank
Merger Act of 1960, and the Securities Acts
Amendments of 1964 have imposed substan-
tial additional regulatory responsibilities on
the Board of Governors.
No. 141-15
The Board gave the following examples of
kinds of actions which it might delegate if
the bill were enacted-though no decision
to do so has yet been made: extensions of
time for filing reports by affiliates of State
member banks; extensions of time for regis-
tration by bank holding companies; exten-
sions of time for registration of securities
of State member banks; waivers of the
6-month notice that a State member bank
must give before withdrawing from member-
ship; approvals of investments by State mem-
ber banks in bank premises in excess,gf their
capital stock; approvals of the declaration
of dividends by State member banks under
certain circumstances, and approvals of the
purchase of certain stocks by foreign banking
corporations.
It is expected that the enactment of this
bill, by relieving the Board of unnecessary
detail, would enable it to act more effectively
and more expeditiously on the major func-
tions which would not be delegated. It
would be appropriate for the Board to indi-
cate in future annual reports the extent to
which this authority to delegate is exercised
and the benefits resulting from such delega-
tions.
ENABLING FEDERAL RESERVE
BANKS TO INVEST IN CERTAIN
OBLIGATIONS OF FOREIGN GOV-
ERNMENTS
The bill (S. 1557) to amend the Fed-
eral Reserve Act to enable Federal Re-
serve banks to invest in certain obliga-
tions of foreign governments was con-
sidered, ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the first
sentence of subsection (e) of section 14 of
the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 358) is
amended to read as follows:
"(e) To establish accounts with other Fed-
eral Reserve banks for exchange purposes
and, with the consent or upon the order and
direction of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System and under regula-
tions to be prescribed by said board, to open
and maintain accounts in foreign countries,
appoint correspondents, and establish agen-
cies in, such countries wheresoever it may
be deemed best for the purpose of purchasing,
selling, and collecting bills of exchange, and
to buy and sell, with or without its endorse-
ment, through such correspondents or agen-
cies, bills of exchange (or acceptances) aris-
ing out of actual commercial transactions
which have not more than ninety days to run,
exclusive of days of grace, and which bear
the signature of two or more responsible
parties, and to buy and sell any securities
which are direct obligations of, or fully guar-
anteed as to principal and interest by, any
foreign government or monetary authority,
and which have maturities from date of_pur-
chase not exceeding twelve months and are
denominated payable in any convertible cur-
rency; and, with the 'consent of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
to open and maintain banking accounts for
such foreign correspondents or agencies, or
foreign banks or bankers, or for foreign states
as defined in section 25(b) of this Act."
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an excerpt from the report,
No. 534, explaining the purposes of the
bill.
There being no objection, the excerpt
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
18461
S. 1557 would authorize Federal Reserve
banks to invest in securities which are direct
obligations of or fully guaranteed as to prin-
cipal and interest by any foreign government
or monetary authority and which have ma-
turities from date of purchase not exceeding
12 months and are denominated payable in
any convertible currency. This authority
could be exercised with the consent or under
the order and direction of the Federal Re-
serve Board.
From time to time the Federal Reserve
banks have had occasion to engage in foreign
currency operations designed to safeguard
the value of the dollar in international ex-
change markets. These operations have been
implemented by swap arrangements between
the New York Federal Reserve Bank and for-
eign central banks under which the New York
Federal Reserve Bank acquires foreign
currencies.
Under the present law amounts held by a
Federal Reserve bank in an account with a
foreign bank may be invested in bills of
exchange and acceptances that arise out of
actual commercial transactions and have
maturities of not more than 90 days, or they
may be placed in an interest-bearing time
account with the same or some other foreign
bank. However, this has not always been
practicable. Under present law, such funds
may not be invested in obligations of foreign
governments, such as foreign treasury bills,
which are more readily available under pres-
ent conditions. S. 1557 would permit this.
This proposal was recommended by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System and was supported by the Treasury
Department.
LOANS TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
BY MEMBER BANKS OF THE FED-
ERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
The bill (S. 1558) to amend section
22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act relat-
ing to loans to executive officers by mem-
ber banks of the Federal Reserve System
and for other purposes was considered,
ordered to be engrossed for a third read-
ing, read the third time, and passed, as
follows :
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sub-
section (g) of section 22 of the Federal Re-
serve Act (12 U.S.C. 375a) is amended by
striking out the first two sentences thereof
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"(g) No executive officer of, any member
bank shall borrow from or otherwise become
indebted to any member bank of which he is
an executive officer, and no member bank
shall make any loan or extend credit in any
other manner to any of its own executive
officers: Provided, That any member bank
may extend credit, on terms not more favor-
able than those extended to other borrowers,
to any executive officer thereof, and such of-
ficer may become indebted thereto, in an
amount not exceeding $5,000, or, in the case
of a first mortgage loan on a home owned
and occupied or to be owned and occupied
by such officer, in an amount not exceeding
$30,000, but any such indebtedness shall be
promptly reported by such officer to the
board of directors of the bank of which he
is an officer. If any executive officer of any
member bank borrows from or if he be or
become indebted to any other bank or banks
in an aggregate amount exceeding that which
he could lawfully borrow from the member
bank of which he is an executive officer
under this section, he shall make a written
report to the board of directors of such mem-
ber bank, stating the date and amount of
such loan or loans or indebtedness, the se-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300196001-8
 18462
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE August 3, 1965
curity therefor, and the purpose for which Today, the senior Senator from Mich- times with understandable grievances have
the proceeds have been or are to be used." igan pointed out how brilliantly the 1965 joined in the attack on their own govern-
Michigan Legislature had performed on ment. But we must not let this mask the
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I central fact that this is really war.
ask unanimous consent to have printed a one-man, one-vote basis. He said that It is guided by North Vietnam and it is
in the RECORD an excerpt from the report even the Republican press of Michigan spurred by Communist China. Its goal is
(No. 535), explaining the purposes of had warmly praised the performance of to conquer the south, to defeat American
the bill. that legislature and had described it as power, and to extend the Asiatic domination
'There being no objection, the excerpt a virtuoso performance. of communism.
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, The Senator from Michigan listed bill And there are great stakes in the balance.
after bill that had passed this year, that Most of the non-Communist nations of
as follows: the legislature had not been able to pass Asia cannot, by themselves, resist the grow-
S. 1558 would amend the provision of the ing might and grasping ambition of Asian
Federal Reserve Act which now prohibits in previous years. This was under the communism. Our power is a vital shield.
any member bank from lending more than unusually adverse circumstances of the If we are driven from the fields in Vietnam,
$2,500 to one of its executice officers. It first Democratic legislature in many then no nation can ever again have the same
would authorize member bank loans to their years and a Republican Governor, confidence in our promise or protection. In
executive officers up to $5,000, or in the case Mr. President, this is an example of each land the forces of independence would
of a first mortgage loan on the officer's home, how the one-man, one-vote method will be weakened. An Asia so threatened by
up to $30,000. Such loans could only be operate. It will give a new lease of life Communist domination would imperil the
made on terms not more favorable than those security of the United States itself.
extended to other borrowers, and they would to State legislatures to act for them- We did not choose to be the guardians at
of course, be subject to the usual rules ap- selves and not have to depend on the the gate, but there was no one else.
plicable to personal or mortgage loans. These Federal Government. Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring
loans would have to be reported to the board ' ~ gcote, because we learned from Hitler at
of directors of the bank. In addition, if an unich that success only feeds the appetite
executive officer of a member bank borrowed LBJ'S JUPEECH ADVANCES of aggression. The battle would be renewed
from other banks in an amount in.excess of REFUTATION OF SENATOR MORSE in one country and then another country,
what he could borrow from his own bank, ON VIETNAM bringing with it perhaps even larger and
he would have to make a report to his board crueler conflict, as we have learned from the
of directors. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the lessons of history.
The provision now in the Federal Reserve Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], in PROMISES ARE NOTED
Act was enacted in 1933. It has become un- his strong attack on the policies of the Moreover, we are in Vietnam to fulfill one
ecansticc conserve in the light of omchanged administration and on the statement by of the most solemn pledges of the American
mittee on condtions. Financial The Institutions ns recom- - the Senator from Wisconsin, left the Nation. Three Presidents-President Eisen-
mended in 1963 that the $2,500 ceiling be impression, in my judgment, that the bower, President Kennedy, and your present
President-over 11 years, have committed
increased. President has not been working hard for themselves and. have promised to help de-
S. 1558 was proposed by the Board of Gov- peace. The President's activities on be- fend this small and valiant nation.
ernors of the Federal Reserve System, and half of peace are well known throughout Strengthened by that promise, the people
Fed-
its enactment was recommended by the Fed- the country. I ask unanimous consent of South Vietnam have fought for many
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation. The that the brilliant and remarkable state- long years. Thousands of them have died.
Treasury Department advised the committee Thousands more have been cri led and
that it had no objection to the bill. Went Wednesday, July the President last scarred by war. We just cannotp now dis-, delivered Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, that an ely 2 28, which commitment
an excellent Junt rebuttal of this constitutes
afternoon's s honor our word or abandon our or leave those who believed us and who
concludes the call of the calendar. I wish remarks by the Senator from Oregon, be trusted us to the terror and repression and
to express my deep appreciation to the printed at this point in the RECORD. murder that would follow. This, then, my
distinguished Senator from New Jersey There being no objection, the state- fellow Americans, is why we are in Vietnam.
for his usual courtesy and graciousness. ment was ordered to be printed in the What are our goals in this war-stained
Mr. CASE. The Senator from Mon- RECORD, as follows: land?
tana is most kind. [From the Washington Post, July 29, 1965] First, we intend to convince the Commu-
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous TEXT OF STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT nists that we cannot be defeated by force of
arms.
consent that I may yield, on the same ON VIETNAM CONFLICT They are not easily convinced. In recent
basis, to the distinguished Senator from The text of President Johnson's formal months they have increased their fighting
Wisconsin for 2 minutes. statement at his White House news confer- forces and their attacks.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ence yesterday follows: I have asked the commanding general-
thank the Senator from New Jersey. He My fellow Americans: General Westmoreland-what he needs to
deserves much credit for his patience. Not long ago I received a letter from a meet mounting aggression. He has told me.
He has waited a long time. woman in the Midwest. She wrote: "My And we will meet his needs.
dear Mr. President, in my humble way I am I have today ordered to Vietnam the Air
writing to you about the crisis in Vietnam Mobile Division, and certain other forces
NATIONAL AMERICAN LEGION * * * I have * * * a son who is now in Viet- which will raise our fighting strength from
BASEBALL WEEK-LEGISLATIVE nam. My husband served * * * in World 75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately.
War II * * * Our country was at war, but Additional forces will be needed later, and
REAPPORTIONMENT now this time it's something I don't under- they will be sent as requested. This will
The Senate resumed the consideration stand. Why?" make it necessary to increase our active
I have tried to answer that question a fighting forces by raising the monthly draft
of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 66) to dozen times and more. I have discussed It call from 17,000 over a period of time to 35,000,
provide for the designation of the period fully in Baltimore in April, in Washington per month, and for us to step up our cam-
from August 31 through September 6 in in May, and in San Francisco in June. Let paign for voluntary enlistments.
1965, as "National American Legion me now discuss it again. Why must young
Americans-born into a land exultant with NO CALL TO RESERVES
Baseball Week." hope and golden with promise-toil and suf- After this past week of deliberations, 1
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, ear- far and sometimes die in such a remote and have concluded that it is not essential to
her today the distinguished senior Sen- distant place. order Reserve units into service now. If
ator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA] de- The answer, like war itself, is not easy. But that necessity should later be indicated, 1
livered a superlative speech on reappor- it echoes clearly from the painful lessons of will give the matter most careful considera-
tionment. To appreciate that speech, half a century. Three times in my lifetime- tion and I will give the country an adequate
one must read it in context with the in two world wars and in Korea-Americans notice before taking such action, but only
speech the Senator from Michigan de- have gone to far lands to fight. We have after full preparations.
livered last year, in which he set forth learned-at a terrible and brutal cost-that We have also discussed with the Govern--
what had happened year after Weary retreat does not bring safety, or weakness ment of South Vietnam lately the steps that
peace. we will take to substantially increase their
year because of malapportioned legis- DIFFERENT KIND OF WAR own effort, both on the battlefield and toward
latures in Michigan, in which one It is this lesson that has brought us to Viet- reform and progress in the villages. Am-
house, organized on the basis of area, nam. This is a different kind of war. There bassador Lodge is now formulating a new
was opposed to the other house, which are no marching armies or solemn declara- program to be tested upon his return to
was organized on the basis of population. tions. Some citizens of South Vietnam at that area,
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 pPwved For ReMRaff B004~6 300190001-8
3, " sI~~
August A xEGUxll -SENATE.
I have directed Secretary Rusk and Secre-
tary McNamara to be available immediately
to the Congress to review with these commit-
tees, the appropriate congressional commit-
tees, what we plan to do in these areas. I
have asked them?to be able to answer the
questions of any Members of Congress.
Secretary McNamara, in addition, will ask
the Senate Appropriations Committee to add
a limited amount to present legislation to
help meet part of this new cost until a
supplemental measure is ready, and hearings
can be held when the Congress assembles in
January.
In the meantime, we wild use the authority
contained in the present defense appropria-
tion, bill under consideration to transfer
funds In addition to the additional money
that we w,ll ask.
These steps, like our other actions in the
past, are carefully measured to do what must
be done to bring an end to aggression and a
peaceful settlement.
READY >?'OR CONFERENCES
We do, not want an expanding struggle
with consequences that no one can perceive,
nor will we bluster or bully or flaunt our
power, but we will not surrender and we
will not retreat, _ for behind our American
pledge lies the determination and resources,
I believe, of all the American Nation.
Second, once the Communists know, as we
know, that a violent solution is impossible,
.then a peaceful solution is inevitable.
We are ready now, as we have always been,
to move from the battlefield to the confer-
ence table. I have stated publicly, and many
times, again and again, America's willing-
ness to begin unconditional discussions with
any government at any place at any time.
Fifteen efforts have been made to start these
discussions with , the help of 40 nations
throughout the world, but there has been
no answer,
But we are going to persist, if persist we
must, until death and desolation have led to
the same conference table where others could
now join us at a much smaller cost.
I have spoken many times of our objec-
tives in Vietnam. So has the government
of South Vietnam. Hanoi has set forth Its
own proposal. We are ready to discuss their
proposals and our proposals and any proposals
of any government whose people may be af-
fected~ for we fear the meeting room no more
than we fear the battlefield.
WELCOMES ASSISTANCE
In this pursuit, we welcome and we ask
for the concern and the assistance of any
nation and all nations. If the United Na-
tions and its officials or any one of its 114
members can by deed or word, private initi-
ative or public action, bring us nearer an
honorable peace, then they' will have the
support and gratitude of the United States
of America.
I have directed Ambassador Goldberg to
go to New York today to present immedi-
ately to Secretary General U Thant a letter
from me requesting that all of the resources,
energy, and immense prestige of the United
Nations be employed to find ways to halt
aggression and to bring peace in Vietnam.
I made a similar request at San Francisco
a few weeks ago, because we do not seek the
destruction of any government, nor do we
covet a foot of any territory, but we insist
and we will always insist that the people of
South Vietnam shall have the right of choice,
the right to shape their own destiny in free
elections in the south, or throughout all
Vietnam under international supervision and
that they shall not .have any government im-
posed upon them by force and terror so long
as we can prevent it.
This, was the purpose of the 1954 agree-
ments which the Communists. have now
cruelly shattered. If the machinery of those
agreements was tragically weak, its purposes
still guide our actions. As battle rages, we
18463
will continue as best we can to help the good bor-ancl with his cpuntry cousin-in
people of South Vietnam enrich the condi- his State government.
tion. of their lives, to feed the hungry and In words every schoolboy learns, Abra-
to tend the sick, and teach the young, and
shelter the. homeless, and help the farmer ham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg of
to Increase crops, and the worker to find a "government of the people, by the people
job. and for the people." He did not dis-
It is an ancient but still terrible irony tinguish between people on the basis of
that while many leaders of men create divi- where they lived, or their color, or their
sion in pursuit of grand ambitions, the religion, or their economic position.
children of man are really united in the In his concern, he was reiterating the
simple elusive desire for a life of fruitful belief of the Founding Fathers who were
and rewarding toil.
WOULD HELP ALL ASIA
As I said at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore,
I hope that one day' we can help all the
people of Asia toward that desire. Eugene
Black has made great progress since my ap-
pearance in Baltimore in that direction-not
as the price of peace, for me are ready always
to bear more painful cost, but rather as a
part of our obligations of justice toward our
fellow man.
Let me also add now a personal note. I
do not find it easy to send the flower of our
youth, our finest young men, into battle.
I have spoken to you today of the divisions
and the forces and the battalions and the
units. But I know all of them, every one.
I have seen them in a thousand streets, of a
hundred towns, of every State in this Un-
ion-working and laughing and building, and
filled with hope and life. I think I know too
how their mothers weep and their families
sorrow. This is the most agonizing and most
painful duty of your President.
There is something else, too. When I was
young, poverty was so common we didn't
know it had a name. An education was
something you had to fight for. Water was
really life itself. I .have now been in public
life 35 years, more than three decades, and
in each of those 35 years I have seen good
men, and wise leaders, struggle to bring the
blessings to the land of our people. Now,
I am the President.
It Is now my opportunity to help every
child get an education, to help every Negro
and every American citizen have an equal
opportunity, to have every family get a de-
cent home and to help bring healing to the
sick and dignity to the old.
As I have said before, that is what I have
lived for. That is what I have wanted all
my life since I was a little boy, and I do not
want to see all those hopes and all those
dreams of so many people for so many years
now drowned in the wasteful ravishes of
cruel wars.
I am going to do all I can to see that never
happens. But I also know, as a realistic pub-
lic servant, that as long as there are men who
hate and destroy, we must have the courage
virtually unanimous in advocating rep-
resentation on the basis of population.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
Equal representation is so fundamental a
principle in a true republic that no prejudice
can justify its violation because the prej-
udices themselves cannot be justified.
Yet the blunt truth is that this is ex-
actly what we are being asked to do. We
are being asked to give constitutional
standing to a particular prejudice-a
prejudice against people who live in
urban and suburban areas in favor of
people who live in rural areas.
It is significant, I believe, that even
before the Federal Union was formed,
the Northwest Ordinance passed by the
Congress under the Articles of Confed-
eration provided that there be one rep-
resentative for a specified number of in-
habitants. Of the 20 States joining the.
Union after ratification of the Constitu-
tion and before the Civil War, all but 2
made population the basis for legislative
representation in both Houses.
If history is not as strong a reed as
supporters of this amendment claim, the
realities of the 20th century are even
less encouraging. Any believer in our
Federal system must be concerned by,
the steady erosion of the role of the
States in this century. This amendment
will not halt that erosion. On the con-
trary, should it be adopted, it would
worsen it. For the erosion is in large
part caused by the inability or the re-
luctance of malapportioned State legis-
latures to deal effectively with the
problems of great numbers of their
citizens.
"You can't expect a city man to worry
about the farmers," one of the amend-
ment's leading proponents recently said.
To which an opponent of the amendment
replied, "or vice versa."
have built, all that we hope to build, an We The vice versa can be documented at
dreams of freedom-all-will be swept away great length. But to argue the relative
in the flood of conquest. considerations shown by farmers to city
So, too, this shall not happen. We will men, or by city men to farmers, is to beg
stand in Vietnam. the question. It assumes that all farm-
NATIONAL AMERICAN LEGION
BASEBALL WEEK-LEGISLATIVE
REAPPORTIONMENT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 66) to
provide for the designation of the period
from August 31 through September 6 in
1965, as "National American Legion
Baseball Week."
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, despite, or
perhaps because of, the torrent of words
provoked by Senate Joint Resolution 2,
I suspect that the ordinary citizen still
does not realize that what is at stake in
this debate is his, and every man's, right
to have an equal voice with his neigh-
ers think alike and that all urbanites and
suburbanites think differently. And,
from our own experience, we know this
is not so. For example, only 2 years ago
wheat farmers divided almost evenly in
rejecting the wheat program developed
by the Department of Agriculture.
And the same differences in view are
characteristic of the suburban and urban
dweller. For farmers and city men and
suburbanites are more than just that.
They may be young or old, rich or poor,
producers as well as consumers, parents
or bachelors, union members or busi-
ness executives, wise or stupid, regardless
of where they live. Geographic location
may have an influence, but it is only one
of many factors affecting a given indi-
vidual.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
18464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE August 3, 1965
The Dirksen amendment flrther as- tion in which one citizen's vote counts in Washington. Is there any more jus-
sumes virtue is inherent in geographic for less than another. tification for this than there would be
areas with the fewest people in them. I cannot agree. I do not think a ma- for giving more than one vote to aJew-
This, I suggest, is an, appeal to ro- jority of the voters have the right to ish citizen, or a Catholic citizen or a
manticism, if not to downright snobbery. take away a constitutional right from Unitarian? Do we really believe that
People are not better or worse because even one citizen, and that is the basic while all men are equal; some are more
of where they live. Neither virtue nor issue involved in this amendment. equal than others?
wisdom knows a right or wrong "side of If this is a simplistic position, so be Do we really believe that, while all men
the tracks." Is there anything less brutal it. I am a simple man. are equal, some are more equal than
about the calculated murder of the civil Most of my colleagues would agree, I others? In any case, as I have already
rights workers in Philadelphia, Miss., believe, if we were talking about the said, I do not believe the majority of the
than about the senseless killing of a rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights- people want unequal representation. I
passerby on a New York street? Both freedom of speech, jury trial, and the suspect the history of reapportionment
are abhorrent to the conscience of decent like. Most would agree if we were talk- in New Jersey is not unlike that in many
men everywhere. Ing about reversing the principle enun- other States. For years, efforts to revise
It is inherent in our American system ciated in the historic decision on school our New Jersey State constitution were
that there is no fixed, unchanged minor- desegregation. Would this position be unsuccessful because of the reluctance of
ity or majority. Both will vary with the regarded by anybody as a simplistic the legislature to open the door to possi-
issue. Vital to the effective functioning position? ble reapportionment. The price which
of our system is the principle to which In the last few Years we have acted we paid to secure a constitutional con-
Jefferson referred; that is, the belief that to enforce the right of Negroes and vention in 1947 was to exclude the ques-
no minority should have a veto power others to education on an equal basis tion of apportionment from the purview
over the majority. Yet, in State after with whites. of the delegate to the constitutional con-
State, a minority has effectively throttled Would this position be regarded as a vention. There was no way the citizens
the majority through the disproportion- simplistic position? of New Jersey could vote for a constitu-
ate representation of the people in the I point out, as has been suggested on tional convention without accepting this
legislature. the floor of the Senate with respect to limitation imposed by the legislature.
Let there be no misunderstanding. the question of apportionment in the It was on the ballot in that form. The
The practical effect of this amendment Reynolds against Sims and other cases, question was: "Shall there be a constitu-
'would be to enable a particular minority that like that case, the school desegre- tional convention that shall not have the
which now enjoys the power of veto to gation decision involved the overturning power' to change the representative of
perpetuate its power. of court doctrines which had been set- the counties or the geographic limita-
The issue was well put in the statement tied and accepted by the courts gen- tions of the counties?" Of course, the
of the Young Men's Business Club of erally, as well as by the Supreme Court people said they wanted that convention,
Birmingham, Ala., to the House Judi- and by the people of the country for a because they wanted a convention to deal
ciary_ Committee: long time. The precedents before the with other pressing needs that our people
The fact is, and history proves it, as a action in that case were actually followed long felt should be met. The price of
legislature becomes malapportioned through by the court in the representation case. that was to accept the limitation im-
the passage of time it simply ceases to speak This action affords just as much-and posed by the legislature. There was not
for the people on this subject. It begins to I think none at all-justification for ac- any way the people of New Jersey could
speak for its members as officeholders-and tion to amend the Constitution, as does have a constitutional convention without
officeholders rarely vote to remove them- the action of the court in the representa- accepting the limitation imposed by the
selves from office. tion case. legislature.
The suggestion that factors other than other words, I believe that we can-
population be permitted to be taken into In not say that some rights of a citizen are Yet when the question of reapportion-
account in apportionment if approved by the ment was recently raised in the courts of
vote of the people is a deceptive proposal alienable and some are inalienable. All our State, some members of the State
considered in a practical light. It sounds as are equally sacred rights. I place no legislature argued that by voting for the
if the people can have population apportion- right higher than the right to an equal constitutional convention, the voters had
ment if they want it, but can permit devia- choice in one's government. "approved" the existing apportionment.
tions if approved by majority vote. But, of Only a few weeks ago, we acted to up- Our New Jersey Supreme Court rightly
course, the entrenched legislator in a grossly hold the right of individual citizens to rejected this specious claim. Our fed-
be legislature can never really Vote regardless not only of their color
be expected to give them that choice volun- of the wishes eral system can function effectively only
tarily. The people can only expect a chance or race but regardless, too, if the States function effectively. The
to accept or reject discriminatory proposals of perhaps a majority of the voters in story of many of our State legislatures
submitted to them by the legislature. If their States-at least, certainly the ma- has been one of stall and stalemate, in-
the people are offered an improvement, the jority of those now effectively exercising decision, and inaction in the face of
choice becomes, accept this or take the worse the franchise in their States. urgent and pressing issues, issues affect-
situation you have now. Under the pro-
posals h here, , we can assure you that equal al It is ironic that even before that meas- ing millions of our people in the great
representation of people will never even ure was law we should be asked to nullify urban areas of our government. These
be proposed for adoption in Alabama. it, at least in part. Moreover, we are be- issues can only be met, and will only be
I recognize that the amendment now ing urged to act not in response to any met, by governments truly representa-
provides for submission initially, to the great upwelling of public opinion that I tive of and responsible to all the people.
voters of a, State, of two plans for reap- can see, but at the behest of those who Therefore, I am opposing this amend-
portionment, one of which must be based now enjoy the status quo and, not unnat- merit. I shall oppose it even though it
on population. But what protection is urally, are unreceptive to change. is amended to take some of the periph-
this to the disenfranchised Negro cit- I have not detected any great swell eral objections, some of them very sound
izens of Mississippi or Alabama? In this of public demand for the Dirksen amend- objections, to the amendment as origi-
connection, I call attention to the fact ment or for any of the variations which nally proposed.
that while the amendment would provide have been suggested. So far as detecting Some of the Members of the Senate
for periodic submission thereafter of any feeling about it on the part of the are proposing further amendments, but
reapportionment to the people, only one public at large is concerned there has I suggest that while these amendments
plan of reapportionment need be sub- been a feeling that the one-man, one- are desirable, and they represent an i:m-
mitted on the later submissions and it vote principle is perhaps long overdue. provement, there is no amendment
need not be based on population. What a weird perversion of minority which, so far as I can see now, would
Although the proponents support this rights we confront. Why give a man make this constitutional amendment
amendment as a protection to minority who lives on a hundred acres a greater anything but offensive to those who be-
rights, one of their chief arguments for voice than the man who lives on a 100- lieve the right of an individual citizen
passage is the right of the majority to foot lot or a 50-foot lot, or a 15-foot lot, under the Constitution ought not to be
establish a system of unequal representa- as is the case with some of the people taken away by a majority of the people
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R0003Q0190001-8
18571
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE
House Concurrent Resolution 457 is de- to the availability of $15 million under
signed to'spur action by a regional com the act.
mission on.what may well be-one of the Instead of addressing itself to the ef-
few remaining approaches which holds feet of this prohibition on the North-
any promise of enlarging the usable'wa' east, the brief Senate debate on the
?ter supply fn 'the New York-Philadelphia Water Resource Planning Act conference
area. Since such an approach is only report centered on a just-released Presi-
possible now through a regional, multi- dential directive to the Water Resources
state authority such as the Delaware Council, calling for a report within 7
River Basin Commission, I want to ac- days on the Northeast water crisis with
knowledge the importance of the concept recommendations for Federal measures
and practice of regional water regulation to alleviate it.
in this present drought crisis. This report, which was transmitted to
However, the present philosophy of re- the President on July 21, must be a shock
gional water control is inadequate to the as well as a disappointment to many of
challenge which` we face today and will those in the Northeast. The shock is due
surely face again. Only 3 weeks ago the to the Council's commendable candor in
House and Senate passed the Water Re- concluding that the water emergency
sources Planning Act of 1965. This will become increasingly serious during
measure, involving the expenditure of the next year, possibly" resulting in out-
at least $120 million over the next 10 right disaster conditions in several
years by river basin commissions, will States. The disappointment stems from
set the direction of our water resource the inadequacy of the Council's recom-
planning for the coming decade. Yet mendations for Federal action in view of
there is little comfort in'this law for its own findings. The recommendations
most people living in the Maine-Wash- are numerous, but mainly focus on tech-
irigton-Cincinnati triangle now suffer- nical assistance or credit extension to
ing acute drought conditions. The rea- State and local governments, special
son, as I pointed out on July 13 at page relief for the farm economy, and
16001 of the. RECORD, lies in a provision ominous contingency plans for mobiliza-
added to the bill for the first time in con- tion of civil defense agencies as well as
ference. The provision, section 3(d) of the Office of Emergency Planning.
the act, ,, expressly forbids the Federal Nowhere does the Council's report
Water Resource Council or any river indicate that it considered its mandate
basin commission acting under the law in section 102 of the act to "maintain
to "study, plan, or recommend" the a constant study of the adequacy of
transfer of waters between areas under administrative and statutory means for
the jurisdiction of more than one com- the coordination of water and related
mission. land resource policies." Instead the
This limitation was apparently tailored Council prefaces its recommendations
to the demands of Columbia River Basin with the statement, "The paramount re-
residents who feared the act would lead sponsibility 'for providing local water
to diversion of Columbia River water to supplies traditionally and properly rests
the Southwest. The actual effect of the with local jurisdictions."
provision is, however, far broader, and Mr. Speaker, to say the least, it is
its impact on other areas dramatically ironic to assert flatly, in the course of a
illustrates the total inadequacy of basin- report foretelling disaster, that the tradi-
by-basin water resource control as the tional way is the proper one. I would go
governing premise of our national water farther and say that one obvious reason
policy. for the present crisis is the very lack of
New York City's present plans for cop- coordination of our basic water policies
ing with its acute water shortage is a which the council declined to consider.
clear case in point. New York City has While we accept national coordination
extensive water recovery and ' storage in the development of our electric power
facilities on the upper Delaware. These system, we still harbor the anachronistic
have proved insufficient to meet simul- view that our water resource manage-
taneously the requirements of both New ment should reflect virtually every
York City and Philadelphia. Corse- theory of water use control ever con-
quently, New York City plans to recon- ceived by the mind of man. In keeping
struct a water intake project on the Hud- with this we honor the law of capture
son River which it once started and or prescription on the one hand, and
foolishly abandoned. This intake, un- virtual socialization on the other. There
like Philadelphia's intake on the Dela- is a special water commission in one
ware, is located near the conduits carry- State, while in another claimants must
ing water from the Delaware reservoirs press their case in ill-suited and crowded
to New York,City. This will permit New courts. We exalt the geological integrity
York to either use Hudson River waters of the river basin and at the same time
as an emergency substitute for Delaware construct reservoirs and conduits which
withdrawals or mix waters from the two establish the preeminence of demo-
sources for the city's water supply. graphic considerations.
Mr, Speaker, the river basin planning - In short, our. water economy is not so
concept of the Water Resources Planning much mixed'as it is scrambled. The ab-
Act
Act of of 19055d stan tanjds s foursquare against sence of naliorially applicable standards
~9fone of the $15 and the failure to coordinate water pol-
this pro million in Federal and matching funds lution control with water use regulations
which the Delaware River Basin Com- has resulted in chronic misallocation of
mission might receive in the next decade this vital resource throughout the coun-
could be used to.support or perfect it, if try. Now the water problem which lies
a Hudson River Basin Commission comes under the surface everywhere is pain-
into being as it surely will, in response fully exposed In that`ar`ea of the country
which has been most inclined to take
water for granted and least receptive to
the changes which must come sooner
or later. Within the next year, while
the water shortage continues, there is
an opportunity to make these changes.
Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced
a measure entitled the Federal Water
Commission Act, based in large part on
the Model Water Use Act adopted in
1958 by the National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws. The
act would cover all water use or water-
polluting activity affecting any naviga-
ble, interstate, or coastal water in the
United States.
Taking or pollution of these waters
would be governed by uniform Federal
standards aimed at insuring that they
are employed only for beneficial uses.
A five man Federal Water Commission,
modeled after the Federal Power Com-
mission, would administer and enforce
the law.
The key provision of the bill authorizes
the Commission to require and issue
permits for all uses of water resources
covered by the bill, including any ac-
tivity which results in water pollution.
The Federal permit procedure spe-
cifically protects existing uses so long as
they remain beneficial and serve the pub-
lic interest. Householders taking water
directly from wells or streams for nor-
mal domestic use are exempted from
the permit procedure.
Permits issued by the Commission
would continue in effect for a minimum
period of 5 years. This provision, al-
though working to the disadvantage of
a regional, State, or local government
which quickly corrected the shortcom-
ings in its own laws, would remove the
market-depressing element of uncer-
tainty which would otherwise affect sales
of water-related assets. Further, the
bill provides scrupulous procedural safe-
ugards and inqualified right of appeal in
connection with a decision to invoke the
Federal licensing procedure.
Another major provision of the bill
authorizes the Commission to suspend
the application of Federal licensing pro-
cedures when it finds, after a hearing,
that regional, State, or local regulations
will adequately effectuate the purposes
of the act. This suspension or retroces-
sion of jurisdiction over Federal waters
would be subject to routine review after
5 years, and extraordinary reconsidera-
tion at an earlier date, if an investigation
and hearing reveal that a particular ju-
risdiction had fallen below Federal
standards in its water use policy.
The bill also provides the Commission
with the powers to deal with two classes
of acute problems: water shortages and
water emergencies. Where the Commis-
sion finds that a shortage exists or is de-
veloping, it may take such steps as re-
quiring water rotation, barring new
water uses, and prorating available sup-
plies among existing users. Where these
steps are inadequate to protect public
health and safety, the Commission may
take more urgent measures, such as out-
right water rationing and emergency ap-
propriation of private water supplies.
Of course, after the Federal Water
Commission is in operation, it should de-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B06446R000300190001-8
18572
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
velop a long range plan of allocation. If
this plan is executed properly, shortages
will be anticipated, and we will not live
from crisis to crisis.
Finally, the bill makes two changes in
the Water Resources Planning Act of
1965. First, it deletes altogether the ban
on planning interbasin water transfers.
Second, It recasts the Water Resource
Council in the role of an advisory com-
mittee to the Commission. This con-
forms the Council's role to the original
1956 proposal of the Presidential Ad-
visory Committee on Water Resource
Policy, which envisaged the Council as
an advisory committee to a water re-
source coordinator who would be in turn
responsible to the President.
Mr. Speaker, the principal effect of
my bill would be to establish a Federal
Water Commission as a water policy re-
view board, dealing chiefly with the laws
and regulations of other governmental
agencies and political subdivisions. As
such, it should be acceptable in principle
to those who have confidence in the wis-
dom of their region's allocation of its
water resources and wish to retain dis-
cretionary control at the regional or local
level.
The Federal Government has respond-
ed to the critical water shortage In the
Northeast with prompt technical assist-
ance to regional, State and local authori-
ties.
However, Federal action thus far has
failed to face the hard fact that we must
have an integrated national policy of
water conservation, water development,
and water pollution control. It is in-
conceivable and, in' view of the present
crisis, intolerable to reject the principle
of Federal coordination for water re-
sources when we now embrace it actively
in developing a national electric power
grid. Water is quite obviously a scarcer
resource and far more vulnerable to the
devastating caprices of nature. The
Federal Water Commission bill I have
introduced today would close this glaring
gap in our nation's resource policy in a
way consistent with both existing re-
gional differences and the paramount
necessity of securing an ample, constant
water supply for all citizens of-bke United
Ing "that all the resources, energy, and
immense prestige of the United Nations
be employed to find ways to bring peace
in Vietnam," and by his instructing Am-
bassador Arthur Goldberg to communi-
cate the matter to the members of the
Security Council, we have shown that we
respect the United Nations and intend
to use it.
What comes out of the United Na-
tions depends on what its members are
willing to put into it. I therefore hope
and pray for a United Nations call for
a cease-fire, for United Nations-spon-
sored negotiations between all interested
parties, for United Nations supervised
elections to enable the people of South
Vietnam to decide their own future, and
for a United Nations program of eco-
nomic development for all of southeast
Asia.
The case for United Nations respon-
sibility for southeast Asia was well stated
15 years ago by then Secretary of State
Dean Acheson in his January 12, 1950,
speech to the National Press Club in
Washington:
What is the situation in regard to the
military security of the Pacific area, and
what is our policy in regard to it?
In the first place, the defeat and the dis-
armament of Japan has placed upon the
United States the necessity of assuming the
military defense of Japan so long as that is
required, both in the interest of our security
and in the interests of the security of the
entire Pacific ? * ? "
This defensive perimeter runs along the
Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the
Ryukyus. We hold important defense posi-
tions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we
will continue to hold ? ? ?.
The defensive perimeter runs from the
nyukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our de-
fensive relations with the Philippines are
contained in agreements between us. Those
agreements are being loyally carried out and
will be loyally carried out.
So far as the military security of other
areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be
clear that no person can guarantee these
areas against military attack. * ? ? Should
such an attack occur-one hesitates to say
where such an armed attack could come
from-the initial reliance must be on the
people attacked to resist it and then upon
the commitments of the entire civilized
world under the charter of the United
Nations which so far has not proved a weak
reed to lean on by any people who are de-
termined to protect their independence
against outside aggression.
Those words were valid then, and they
are valid now.
The President's action in involving the
United Nations is itself the best answer
to those in high places who have been
rasing all manner of objections to in-
volving the United Nations.
it is. said that the United Nations can-
not play a useful role where the great
powers are involved. In fact, the United
Nations has more than once intervened
effectively in just such a case. In 1950,
despite the opposition of the Soviet
Union, the defense of South Korea was
mounted under the banner of the United
Nations. While the Korean United Na-
tions action escaped a Russian veto be-
cause Russia had absented herself from
the Secuitry Council, the possibility of
United Nations action even had there
been a Russian veto was assured by the
IN ORDER-?47UAT THE UNITED NA-
TIONS MAY BE EFFECTIVE IN
VIETNAM, WE MUST REHABILI-
TATE IT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PEP-
PER). Under previous order of the House,
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Rauss] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks in the body of the
R.sCOan In connection with my remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, the Pres-
ident deserves high praise for his action
last week in invoking the United Na-
tions in the Vietnam situation. By his
letter to Secretary General U Thant ask-
August 3, 1965
Invention of the "uniting for peace" pro-
cedure under which the General As-
sembly can act. In the Middle East con-
flict of 1956, a United Nations cease-fire
was obtained against the force of the
United Kingdom and France, which, to
their credit, respected the cease-fire. In
the Congo and Cyprus, the United Na-
tions played a role where the great powers
were indirectly involved. Great powers
as well as small are likewise not exempt
from the United Nations writ in Vietnam.
It is said that there is no role for the
United Nations in Vietnam because North
Vietnam and Communist China have re-
jected and ridiculed a United Nations
role. Their objection is as irrelevant as
the unheeded objection of North Korea
to United Nations action in 1950. Cer-
tainly it was never intended that the ag-
gressor should decide whether he would
be subject to United Nations peacekeep-
ing action.
Equally, it is irrelevant that North
Vietnam and Communist China are not
members of the United Nations. Article
II of the U.N. Charter expressly states:
The organization shall insure that states
which are not members act in accordance
with United Nations principles.
It is said that our invoking the United
Nations will be taken as a sign of weak-
ness by our adversaries, and as a har-
binger of American withdrawal. But
President Johnson's signals are hardly
those of weakness; and the evidence so
far certainly points to no misapprehen-
sion by North Vietnam and Communist
China on this score.
It is said that our invocation of the
United Nations would lead to acrimoni-
ous debate in. the Security Council and
the General Assembly on the U.S. posi-
tion. But such debate, in and out of
the United Nations, is sure to occur any-
way. It will have infinitely less founda-
tion if we show our respect for article I
of the United Nations Charter, which de-
fines its purpose as "to maintain inter-
liational peace and security, and to that
end to take effective collective measures
for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace."
It is said that invocation of the United
Nations would force the Soviet Union
into the arms of Communist China, and
heal the breach caused by differing views
of violent takeovers by "wars of libera-
tion" The Soviet Union in any event
faces the dilemma posed by conflicting
desires: On the one hand, to avoid
heightened danger of conflict with the
United States and, on the other hand,
to show itself the champion of world
communism.
If the Soviet Union is not going to in-
tervene militarily against us in Vietnam
without our going to the United Nations,
I cannot see her intervening militarily if
we do go to the United Nations with a
set of peace aims that are Instinct with
Justice for all the world to see. No one
can tell whether the Soviet Union will op-
pose, or veto, formal United Nations ac-
tion, if it comes to that. But if there is
a Soviet veto, there is then the General
Assembly, under the uniting-for-peace
procedure.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
It is said, finally, that if all other
United Nations procedures of mediation,
arbitration, and recommendation are ex-
hausted, and the matter then comes be-
fore the General Assembly, the General
Assembly may decline to take action or
vote it down. I do not for a moment
concede the point: if we will now move
-to rehabilitate the United Nations, I am
confident that the requisite majority of
the General Assembly would take a stand
for peace and for the independence of
small nations. But even if the United
Nations should in the end shirk its re-
sponsibility, we shall at least have shown
our dedication to the United Nations and
our willingness to abide by our commit-
ments under the Charter.
But as a matter of the first urgency,
we must overcome the present paralysis
in the United Nations caused by the
year-old dispute about the financing of
prior United Nations peacekeeping oper-
ations in the Middle East and in the
Congo. The Soviet Union and France
are both more than 2 years in arrears in
paying their assessments on peacekeep-
ing forces which they opposed. Under
the letter of article 19, they are thus sub-
ject to the loss of their votes in the Gen-
eral Assembly. Last August the Con-
gress, with administration encourage-
ment, passed a concurrent resolution
calling on the permanent U.S. delegate
to the United Nations to "make every ef-
fort to assure invocation or-article 19.
The Soviet Union threatened to with-
,draw if denied its vote, and there was a
,good chance that France would do like-
wise. The result was that the last ses-
sion of the General Assembly ended in
paralysis, with no votes allowed to be
.ken.
The confrontation in the United Na-
tions stemming from our concurrent res-
.olution of last summer, if it is still in ef-
fect when the General Assembly con-
venes next month, will result either in
our defeat or in the withdrawal of the
Soviet Union and France from the world
organization. For that reason, I intro-
duced last April House Concurrent Reso-
lution 386, which will permit our perma-
nent delegate to the United Nations flex-
ibility in handling the article 19 prob-
lem, and not compel him to torpedo the
United Nations when it meets. For the
future, we should support the proposi-
tion that General Assembly peacekeep-
ing operations be financed by voluntary
contributions. For the past, the United
States, while remaining zealous to in-
voke article 19 against the countries in
arrears Zia their regular United Nations
dues, should not press article 19 on the
Middle East and Congo special assess-
ments.
Congress has just a few weeks to act
before September is upon us. I hope
that the State Department will act upon
House Concurrent Resolution 386, or
some similar resolution, to end the
United Nations impasse. When the
United Nations is revivified, it will be able
to play a meaningful role in bringing
peace to Vietnam.
Of one. thing I am sure-that the
American people wholeheartedly support
a United Nations role in Vietnam. In
an opinion poll conducted in Milwaukee
by the Milwaukee Sentinel, and reported
in the Sentinel for August 2, 1965, 70
percent of those asked, "Do you feel it
is time for the United Nations to step
in to find ways to halt this aggression
and bring peace to Vietnam?" answered
"Yes;" 7 percent said "No,". with 18 per-
cent saying "Don't know," and 5 percent
not answering. I include the Milwaukee
Sentinel story:
POLL FINDS SUPPORT FOR L.B.J.-U.S. BUILD-
UP IN VIETNAM BACKED
(By C. Brooks Smeeton)
The majority of Milwaukee area residents
support President Johnson's commitment to
a stepped up role for the United States in
the Vietnam war.
This Is despite the fact that almost one-
half of those polled feel the President's
decision to double the draft call and to in-
crease the U.S. fighting strength is risking
a major war with Red China.
More than 6 out of 10 persons agree with
President Johnson's order to double the
monthly draft calls from 17,000 to 35,000
and to send 50,000 more men to South Viet-
nam.
This compares with only about 1 in 5
(19 percent) who disagree with the idea, or
(18 percent) who don't know.
One hundred persons were interviewed by
telephone for the Sentinel by the research
department of the Journal Co. Of those
who participated in the poll, 59 percent were
women and 41 percent were men.
Interviewers asked individuals throughout
the metropolitan Milwaukee area for their
opinions about the statement last Wednes-
day on Vietnam by President Johnson.
Almost half-47 percent-said that they
read about it in the newspaper while almost
one-third-28 percent-listened to or
watched the speech on radio or television.
The results revealed that 40 percent agree
that this action on the part of the
United States will bring peace eventually.
Twenty percent were in disagreement; 35
percent replied they didn't know and 5 per-
cent did not answer.
.,If we didn't do it now it would lead to
total war," said Howard Bruchkauser, 2709
East Whitaker Avenue, St. Francis.
Also in agreement was Thomas K. Ander-
son, 3455 South 104th Street, Greenfield.
He said, "I like the forwardness in the Pres-
ident's stand. It's time we show them that
we mean business and we will fight to pro-
tect our freedom."
Waiter Waech, 4853 North 66th Street,
indicated he felt the same way when he re-
plied, "It's the old Teddy Roosevelt theory
of 'carry a big stick.' We've been horsing
around too long."
SAME AS KOREA
There were some who disagreed. In the
opinion of John H. Ebbe, 3234 South 82d
Street, "It's the same as Korea-fighting to
establish a status quo."
Forty-eight percent of those polled felt
the action by the United States is risking a
major war with Red China. Twenty-nine
percent said they did not think so, while 19
percent said they didn't know.
The women (almost 50 percent) were more
apprehensive than the men (46 percent)
about the-possibility of this country getting
into a war with Communist China.
Seven out of ten of the participants in the
survey said that it was time for the United
Nations to step in to find ways to halt this
aggression and bring peace to Vietnam.
Among those who felt this was Eldon Zich,
16032 Riviera Drive, New Berlin, who said,
"I've felt that way for a long time. It's the
job for the U.N. They should have tried to
keep peace."
18573
EASIER THAN FORCE
John Kailas, 2574 South 35th Street, said,
"I believe in the U.N. They can settle prob-
lems easier than brute force."
Donald Weber, 5856 North 61st Street,
said, "It's part of United Nations business
to do this. They have made no noticeable
effort as yet."
Oscar Murphy, Jr., 2958-A North 12th
Street, said, "The United States got them-
salves into it, so they should get themselves
Cut."
William Anderson, 3702 West Sarnow
Street, said, "I am negative on United Na-
tions. They don't have too much to say.
They're too far to the left."
Mrs. Ray Wotta, 2545 South 66th Street,
said, "The United Nations will never settle
anything."
Here are the Sentinel poll questions and
the results:
"Did you happen to listen or watch Presi-
dent Johnson's speech Wednesday on
Vietnam?"
Percent
Yes---------------------------- 28
No ------------------------------------- 69
No answer----------------------------- 3
"Did you read in the newspaper about
President Johnson's statement on Vietnam?"
Percent
Yes----------------------------------- 47
No--------------------------.--------- 50
No answer---------------------------- 3
"Do you agree or disagree with President
Johnson's decision to double the monthly
draft calls from 17,000 to 35,000 and to send
50,000 more men to South Vietnam?"
Percent
Agree--------------------------------- 61
Disagree------------------------------ 19
Do not know-------------------------- 18
No answer ----------------------------- 2
"Do you agree or disagree' that this action
on the part of the United States will bring
peace eventually?"
Percent
Agree--------------------------------- 40
Disagree------------------------------ 20
Do not know-------------------------- 35
No answer---------------------------- 5
"Do you feel it is time for the United Na-
tions to step in to find ways to halt this
aggression and bring peace to Vietnam?"
Percent
Yes----------------------------------- 70
No------------------------------------ 7
Do not know-------------------------- 18
No answer---------------------------- 5
"Do you feel this action by the United
States is risking major war with Red China?"
Percent
Yes----------------------------------- 48
No------------------------------------ 29
Do not know -------------------- _----- 19
No answer---------------------------- 4
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. REUSS. I will be delighted to
yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COHELAN. I want to congratu-
late the gentleman for the very impor-
tant statement he is making to the House
this afternoon. I should like to associate
myself with his remarks.
I was personally very pleased that the
President in his press conference last
Wednesday stated that he had sent Am-
bassador Goldberg with a special mes-
sage to Secretary General U Thant urg-
ing him to make full use of the resources
of the U.N. in bringing the war from
the battlefield to the conference table.
I have been urging that this be done for
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18574
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 3, 1965
some months now. I also have been en-
couraging every official of our admin-
istration with whom I have talked to
make every effort to include the United
Nations in every step and that it be en-
couraged to play a larger role in this
effort.
However, my question to the gentle-
man at this point, in light of some of
the comments he has made about the
prospects of the United Nations perhaps
being turned down, is that I notice in
the United Press International dispatch
this morning that North Vietnam has
ruled out any United Nations role in
bringing the war to the conference table
or for any international settlement. So
I ask the gentleman, Do you really think
it is possible we can get the other party
to the conference table or to the United
Nations in light of what they have had
to say?
Mr. REUSS. Yes. Hanoi in the past
has shown its contempt for the United
Nations, and it has done so again in
the last 24 hours. However, I remind the
gentleman that the United Nations Char-
ter, article 2, expressly states, and I
quote :
The organization shall insure that States
which are not members act in accordance
with United Nations principles.
So the mere fact that North Vietnam
resists United Nations action, and is not
a member of the United Nations, is
irrelevant.
Equally in 1950, North Korea resisted
the U.N. action and was not a member of
the U.N. Yet that did not stop the U.N.
from assuming what I think,history will
regard as an important role in damping
down that threat to world peace. I do
not want to minimize the difficulties of
the situation, but I do not think that
the intransigence of North Vietnam offers
the slightest excuse for the U.N. to
shirk its responsibilities.
Mr. COHELAN. If the gentleman will
yield further, did I understand him clear-
ly in respect to the parties with whom
we should negotiate? Do I understand
that the gentleman includes any and all
parties that might properly be associated
with an honorable settlement? By this
I mean the National Liberation Front,
the Vietcong, or any other party, that
may be present and available to negoti-
ate. , Is that not correct?
Mr. REUSS. Yes. I said all parties
and I mean all parties, including those
who are now most responsible for carry-
ing on the conflict, that is, the Vietcong.
President Johnson in his press confer-
ence of last week indicated if the North
Vietnamese wished to bring along the
Vietcong or the National Liberation
Front to negotiations, that would be ac-
ceptable, and that statement speaks for
itself. Speaking for myself, I would
think we have to negotiate with whom-
ever our opponents are, and we can leave
juridical `considerations as to whether a
group of people is a government or not to
one side. They are the people who are
firing at us, and they will have to be
Mr. COHELAN. Now, if the gentle-
man will yield further at this point on
just one other matter before he com-
pletes his comprehensive statement.
As the gentleman well knows from our
own discussions, from discussions with
very distinguished colleagues of ours in-
cluding the gentleman from New York
[Mr. BINGHAM] who at one time was a
delegate to the United Nations, and with
members of the administration, there has
been concern expressed about us going to
the United Nations at this point and pos-
sibly causing some embarrassment, par-
ticularly in relation to article 19.
Now I realize the gentleman has com-
mented on article 19, and we have to do
something about this. But I wonder if
he would concentrate on the question of
the reservations that are entertained by
some of our colleagues who are equally
anxious to bring the United Nations
pressure to bear in this terrible situation
in southeast Asia.
Mr. REUSS. I thank the gentleman
for asking that question. I would say
two things in reply to him.
First, as to the tactics and timing of
our United Nations invocation, on which
we are now happily embarked, I believe
that the tactics and timing must very
much be left to those who are directly
in charge of the day-to-day conduct of
our foreign policy. Thus I do not call
this afternoon for any particular resolu-
tion to be presented before any particu-
lar body of the United Nations at any
particular time. It may well be that the
initial step taken, of having Ambassador
Goldberg simply lodge the matter in-
formally before the 11 members of the
Security Council, is a good initial pro-
ceeding. I well recognize that to take
a frozen formal position at the outset
might not be the most productive way to
proceed. So my first answer to the
gentleman's question is that the import-
ant thing is that we are now before the
United Nations. We are not any longer
being disrespectful of It by refusing to
come before the United Nations. And
this I consider half or two-thirds of the
battle.
I would hope that our timing and
tactics will prove fruitful in the days and
weeks and months to come.
The second point I would make has to
do with article 19; and that is that what-
ever we do with the United Nations is
totally dependent upon our putting the
United Nations back on its feet again.
It is now in a state of paralysis owing to
the assessments dispute, and we must
move fast to see that some sort of a work-
able compromise can be arrived at on
that, so that the United Nations when it
meets in New York next month may be
once again a going Institution.
I point out to the gentleman that this
will require action by the U.S. Congress,
because the Congress has presently sad-
dled our permanent representative at the
United Nations with a rather inflexible
resolution which in effect requires that
on opening day of the new General As-
sembly, he has got to challenge the right
of France and of the Soviet Union to vote.,
and both countries, if that challenge were
upheld, would be highly likely to leave
the United Nations and thus start the
tragic course toward a repetition of the
last days of the ill-fated League of
Nations.
Therefore, it is in my judgment vital
that the State Department and Congress
move within the next few weeks, prefer-
ably the next few days, to clarify our
directive of last summer which was made
in good faith-I voted for it, and so, I be-
lieve, did the gentleman from California,
with all other Members-but, in effect,
our confrontation strategy of last year
regrettably did not work, and we are
now confronted with a larger question of
whether we wish the United Nations to
continue.
I believe the American people want the
United Nations to continue. In a poll
conducted in my own community of Mil-
waukee over the weekend by the Mil-
waukee Sentinel, 70 percent of the per-
sons queried on whether they wished the
U.N. participation in Vietnam said yes,
they did; only 7 percent said no; 18 per-
cent said they did not know, and 5 per-
cent did not answer.
So that I think the American people
share the faith of the gentleman from
California and myself and so many other
Members that the United Nations does
have an inspiring role to play in world
peace if only we will do our part in put-
ting iton its feet again.
Mr. COHELAN. I thank the gentle-
man for amplifying this point, and again
I want to express my complete agreement
with what he has had to say.
I shall have further questions of the
gentleman as the gentleman proceeds.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, because of
the lateness of the hour I am going to
exercise my permission to insert mate-
rials in the RECORD and conclude my
formal remarks by expressing the deep
hope that the State Department will
shortly act on the question of the U.N.
impasse, that it will give a favorable
report on the resolution which I intro-
duced last April to give our representa-
tive, Ambassador Goldberg, more flexibil-
ity on the article 19 question or perhaps
come up with some similar resolution, so
that the United Nations may be revivified
and thus able to play a meaningful role
in bringing peace to Vietnam.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. REUSS. I yield to my colleague
from Minnesota. -
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend the gentleman from Wisconsin
for his timely discussion of a most urgent
question, a question which is of vital con-
cern to the security of our Nation as well
as to the future of the world.
Particularly, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is
worth noting the point which the gentle-
man has developed, which is that before
we can return to the United Nations for
assistance in settling the Vietnam prob-
lem, we must first work out the problems
that have kept the General Assembly
from functioning over the past year.
Because most of the small nations do not
want to see in the General Assembly a
confrontation between the United States,
the Soviet Union, and France on the
question of paying these assessments for
the peacekeeping costs, we are going to
have to recognize this as a reality and
proceed to find other ways to move ahead
so that the General Assembly can con-
tinue to act and function in dealing with
problems around the world.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R0003001,90001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
I might say, if the gentleman will yield
further for a moment, that there is one
point that I believe the gentleman
touched upon with which I surely concur.
That is. the. argument that by taking the
issue of Vietnam,. to the Security Council,
we would. force the Soviet Union into a
position of representing North Vietnam
thereby committing the Soviet Union to
a firmer and harder line than that to
which it is presently committed.
It seems to me that while this ques-
tion or consideration once had validity,
today we find the Soviet Union furnish-
ing not only economic aid but substan-
tial military assistance, including sur-
face-to-air missiles for North Vietnam,
and warning our Government about the
grave risks that we face in our course of
conduct over there and demanding the
withdrawal of ,American forces from
South Vietnam.
It would seem to me that it would be
hard to get the Soviet Union more deeply
committed to a defensive posture on be-
half of North Vietnam than that to which
it is already committed as a result of its
common Interest with North Vietnam as
a member of ' the Communist group of
nations.
I. do not know if the gentleman from
Wisconsin has. pursued that point to the
degree that we have discussed earlier,
but I do believe that this consideration
which, as I say, once had validity, no
longer does have the validity that it may
have had in the earlier months.
9. I agree with the gentle-
Mr. REUSE
man_ from Minnesota that while the
question of the involvement of the Soviet
Union in the question of a U.N. presence
in South Vietnam is a serious one, it
deserves a fair discussion..
I believe, on balance, that the case is
overwhelmingly In favor of going to the
U.N., and letting. the chips fall where
they may. The Soviet Union has al-
ready found it necessary, because of its
position in the Communist world, to take
very considerable steps to align itself
with North Vietnam.
I do not see how that alinement is go-
inng to become any worse by reason or our
conceived and stated American case can
attract the majority of votes.
Mr. FRASER. There is another con-
sideration which might be worth de-
veloping. In the earlier years many peo-
ple had in mind asking the United
Nations to declare the actions on the
part of North Vietnam to be acts of
aggression and calling upon the United
Nations for support in meeting that ag-
gression. It is true we could go to the
United Nations today and ask the Se-
curity Council or the General Assembly
to declare that aggression is being waged
by North Vietnam and call on them for
help. That is one course of action that
is open, but it seems to me in light of
recent developments and in the changing
complexities of the situation we are more
likely to urge the United Nations to take
a peace-seeking role.
Mr. REUSS. Rather than in a police
force role?
Mr. FRASER. Yes. Leaving aside the
question of aggression, you could go to
the Security Council or to the General
Assembly and seek through their offices
to find a resolution to this conflict. In
such a case the Soviet Union would not
find itself pressed to defend North Viet-
nam and thereby become more deeply
committed as some fear. What has been
established since the United Nations has
been in business is that they will recog-
nize overt aggression and will act to meet
such aggression. That was demonstrated
In the case of Korea, although it is true
Russia was not in the Security Council
at that time; nevertheless, the other
nations all recognized North Korea was
invading South Korea, and they did au-
thorize a United Nations force to take
action in support of South Korea.
But here we have a war in which there
are arguments about the nature of the
war. Some call it a civil war just as we
had a civil war between the North and
South here in the United States. Others
say the moral issues are obscured be-
cause the United States did not support
the elections provided under the Geneva
agreement. There are moral questions
raised by those who discuss Vietnam.
bringing the matter before the United Where there are some complexities and
Nations. an argument about whether or not there
Certainly, if, in a given. situation the' is truly aggression, we do have one other
Soviet Upton, before we take the matter route to follow, and that is the route of
to the United Nations, is not, going to self-determination. There is no dis-
take military step X against us, then pute about the issue that the people of
equally the Soviet Union is not going to the area ought to decide by the ballot
take military step X simply because we box rather than by bullets what kind of
went to the United Nations. The United leadership they want. It is here we
Nations invests us with a much better could move forward, and the United Na-
world standing than we have through tions can play an extremely useful role.
ignoring the United Nations, So I The value of moving in this direction
think we are better off with respect to is that if we advocate self-determina-
the Soviet Union and everybody else tion and if we say we are prepared to
through going to the United Nations. accept a vote by the people of South
The second point I would like to make Vietnam-and I was happy to see that
is that the worst that the Soviet Union the President took that position the
can- do to us in the United Nations, if other day in his speech-then it seems
it eo ?s to that-I hope it will not-is to to me that puts us clearly on the moral
veto,suc ,resoli bons as have l2een of- side onrthe stile o the angels What
Iered in the Security Council by us or ever disputes there are about the origins
any other member. There is then of this war or the morality of 'it, if we
available to us the General Assembly, can go to the United Nations and say we
under aprocedure invented because of are prepared to ask their good offices and
the ,Soviet Union's veto power. There is their help in crgating machinery to
that great forum, with its 114 member carry out some kind of a political deci-
nations, where I am confident a justly sion process such as the use of the ballot
18575
box with a referendum or by an election
of some kind, this would be consistent
with the highest purposes of the United
Nations. It would be consistent with
the spirit of the small now nations for
which self-determination stands as per-
haps the highest political principle of any
that are abroad in the world today.
Before I ask the gentleman to com-
ment on this, I might mention a proposal
that the President could make. This is
only for illustrative purposes. He
might say, for example, to the United
Nations that we are prepared to support
a United Nations sponsored referendum
in South Vietnam on the question of the
political leadership that the people de-
sire-with the questions to be framed
under United Nations jurisdiction.
Further, he could suggest that a. cease-
fire take place in South Vietnam so that
the United Nations representatives would
have access to all of South Vietnam in
carrying out such an election.
Third, he could say that if these steps
are agreed upon, and this would involve,
I. think, a direct contact by the United
Nations with the Vietcong or with the
national liberation front, if those steps
could be agreed upon, then of course we
would suspend bombing in the North
and agree to abide by the outcome of
the election, as we would expect all other
nations to do.
Now I recognize the many problems
that exist in this proposal. I recognize
that the United Nations really has not
done this before. But necessity is the
mother of invention and if there should
be some willingness to proceed to allow
the people of South Vietnam, who are the
people whose interests are ultimately at
stake, to make a decision by going to the
ballot box-if we could move in that
direction through the United Nations, it
seems to me this would clearly put us
square with the world and our own con-
science and the highest principles of
American democracy.
Mr. REUSS. The gentleman, as he
always does, 'has made good sense. I
think his proposal is a sound one.
I would add that. it is in no way in-
consistent with the observations of Presi-
dent Johnson at his press conference last
week. Indeed, it simply carries out and
makes a little more definite what was
said there by the President.
The gentleman has well said that,
while these things have not been done
in exactly this way by the United Nations
before, the fact is the United Nations
Charter, like the great Constitution of
this country and like the British Com-
mon-Law Constitution, is capable of in-
finite adjustment, within its four corners,
to the turn of events.
Specifically, I think a combination of a
United Nations directed cease-fire which
of course, would operate on our bombers
and would operate on the Vietcong and
on North Vietnam and on the Saigon
ns sponsored-negotiations for United
Natio arid`the
suggestion, which I think is perhaps the
most important of all, for United Na-
tions supervised elections in South Viet-
nam-this is the essence of a proposal
which, if made a little more formally by
our Government, and I think we are
Approved for Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 3, 1965
reaching in that direction now, will ap-
peal to the sense of justice of people the
world over. After all, that is our only
refuge and strength. I think the gen-
tleman has made a real contribution.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. REUSS. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. COHELAN. The gentleman has
cataloged the points that are important
in any kind of United Nations proposal
which would lead to free election ma-
chinery to determine the future of Viet-
nam and/or of South Vietnam.
My question at this point relates to
the machinery. While it is true that we
could organize elections, I think it is
pretty clear one of the reasons we failed
to sign the Geneva accords in 1954 was
because we could not get U.N. guaran-
teed and supervised elections.
My question to the gentleman is:
What do we propose? What can we pro-
pose? What techniques and methods
will be suggested or can be suggested to
arrange for the peacekeeping costs?
Obviously, if there is a cease fire it is
highly desirable to have an enforcible
ceasefire under U.N. supervision. Given
some of the difficulties of which we are
all aware, what does the gentleman en-
vision as the means for sorting this one
out?
Mr. REUSS. Of course, the costs of a
United Nations-supervised election would
be negligible and could be borne out of
regular United 'Nations dues, and there
would be no problem, because there has
been no disposition on the part of mem-
bers generally to refuse to pay their dues.
If, however, a United Nations peace-
keeping presence of. some sort may be
necessary, a United Nations police
force-bear in.mind that in my colloquy
with the gentleman from Minnesota just
a moment ago I agreed that there were
other U.N. functions and operations
which seemed to be more significant right
now-in Vietnam or anywhere else in the
world, I should think in the future, to
the extent that the General Assembly of
the United Nations set up a police force,
the financing should be done on a volun-
tary basis, just as a world organization
like the International Development As-
sociation, before it makes up a consor-
tium, goes to the various members and
says, "How much can we put you down
for?" If the member says, "Nothing on
this one," the IDA secretary says, "Fine,
we will put you down for nothing."
So, with respect to future General As-
sembly peacekeeping forces, because of
their exacerbating nature on some of the
members, it would not hurt to make their
financing voluntary.
If it be said that then the United States
may in a given case bear the lion's share
of the burden, I would answer by saying,
first, only if the United States agreed,
and, second, how much better it would be
if we were today bearing the lion's share
and more than the lion's share of the
burden in South Vietnam under the ban-
ner of the United Nations, and with the
help of numerous other members of the
United Nations. How much ahead, both
financially and morally, we would be.
I believe, in answer to the question of
the gentleman from California, there are
ways of working out even expensive
peacekeeping forces without wrenching
the United Nations apart.
Mr. COHELAN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. REUSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Minnesota.
Mr. FRASER. I was interested in the
question of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia and the response by the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
There is an additional procedure which
could be followed by the United Nations
which would also, I believe, provide addi-
tional flexibility. I refer to creating a
peacekeeping fund in advance, in a pre-
determined amount-it might be $500
million or some other figure-which
would have the value of insulating a par-
ticular peacekeeping operation from the
request for support of that fund. One
cannot insulate it entirely, and it may
depend on the magnitude of the peace-
keeping operation.
I might say that one of the objections
raised to the idea of having a peace-
keeping fund established in advance is
the possibility that the smaller nations,
who control the General Assembly, might
undertake to go off on their own and
initiate some kind of action which we
would not feel was in the interest of the
United States. I mention this because
it is a common objection. On that point,
it seems to me we have so many other
things to fear which are more real and
more immediate that such a remote con-
tingency could not seriously impair our
national security. I believe we should
look at the possibility of establishing
such a fund as one of the possible ways
to provide the United Nations with the
flexibility which I very strongly feel it
needs.
Mr. REUSS. I would certainly agree
that this is an idea worth exploring. If
it ever could be achieved, it would be a
most helpful addition to the United Na-
tions arsenal of peaceful weapons.
I return, however, to my theme, which
is that immediately we are confronted
with the stubborn fact that the U.N. has
fallen apart and that our most imme-
diate urgent task is to move heaven and
earth to put it back together again.
There is no reason under the sun why
in about 5 weeks from now the United
Nations cannot be on its feet, financially
sound once again, with hope for the fu-
ture and, I would think, with the grati-
tude ringing in our ears of about 80 small
nations for the initiative of the United
States in trying to put the United Na-
tions back on its feet, if we will but do
what has to be done in the Halls of Con-
gress, and in the executive branch in the
3 or 4 vital weeks to come.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
speaker, I always listen carefully to our
distinguished colleague from Wisconsin
[Mr. Rsuss]. He is truly one of the out-
standing scholars in the Congress and
a thoughtful and knowledgable interna-
tionalist. I read with appreciation his
recent article on the U.N. in Common-
weal magazine. I compliment the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin on his continu-
ing efforts in support of the U.N. and
thank him for taking this time today to
discuss the U.N. and its vital place in
this modern world.
Mr. Speaker, I emphatically deny that
fate decrees that wars are inevitable. As
Schopenhauer said, what people com-
monly call fate is, as a general rule, noth-
ing but their own stupid and foolish con-
duct, and if wickedness is atoned for in
another world, stupidity gets its reward
here.
I am convinced that there is a proper
and well defined path we can and must
take in our foreign policy. I say that the
ground rules are existing and have been
enumerated by wise leaders, living and
dead. Sir Isaac Newton said:
If I have seen farther than other men it
is because I have stood on the shoulders of
giants.
I ask only that we stand open eyed, on
the shoulders of our giants.
I suppose that I realized that the day
of world wars was over and done with
on August 6, 1945, when our aircraft
dropped the first atomic bomb and in a
few seconds leveled a great city and
killed 77,000 people.
You will recall that this was a few
months after the Germans had started
using the V-2 rocket, which was fired
from hidden sites, which flew so fast
that the sound of the missile did not
catch up until after the explosion.
It seemed apparent on that day that
substitutes would have to be found for
warfare, that it would not be too many
years before any reasonably modern na-
tion could construct both the missiles and
the nuclear warheads capable of destroy-
ing any other country or combination of
countries. Any new Tojo, Hitler, Kaiser,
Napoleon, or Genghis Khan now had the
means of pulling down the rest of the
world, whether in revenge or in a frenzy
of paranoia.
Today we have enough atomic bombs
to kill every Russian over 1,000 times,
and they in turn can do the same to
us.
It does not matter who strikes first.
The bombs and the means of transmit-
tal are hidden in hardened sites or on
submarines which cannot be found, and
the nation first attacked will always have
sufficient missiles left to destroy the
enemy.
For, a few short years only ourselves
and the Russians were atomic nations.
It was our hope that there would be
no further proliferation. We resembled
the trustees of the church in southern
California upon whose property oil was
discovered. The next day the trustees
announced that no more new members
would be accepted.
But today we find 10, perhaps 15, oth-
er nations with actual or potential nu-
clear arsenals. France, whose force de
frappe military experts sniffed at not
many months ago, has an operational
force of 36 Mirage supersonic bombers
armed with atomic bombs each with an
explosive force of 60 kilotons, or 4 times
the Hiroshima bomb. The French force
will soon be double this size, and mili-
tary experts say that more than 50 per-
cent would reach their targets.
China has now exploded two atom
bombs. Those who assume that China
will have no missile delivery system
would do well to remember that the Chi-
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 August 3, 1965 COIN U.KhSS1U1NA,L Kfi(.UKL1 - riVUJlc
nese invented the rocket. The coo ensus ' He said that world peace is the most
of expert opinion is that industrialized important topic on earth. He said that
nations such as West Germany and war is not inevitable-that mankind is
Japan could join the atomic club in 2
years. Other nations that have the in-
dustrial and scientific capabilities in-
clude Italy, Israel, India, Pakistan, the
United Arab Republic, and Indonesia.
We would consider it Imbecilic for a
city to attempt to exist without govern-
ment-as' an anarchy-without commu-
nity rules. restricting the violent be-
havior of its citizens. But the nations
in the world today have no effective gov-
ernment or rules of law limiting their
sovereignty. The sovereign state as-
sumes the right to take any action to
serve what it considers its vital interests
and to judge the appropriateness of its
acts, no matter how serious the con-
sequences to others.
This system never has worked-it can-
not work. "'T'here is' no greater fiend
than. anarchy," said Sophocles. "She
ruins states, turns houses out of doors."
In my lifetime alone, international an-
archy has resulted in two world wars,
in the violent deaths of a hundred mil-
lion people, in hunger and poverty for
two-thirds of the world's population,
and in a breakdown of governments per-
rititting Communist rule over half the
world's population.
Even in the brief periods between wars,
the preparations for the next conflict so
Impoverish the world community eco-
nomically .and spiritually, that long-
rangesuCe`essin the development of the
underdeveloped nations is impossible.
World expenditures for armaments per
year total over $120 billions, of which the
United States spends 42 percent. In late
May it was announced that our Nation
.has the doubtful honor of being the big-
gest arms merchant in the world, with
sales of $1.5 billion this year and a spe-
cial arms sales promotion program in
Western Europe costing $500,000 a year.
With the nnations of the world spending
$120 billion per year on arms, it is clear
that there is not enough money left over
for aid to the underdeveloped countries:
As Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn
have pointed out, there must be an an-
nuaI flow of capital from the industrial-
ized nations to the low-income countries
of not less than $50 billion per year-or
$25 per capita. The current. flow of $8.55
billion is only one-sixth of what is re-
,quired to make a ny real impression on
the problem.
Unless the developed nations allocate
this larger sum of capital to the low-
income nations, we should not be sur-
prised if they develop monolithic eco-
nomic and political systems. Communist
revolutions are not caused by the Com-
munist. ,doctrine, 'they are caused by
disease and the lack of the decencies of
life. These revolutions will continue
even if communism evaporates.
It was 2 years and 2 months ago that
President Kennedy made his immortal
speeclz,on"world peace at American Uni-
varsity here in'Washington. It seemed
.to mat that time, and I have not since
changed my mind, that his words sig-
nified-a,-now direction in American for-
not doomed-that we are not gripped by
forces we cannot control.
He said:
Our problems are man made---therefore,
they can be solved by man. And man can
be as big as he wants.
That:
World peace, like community peace, does
not require that each man love his neigh-
bor-it requires only that they live together
in mutual tolerance, submitting their dis-
putes to a just and peaceful settlement.
President Kennedy said:
We seek to strengthen the United Nations
* * * to develop it into a genuine world se-
curity system-a system capable of resolving
disputes on the basis of law * * * and of
creating conditions under which arms can be
finally abolished.
You will recall that within a few short
weeks the Soviet Union and our country
had signed the test ban treaty, outlawing
atmospheric atomic testing. At the time
of his death we appeared to be close to
an extension of the treaty to include
underground explosions. President Ken-
nedy had traveled to England, Ireland,
and to Europe. He was looked upon as
the leader who might fulfill Tennyson's
dream of a time "when all men's good be
each man's .rule, and universal peace lie
like a shaft of light across the land."
It' seems to me that our commitment
to build world law and order is being
weakened by our actions. We appear to
be. disassociating ourselves from a for-
eign policy who se matrix is` the U.N. and
instead giving increasing importance to
unilateral power politics.
I say that this course can only lead to
disaster-that man's only hope for world
peace is through constant honest efforts
toward world organization-that we
cannot say it won't work until we have
tried-and that our `attempts to date
have been timid and "unenthusiastic.
It is my position that support of the
U.N. must be the core of our foreign
policy. I believe that the United States
can lead its sister states on the road to
a world community where disputes are
settled not by war but by conciliation and
arbitration.
Where the United Nations has been al-
lowed by its members to operate, its suc-
cesses have been solid and satisfying.
International cooperation has been the
rule in the World Health Organization,
UNICEF, UNESCO, the Food and Agri-
cultural Organization, the Monetary
Fund, the World Bank, GATT, the ex-
panded program of technical assist-
ance, and many more.
The first and primary purpose, how-
ever, of the United Nations is to main-
tain international peace and security.
The charter specifically requires that
member States shall use no force except
in self-defense-that the use of self-de-
fense must be reported to the Security
Council, and that members must settle
their disputes peacefully.
The charter contemplates that na-
tions in dispute shall first seek a solution
through peaceful means of their own
choosing. Then, if a solution is not
eign policy.
18577
found, the dispute must be referred to
the U.N. before it erupts into war.
In its first few years considerable re-
spect was paid to this commitment. Rus-
sia withdrew its troops from Iran and
France hers from Syria to avoid charges
of charter violation. The U.N. helped
restore peace in Greece, Kashmir, and
Korea. In Israel peace was maintained
when the state was first established and
again during the Suez crisis.
But this pattern of generally respon-
sible conduct has degenerated during the
past decade into the practice of nations
taking the law into their own hands and
using force without first submitting the
case to the U.N. There was Britain and
France in Suez, India in Goa, Russia in
Hungary, the United States in Vietnam.
It might possibly be argued that the
use of force would be legitimate where a
member in good faith first seeks assist-
ance through the U.N. and fails to re-
ceive it. There is no excuse for by-pass-
ing the U.N.
More and more we have been reversing
the proper order of conduct in interna-
tional affairs. Our charter obligation is
to first submit the dispute to the interna-
tional governmental authority and only
thereafter back up its decision with force.
There is no authority to move militarily
first, seeking conciliation later.
In recent years it is said more and
more that the charter does not forbid
one nation from helping another quell a
rebellion. This is certainly an imagina-
tive but unsupportable conclusion.
There is no authority in the charter for
one nation to intervene militarily in an-
other country whether there exists a
civil war, a war of liberation, or a war
in the defense of freedom.
No state has the right to intervene in
another state's civil war. If the civil
war constitutes a threat to international
peace, then the U.N. may intervene to
deal with this threat.
There is nothing in the charter to
justify the great powers or the small
powers rejecting or ignoring conciliation,
mediation or the other peacekeeping
processes of the U.N. The law of the
charter, its very heart, outlaws force as
a method for settling disputes.
Nor are military alliances a substitute
for the treaty obligations of the U.N.
Charter. NATO provides no machinery
or means for settling disputes, except
the use of force, or the threat of force.
We have seen from NATO no arms con-
trol proposals. Indeed, NATO histori-
cally has looked with a jaundiced eye
on any plans for disengagement, dis-
armament or the establishment of arms-
free areas in Europe.
I am not saying that there is a single
path to peace and that it consists of a
more faithful adhereance to the rules of
the charter, There still would remain
many intractable problems requiring ad-
ditional remedies. The U.N. must, of
course, be open to every nation inclUd-
ing China. There must be giant steps
toward disarmament and the formation
of an international police force. The
World Court's jurisdiction must be en-
larged and strengthened. There must
be in the General Assembly a more realis-
tic distribution of voting power.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18578
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE August 3, 1965
But these are difficult, perhaps im-
possible achievements in the hostile at-
mosphere of the cold war. What I sug-
gest is that one step is possible--one is
immediately achievable-and that is for
the member nations to cease forthwith
their neglect of the U.N. and their
solemn, written obligations under its
charter. Regardless of whether or not
there are defects in the charter, it is up
to its signatories to make faithful and
diligent efforts to comply with its pro-
visions.
A constitution, any set of rules or laws,
any charter, is only as effective as the
good faith of its members. There are
a number of totalitarian nations whose
constitutions read much like our own.
There Is England which has no written
constitution, but the long tradition of ob-
servance of the law by its citizens creates
a law abiding community.
Where law is treated with contempt by
powerful and influential segments of the
society, the rule of law itself is en-
dangered.
For the past 100 years in certain areas
of our South, white men in the position
of leadership have said that continuation
of the creed of racism is more important
than the law. And to this day it is vir-
tually impossible to enforce ordinary
criminal statutes against white men who
assault or murder Negroes.
A respectable and powerful political
leader such as the senior Senator from
Virginia will declare that the preserva-
tion of segregated schools is more im-
portant than respect for Federal law as
enunciated in the 1954 school desegrega-
tion decisions.
In the community of nations we see
the destruction of the international law
of the U.N. Charter by the members who,
like white Mississippians viewing race,
find that the particular conflicts between
nations are more important than the
preservation of the international ma-
chinery for dealing with the conflict.
Russia declares its interest in Hungary
is more important than Its contract to
submit the dispute to the U.N. The
United States finds its stake in Vietnam
more important than its treaty obliga-
tions under the U.N. Charter.
During the past few months we have
witnessed a buddingrespect for law and
order in our South and- an increasing
compliance with the law. Amongst the
causes are the three civil rights bills and
the various economic pressures exerted
by the Federal Government. But im-
portant amongst the causes is the emer-
gence of business and Government
leaders who say that the quality of civili-
zation that results from compliance with
the law is now more important to them
than illegal apartheid.
I would suggest that the United States
as the world's most powerful and in-
fluential nation declare to the world its
resolution to comply hereafter with its
written contracts-most importantly its
obligations under the Charter of the
United Nation.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 2
provide:
All members shall settle their international
disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered.
All members shall refrain in their inter-
national relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or polit-
ical independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the pur-
poses of the United Nations.
And further in article 33:
The parties to any dispute, the continu-
ance of which is likely to endanger the main-
tenance of international peace and security,
shall, first of all, seek a solution by negoti-
ation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbi-
tration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful
means of their own choice.
And article 37 continues:
Should the parties to a dispute of the
nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle
It by the means indicated in that Article,
they shall refer It to the Security Council.
If the Security Council deems that the con-
tinuance of the dispute is in fact likely to
endanger the maintenance of international
peace and security, it shall decide whether
to take action under Article 36 or to recom-
mend such terms of settlement as it may
consider appropriate.
And even then if the Soviet Union
should exercise its veto, there is then the
General Assembly to which the - matter
can be presented under the Uniting for
Peace Resolution, which provides:
That if the Security Council, because of
lack of unanimity of the permanent mem-
bers, fails to exercise its primary responsi-
bility for the maintenance of international
peace and security In any case where there
appears to be a threat to the peace, breach
of the peace, or act of aggression, the General
Assembly shall consider the matter immedi-
ately with a view to making appropriate rec-
ommendations to Members for collective
measures, including in the case of a breach of
the peace or act of aggression, the use of
armed force when necessary, to maintain
or restore international peace and security.
I am not impressed with objections
that the Uniting for Peace Resolution
has been emasculated by Ffance's and
Russia's refusal to pay certain peace-
keeping assessments or that action by the
Security Council will be frustrated by a
Soviet veto. In Selma last winter I
talked to Sheriff Jim Clark who wore a
big badge on his chest that said "Never",
and I think it clear now that the in-
tegration referred to on Clark's badge
will arrive sooner than he thinks.
To follow this course of compliance
with what we have contracted to do by
signing the U.N. Charter will not be easy.
The right-wing will shout appeasement
and treason unless every dispute is de-
cided in our favor. Our elected officials
must discover new reservoirs of courage
and serenity that will subdue the terrors
of the timid. We will have to learn to
permit our President to truly negotiate
in foreign affairs and not force him to be
the victor in every skirmish.
And we citizens must find new charac-
ter traits of sophistication and confidence
in the power of our free society to per-
suade imitation and respect. We will
have to be good natured and understand-
ing in our relations with the nations
emerging from Colonialism. Some will
be headed by leftists and non-conformers
who will look with distrust upon our
conservatism. They will not always be-
have as we might want them to, and we
will have to learn tolerance as well as
patience.
I am afraid that America will find this
path difficult and calling for new reser-
voirs of maturity because of what Toyn-
bee describes as our medieval religious
belief that our adversaries have a super-
human wickedness and potency and that
it is the manifest destiny of the United
States to unilaterally save the world.
We must be more interested in solving
problems than,in proving theories. All
the great powers must learn that their
ideologies are as great a source of danger
as they are of strength.
I don't pretend to have proposed to..
day any radical steps that, if imple-
mented, will magically produce a world
of independent states with adequate in-
ternational machinery for the peaceful
settling of disputes. I suggest, however,
that what I have proposed is a logical
first move.
As Benjamin V. Cohen recently
pointed out, at least the referral of dis-
putes to the U.N. would cause delay so
that time would have a chance to oper-
ate. Our generation must be wise
enough to find ways of leaving to the
solvent of time and the wisdom of sue-
ceeding generations problems which we
of our generation are unable to solve.
Let us not forget that the most agres-
sive ideologies undergo changes over the
years. Even the most fanatical faiths
balk at self-destruction and mellow with,
time. As Justice Holmes summed It up,
"time has upset many fighting faiths."
A few weeks ago I was In Los Angeles.
Automobile after automobile carried
bumper stickers. Some read "Impeach
Earl Warren." Two read "Register
Communists-Not Firearms." Another
read "The War on Poverty Means
Poverty for All" and still another read
"Get the U.S. Out of the U.N." I saw
no cars with bumper stickers urging
support of the U.N. or of world law.
This brought home to me what, I think,
Gladstone said, that "Good ends can
rarely be attained in politics without
passion." In the battle to support and
strengthen the United Nations, our op-
ponents seem to have all the passion and
it is up to us to counter this with pas-
sion of our own.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that our
President at his news conference last
Wednesday reiterated his faith in the
peacekeeping machinery of the U.N. I
know that our President is devoted to
the cause of peace and is seeking with
every skill at his command a formula
that can result in an honorable peace in
Vietnam. I hail the mission he has as-
signed to Ambassador Goldberg. I have
faith that the solution will eventually be
found through the U.N.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, for
the past several weeks, many of us here
in Congress have urged a greater United
Nations role in searching for a peaceful
solution to the war in Vietnam. We were
all, therefore, deeply gratified by Presi-
dent Johnson's remarks last week affirm-
ing this country's decision to involve the
United Nations in new diplomatic initia-
tives. Ambassador Goldberg's appoint-
ment signaled such a renewed dedica-
tion to international peacekeeping. His
efforts in communicating with Secretary
General U Thant represent new cause
for hope.
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 18579
It seems to me crucial that the United
Nations be the auspices under which
peace initiatives are to be taken. Initi-
ally, U.N.-sponsored gestures have a
greater chance of attracting support
from the nonalined countries whose
good will should be a major goal of his
country's foreign policy. And, since any
eventual settlement should,. include a
guarantor role for the United Nations, it
is important that the organization be
involved in the quest for peace as early
as possible.
Much of the failure of the Geneva
settlement in 1954 can. be attributed to
the inadequacy of strong institutional
support and enforcement. The Interna-
tional Control Commission had neither
the resources nor the authority with
which to implement the difficult peace-
keeping role assigned to it. We might
now attempt to strengthen the Commis-
sion by establishing a United Nations
presence at ICC missions. Renovating
the diplomatic machinery of the Com-
mission by giving it the support of the
United-Nations might prove a useful step
toward the establishment of an author-
ity equipped to handle the difficult job
of supervising peace in Vietnam. The
United Nations -might also be the
mechanism for a gradual disengagement
of American and North ? Vietnamese
forces following a ceasefire. And, even-
'tually, full U.N. sponsorship might be
given to a new Geneva Convention, with
the participation of all. relevant parties,
? whether or not they are members of the
United Nations.
I think we should be equally aware of
the importance Vietnam can have on the
United Nations. Peacekeeping activi-
ties `by an international body are now
generally looked upon with disfavor and
skepticism. There is nothing the United
Nations needs more. than a success. This
country can help bring that about, with
subtlety and prudence, by seeking to in-
volve,the. United Nations in every diplo-
matic initiative and policy which has any
chance, of succeeding. There is no rea-
son why we cannot be generous in peace.
This,, of course, is a matter of some
delicacy, which is why we are so fortu-
nate to be represented in the United Na-
tions by Ambassador Goldberg.
Finally, let me take this moment to
compliment the gentleman from Wis-
consin [Mr. REUssl, for taking this time
to deal with the role of the United Na-
tions in Vietnam,' He ,has been an im-
portant participant in a debate which
for too long has been private and re-
pressed. His thoughtful article in the
Commonweal inagazine last month has
helped many of us develop our own views
on the necessity for United Nations activ-
ity. We all are grateful for his efforts
and diligence.
NEW, YORK CITY IN. CRISIS-PART
CXxxXVIii .
(Mr. MULTER (at the request of Mr.
REUSS)' was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD` and to include extraneous mat-
ter,)
Mr, MULTER. Mr. Speaker, the fol-
lowing article deals with efforts to im-
plement the poverty program in ~ New
York and is ,part of the series on New
York City in Crisis.
The article appeared in the New York
Herald Tribune on. June 6, 1965, and fol-
lows:
[From the New York Herald Tribune,
June 6, 1965]
NEW YORK CITY IN CkIsis--CITY GRANTED
$9.1 MILLION ANTIPOVERTY FUNDS
(By Barry Gottehrer and Alfonson Narvaez)
WASHINGTON.-NSW York City's long.
delayed antipoverty program took a large
step forward yesterday when the Office of
Economic Opportunity approved a $9.1-mil-
lion request in community action funds.
These funds-part of a package first re-
quested by city officials early in March and
delayed by the battle over who was to con-
trol the program-is the largest single grant
so far in the Federal war on poverty.
These funds, awarded for an 8-month
period, were accompanied by Sargent Shri-
ver's approval for the formula the city ad-
ministration has finally worked out to ad-
minister the programs.
Mr. Shriver said he is convinced that the
newly designed New York City Council
Against Poverty, which would give the poor
32 seats out of 100, does meet the Federal
law's call for "maximum feasible representa-
tion", of the poor.
"I think the,New York program now has a
generally satisfactory structure," he said.
"There is nothing in the law that says fiscal
control has to be surrendered by public offi-
cials and turned over to the poor. It's up to
each community to work out the best
formula."
News of the OEO announcement reached
Mayor Wagner at Portland, Maine, where he
is spending the weekend.
"As soon as the Governor approves the
'proposal, we will be able to move ahead with
action, rather than words," he said.
"We have had some difficulty in our
groundbreaking for this effort. A certain
amount of controversy developed which was
doubtless a healthy thing."
The grant of $9.1 million in community
action funds brings the city's share of Fed-
eral antipoverty funds to more than $20
million.
When informed of the OEO announcement,
Paul Screvane, head of the city's Economic
Opportunity Corp,-the operational arm of
the city's antipoverty program-which will
receive the funds, said that the city could
at last begin to operate its programs.
`The official logjam is over," he said. "Now
we will be able shortly to begin to operate
our many community action programs. It
should be understood that the community
action program is, not a single monolithic
program, but a series of programs, all based
on the principle that the local community
knows best what It needs, but that a central
theme-or umbrella -is necessary to assure
all the people in all of the distressed areas
that they have equal access to the benefits
of the war on poverty, and an equal oppor-
tunity to enlist in the war against poverty."
The city's original request for $10.5 million
for the community action phase of the war
on poverty was sent to the OEO on March 11.
The Federal grant now goes to Governor
Rockefeller who has 30 days in which to
approve or reject it. 'If he takes not action
at all at the end of 30 days, the grant will be
considered approved.
But May 1 passed without the necessary
approval` and fie city was again forced to
modify its proposal.
Then, on May 9, Senator JACOB JAVITS re-
leased a report by the Senate Labor and Wel-
fare Committee which attacked the city's
proposal.
However, Sargent Shriver balked at this
proposal and asked for a revision of the plan.
He wanted members of community organiza-
tions represented on the board.
On April 7, city officials met with the OEO
staff and agreed to modify their proposal.
They suggested instead an Economic Oppor-
tunity Corporation composed of 11 city offi-
cials and 4 community representatives, The
OEO called this unacceptable.
When the city's proposal went before ADAM
CLAYTON POWELL's House Education and
Labor subcommittee on April 15, it called for
a corporation composed of 11 city officials
and five or six community representatives.
Even then, Representative POWELL chal-
lenged the city's position and said that the
proposed corporation was "monopolistic" and
in violation of the Economic Opportunity
Act, which called for "the maximum feasible
participation of residents of the areas and
members of the groups served."
Congressman POWELL then asked the
Comptroller General to cut off funds for the
city's poverty programs. Meanwhile pres-
sure from community groups, social welfare
agencies and from several Congressmen
representing the city, began to mobilize
against the proposed corporation.
On May 11; Mayor Wagner released plans
for a completely new arrangement for the
city's anti-poverty program. He would cre-
ate two corporations-an Economic Oppor-
tunity Corporation and a Council Against
Poverty.
The Economic Opportunity Corporation
would still consist of the 11 city officials and
six representatives of the community, but
the new Council Against Poverty would have
a 62-man board of directors, composed of 16
city officials, 40 representatives of community
groups and agencies, and six members of the
poor.
Even while the Mayor was releasing his
new proposal, the OEO said that the inclu-
sion of only six members of the indigenous
poor-the target population-was insuffi-
cient and that approval would not be forth-
coming. It called for a new formula which
would have greater representation by the
poor.
Reaction in the community also spelled
doom for the city's plan. Mass meetings
were held in which the poor and members of
the already existing community action agen-
cies challenged the city's move. They called
for a greater voice in the anti-poverty move-
ment.
Finally on May 24 Mayor Wagner issued an
executive order which called for the creation
of a Council Against Poverty composed of
not more than 100 members. The proposal
called for inclusion of 32 members of the
poor-two from each of the 16 designated
pockets of poverty in the city-and 10 mem-
bers of community action organizations.
The city would have only 16 officials on the
Council. The rest would come from social
welfare agencies and community leaders.
This new formula was acceptable to the
OEO only when the Mayor included a prom-
issory letter pledging that. the Council would
include the 32 representatives of the poor
and 10, representatives of community action
groups "within a month-surely no, longer
than 60 days."
NEW YORK CITY IN CRISIS-SHRIVER POLICY
LINKED TO HARYOU-ACT CHARGES
COMMUNITY ACTION GIVES POOR A SAY
(The New York City Council Against
Poverty has promised the Office of Economic
Opportunity that it will enlarge its body
to include 32 representatives of the poor,
and 10 persons from community-action
groups, to comply with the law that states
the poor shall have "maximum feasible par-
ticipation." The following report deals
with the problems facing the city in pro-
ducing these 32 representatives from the 16
communities designated as target areas in
New York's antipoverty campaign.)
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 18580
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE August 3, 1965
(By Marshall Peck)
There were some 200 persons In the audi-
torium at PS 11 on 21st Street, Thursday
night, well-dressed and attentive, men and
women, young adults, churchmen, a few
nuns in a row, gathered for a community
meeting. They were told that this was
where a der ocratic program starts.
"What we are doingtonight is the anti-
poverty program Itself," said the "Reverend
John H. Wilson, chairman of the evening.
"This meeting makes up and actually
constitutes the program. For this program
involves getting the people together and
hearing their thoughts and suggestions, and
planning things out."
As Father Wilson finished, a woman trans-
lated his remarks into Spanish.
Discussion
Then Father Wilson moved the microphone
down to the auditorium floor and opened
the discussion on proposals presented in
mimeographed leaflets. They were how the
directors of the local antipoverty board
would be chosen, and what would be its
composition.
The meeting started at 8 p.m. What fol-
lowed in the next 3 hours--calculated de-
bate, heated exchanges, charges of divisive
language, pleas for unity action-may well
typify the hundreds of meetings that will
be held across this city.
For here, in Chelsea, at the grassroots,
people-with considered judgment by some,
snap viewpoints by others, with poise, bra-
vado, shyness-were articulating the views
and demands of the poor.
Objective
The objective of the meeting in Public
School 11 was the formulation at community
level of a structure representative of the
poor, Which would help coordinate anti-
poverty programs, and help select representa-
tives to sit on the City's Council Against
Poverty. Dozens of similar groups are gear-
ing up the same way. The Chelsea meeting
conveyed some of the impact of the pro-
gram so far on the people it is intended to
serve. -
First, despite distribution of 15,000 leaflets
(some allegedly delivered the day of the
meeting), it was a sparse audience, with par-
tictilarly little representation from middle or
higher income families. Two hundred people
were deciding on matters that would have
some bearing on 60,000 neighbors. (When
this was noted there were cheers, "That's
fine, fine.")
Second, it quickly became apparent that
the voice of the poor intends to be heard,
loudly, in pursuit of just demands as laid
down in the Economic Opportunity Act.
Longtime Chelsea residents who argued
that they were entitled to share direction
because they had once felt poverty were
waved aside. A few suggestions of modera-
tion, presented by some who had in fact
arranged for this public discussion, were
quickly talked down.
Third, out of all came the evidence that,
with responsible assistance, a community
can organize such a meeting get lower income
people to attend, and the poor can, indeed,
speak effectively for themselves.
There are still uncertainties about the
Chelsea program, but the result of this meet-
ing Thursday night, were decisions to allow
the entire community to vote for two slates,
one of the poor and the other a general list,
and that two-thirds of the 10-man board
membership should be "of the Door."
A rough rule of thumb was laid down
that the limits for qualifying as poor are
$3,000 annual income for a single person,
$4,000 for a couple, with $500 for each de-
pendent. A man got up and said that
"everyone is poor today," and asked if any-
one present considered himself otherwise.
One, a lawyer and member of the planning
committee, raised his hand:
The Chelsea meeting showed a long road
ahead as the city attempts to broaden its
base of "representation of the poor" on the
New York City Council Against Poverty."
For instance, Chelsea is only one of four
neighborhoods in the West Side poverty tar-
get area (along with Greenwich Village,
Clinton, Lincoln Square). But somehow
this entire West Side must elect two repre-
sentatives to the council against poverty.
Throughout the other 15 target areas there
are similar problems, and in some cases
tougher ones of rivalries between "umbrella"
councils and smaller action teams, between
older social agencies and upstart activist
programs.
There is antagonism by some at the use
of Spanish ("You're in America now, speak
English," said a woman. "I admire Puerto
Ricans who try to speak English. I don't
care about your grammar * * ?") . And
there is uneasiness among Puerto Ricans
that, as Miss Antonio Pantoja, executive
director of Aspira, said, they "won't even
come out second best, because the Puerto
Ricans are citywide in scope, with no major-
ity in any one community." She added:
"The Negro is always in the majority."
Centers
There are factions within factions, and the
court had to step in to decide who was the
legitimate leadership of QUEST (Queens
United Educational and Social Teams, Inc.).
There is much uncertainty at the grassroots.
Said the Reverend George Hardy, president of
SEBU (Southeast Bronx United). "The city
doesn't want to tell us how to do it [elect
two representatives], and the community
doesn't know how to do it. This is a gi-
gantic-task. It won't get off the ground by
September."
The city has planned to administer to
some areas through so-called community
progress centers, which are to be set up in
the South Bronx, Williamsburg, Brownsville,
West Side, East Harlem, and South Jamaica,
but these are viewed with disfavor by some.
A professional social worker, George Silcott,
executive director of Forest Neighborhood
House in the Bronx, said: "A CPC will be
superimposed on the community, and the
community should be doing the job."
The Office of Economic opportunity has
accepted the New York Council's finding ap-
plication on condition that the council ful-
fill its pledge to enlarge its body with 32
representatives of the poor and 10 persons
from community action programs. That
means one each from Southeast Bronx
United, Queens Unlimited Educational and
Social Teams, Lower West Side Anti-Poverty
Board, Bedford Stuyvesant Youth-in-Action,
Puerto Rican Forum, Puerto Rican Commu-
nity Development Project, South Bronx
Neighborhood Orientation Project, Massive
Economic Neighborhood Development
(MEND), Mobilization for Youth, and Har-
lem Youth Unlimited-Associated Community
Teams (Haryou-ACT).
Dr. Arthur C. Logan, chairman of the Coun-
cil Against Poverty, said that he hoped to
have the 10 new members "within a few
weeks," and the 32 additional representatives
"within a very few months."
The Office of Economic Opportunity
pointedly hoped that the council, as the chief
structure that will administer New York's
antipoverty program, could comply with the
law "within a month-surely no longer than
60 days." There have been two recent public
rallies by community groups, full of hard
talk against city hall's recalcitrance, and
an OEO spokesman noted that action was
needed to head off possible "long, hot sum-
mer" demonstrations.
The city has laid down guidelines for the
elections of "representatives of the poor" in
a procedures manual put out by the Anti
Poverty Operations Board. But the city
wishes, quite properly, to give full rein to
the communities In the final choice of its
delegates.
So confusion, lack of information, antag-
onism, have seriously hamstrung the seat-
ing of "the poor" on the council. In effect,
the program is going on, and the people
who are supposed to be having a say, aren't.
They know it, and they're mad.
FULL DISCLOSURE Or BOOKS DEMANDED
(By Barry Gottehrer and Alfonzo Narvaez)
WASHINGTON :--Sargent Shriver, head of the
Office of Economic Opportunity, announced
yesterday that all agencies, both public and
private, receiving Federal antipoverty funds
must respond fully to all reasonable requests
for information concerning programs and fi-
nances.
If these agencies, after being funded by
OEO antipoverty grants, it was learned that
Mr. Shriver said his office would make this
information available under his agency's full-
disclosure policy.
Though a spokesman maintained that the
full-disclosure clause was standard in all
OEO antipoverty grants, it was learned that
this statement of policy was attached-along
with other special conditions-to New York's
$9.1 million grant because of the continuing
refusal of Livingston Wingate, executive di-
rector of Haryou ACT, the controversial Har-
lem antipoverty program, to open his books.
During the last 3 months, Mr. Wingate, a
former aidto Representative ADAM CLAYTON
PowELL, has been under attack both from
within and without his organization for his
administration of the multimillion-dollar
project.
Charges--coming from some staff members
and directors, former employees and residents
of the troubled area the program has been
created to help'-have included political con-
trol, padded payrolls, slipshod recordkeep-
ing, shortages in inventory, little progress
and mismanagement.
Mr. Wingate has denied these charges orally
but, despite pressure from both city and
Federal officials, has refused to provide fi-
nancial records sufficient to refute them.
In announcing the grant, OEO officials
made it clear yesterday that approval of the
request, which included $1.2 million for
Haryou-ACT, was not to be taken either as
refuting or substantiating these charges. I
Mr. Shriver maintained that a series of
conditions-established to fit local situa-
tions-must be met before Haryou-ACT and
any of the other New York projects would
receive these funds.
Included in these conditions-which must
be met within 60 days--are full reports on
personnel and accounting methods and, for
the first time, a provision that would bar
members of a project's nonsalaried board of
directors from receiving consulting fees for
services related to the projects' programs.
On May 10. In its first report of trouble
at Haryou-ACT, the Herald Tribune's New
York City in Crisis series pointed out that
several members of the Haryou-ACT board
were receiving consulting fees from Haryou-
ACT.and ACT, its sister project.
OEO, which with two other Federal agen-
cies conducted a survey audit of Haryou-
ACT's books last month, said it was waiting
for the results of a depth audit of the pro-
gram by Price Waterhouse, a major account-
ing firm brought in by the Haryou-ACT
board.
The results of this audit are expected by
the end of the month at which time OEO
will give Haryou-ACT 60 to 90 days to put the
firm's recommendations into effect.
"We're pretty hard nosed about this," said
William Kelly, OED's assistant director for
management. "If there's something wrong-
and Its not taken care of-and I don't care
if It's Haryou-ACT or Boeing Aircraft, we'll
do something about it."
Many of the charges began in June 1964,
when Dr. Kenneth Clark, the "father" of the
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04 :.CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
August 3, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX
considers Its programs unwise or too expen- A FooL's PARADISE
sive. There is still a lot of truth in the homely
Speaking In Odessa recently, FISHER old adage that the Lord helps him who helps
warned against .the financial plight of the himself.
Federal Government * * * brought about And it is beginning to look like neither
by tremendous spending program for those the Lord nor Uncle Sam can do very much
things we do not need. with those who are not inclined to help
That is the big problem in America today, themselves.
and every citizen should ponder the impli- That is being evidenced in some of the
cations of continued spending for things the trial and tribulations being encountered in
Nation does not need and cannot afford. the antipoverty program.
Americans surely must realize they must pay We recall reading a recent piece on a situa-
for these Federal, programs. There still is no tion in Detroit that serves as an example.
such thing as a free lunch. Someone, some- There officials have been trying to set up a
time must pay for it. Yet, there are those- youth employment project and a neighbor-
a11 too many persons and organizations-who hood youth corps.
continually clamor for something free from Officials of both groups reportedly can-
Washington. vassed the streets trying to interest dropouts
Congressman FISHER said such citizens in the programs after the potential candi-
"must reckon with the mounting public debt dates failed to make appearances on their
and the inflationary pressures that are being own. Despite the official effort the canvass
built up," resulted in finding only 30 candidates for a
He further stressed the fact there is no project geared to 70 youths by the youth
"meaningful plan" to balance the mounting employment project. The neighborhood
public debt in the foreseeable future. youth corps was somewhat more successful
.Ile said economists warn that deficits ac- yet could line up only 800 out of a hoped-
Count for inflation-"a disguised tax that for 1,500.
reduces the purchasing power over every- YEP proposed to pay $1.25 an hour for a
body's money." summer training program aimed at putting
Inflation IS. & frightening, consuming con- youths in better-paying full-time jobs after
dition which can bring America to its knees a training period of 15 weeks. Yet, one offi-
as surely and as effectively as any enemy cial quoted a youth he interviewed as saying
from without. 4mericans must wake up to ,You are crazy man, I do not work for that
its dangers before it is too late. kind of money."
Yet, right now, Congress is going all out in The startled official reportedly observed
approving this and that spending program- "these kids are living in a fool's paradise,"
all leading to increased public indebtedness And that could be. However, it could also
and inflation. be that an end to Government-fostered
A pericans,should consider, too, that with "something for nothing" philosophy might
a critical situation existing in Vietnam, costs help bring them and, perhaps their elders,
of stepping up the war effort quite naturally back to the world of reality. Some people
will mount rapidly. The extent of war are becoming uncomfortably accustomed to
spending, of course, will. be-tremendous. getting things the easy way.
i
i
w
S.
s someth
ng
hich cannot be deter-
ntined, for sure at this time.. But the powers
that. be in Washington, backed up by Amer-
icans generally, can and should make pro-
visions for it by cutting back on unnecessary
spending.
Among the nonessential programs men-
tioned, by the San Angelo Congressman are
housing, Federal aid to education, war on
poverty, and medicare.
Politics enters into the picture in all too
many instances in these and other,adminis-
tratlon projects. And this is no time for
politics.
Congressman FISHER and others like him
in Congress need all the help they can get
from citizens throughout the land in fighting
courageously and tirelessly to keep America
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI
of ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 3, 1965
Mr. DZRWINSKI. Mr, Speaker, the
bureaucratic Xness that is_ obvious in the
,so-calied,,,war. on poverty has been so
great that it is thus described by all ob-
o
now. While
jective observers, The Harvey Tribune, we will not falter in our commitment to
an outstanding suburban, publication in freedom, we will always work toward
south Cook County, Ill., comments in a securing peace,
very time' ly and precise fashion on The editorial follows:
phases of the program in its Thursday, ON THE LINE
July 29, edition, and I. include' the edi- President Johnson chose.the hardworking
torial.in the REcQRI1 With my remarks: atmosphere o; a press conference-free from
A4271
bombast-for one of his most important pro-
nouncements on Vietnam. It was a good
choice, for what the President had to say was
serious and calmly purposeful.
The situation has made it necessary, he
said, to more than double draft calls from
17,000 to 35,000 a month.
It has become necessary to immediately
increase U.S. military strength in Vietnam
from 75,000 to 125,000 with more forces to
be sent later.
It has become necessary to seek more
money, amount unspecified, but in the long
run undoubtedly a lot.
It has become necessary to gird for what
may be a long war-and the President did
not hesitate to call it a war even though there
are no battle lines, no clash of armies.
Why are we sending our young men to
this lush edge of a peninsula thousands of
miles away?
Because we cannot dishonor a pledge to
protect freedom that three Presidents have
underwritten. Because "if we are driven
from . Vietnam, no nation can ever again
have confidence in our promise or protec-
tion." Because "an Asia threatened by
Communist domination would imperil the
security of the United States Itself."
But, the President said, our purpose to
stay is no stronger than our purpose to seek
an honorable peace. He listed 15 efforts to
bring about discussions, all of which the
Communists ignored. We are willing to
listen to Hanoi's terms provided Hanoi will
listen to ours. We are willing that Vietcong
guerrillas be represented by Hanoi at a bar-
gaining table.
Finally-and this could be his ace card-
the President directed our new U.N. Am-
bassador Arthur J. Goldberg, as his first act,
to present to Secretary General Thant a Pres-
idential letter requesting "all the resources"
energy, and immense prestige of the United
Nations be employed to bring peace."
So there it Is, for all the world to study and
for the Communists to ponder.
Amistad Dam
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. 0. C. FISHER
OF TEXAS
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 3, 1965
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, on Sat-
urday, July 31, 1965, ceremonies were
held in Del Rio, Tex., which Is in my con-
gressional district, commemorating the
first pouring of concrete in the Amistad
Dam. The primary function of the
Amistad Dam will be flood control and
the United States share of the costs-
56.2 percent-will total approximately
$78 million. Construction will require
the acquisition of nearly 61,000 acres of
lands in the United States, the relocation
of 14.3 miles of Southern Pacific rail-
road track, 19 miles of U.S. Highways
90 and 277, two electric transmission sys-
tems, and two telephone lines. These
acquisitions and relocations are now
almost complete. The construction of
the dam itself is, today, 19 percent
complete and on schedule. It will
be about 61/2 miles long and its top
will extend 254 feet above the riverbed,
creating a reservoir for 5,660,000 acre-
feet of water. The dam is scheduled for
completion in December 1968,
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001=8
a.therLine 1
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. ABRAHAM J.
OF NEW YORK
MULTER
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 3, 1965
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I com-
mend to the attention of our colleagues
the following editorial from the July 29,
1965, edition of the New York Journal-
American, The President made it clear
that we intend to honor our pledge to
protect freedom in Vietnam. Equally
clear is. our determination to seek an
honorablepeace.. The President listed
15-efforts' on the part of the United
States to bring about discussions, all of
which have been ignored by the Commu-
nists. He has directed Arthur J. Gold-
berg, our' new Ambassador to the U.N., to
present a letter to Secretary General U
Thant requesting that "all the resources,
energy, and immense prestige of the
United Nations be employed to bring
peace."
The President has stated our purposes
in Vietnam for the world t
k
 Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -APPENDIX August 3, 1965
The joint construction of this dam is awaits only the decision of men to bury their Supersonic Transport Program
being carried out under an agreement grievances and recognize that their peoples
with Mexico, approved by the Congress are the losers so long as destructive political EXTENSION OF REMARKS
motives are permitted to outweigh human
On July 7, 1960-Public Law 86-605. .considerations. OF
Before congressional approval was ob- Water has ever played a mayor role in the
tained for this undertaking extensive affairs of mankind. People must have fresh HON. SAMUEL L. DEVINE
hearings were held in the House by the water to drink and water with which to grow or oxro
Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs their food. Where water is plentiful, com- IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. munities flourish. Where water is scant, vast
The subcommittee chairman was my regions lie barren and inhospitable. No won- Tuesday, August 3, 1965
der men have fought ferociously to assure
very good friend, the Honorable ARMI- their domains an adequate water supply. Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Speaker, in con-
sTEAD I. SELDON, JR., of Alabama. The . Yet water-so essential to life--can also nection with material I have placed in the
citizens of both the United States and be a powerful enemy. Throughout history, RECORD during the past 2 months, 1.
Mexico' who attended these ceremonies torrential floods have overflowed riverbanks, would like to now invite your attention
were honored and pleased to have that inundating crops and sweeping away live- to an editorial entitled "Flogging With
able and distinguished Member of the stock, houses, and human life. But how- Feathers" by Robert B. Hotz.
Douse make the principal address at this ever treacherous a river might be, where it is Mr. Hotz is presently editor of Avia-
historic event. vital to existence men simply bury their tion Week, and has a rich background in
dead, lament their lost crops and animals,
Mr. Speaker, the history of the efforts and then set about to rebuild and replant aviation matters, not only as a former
of the local citizens on both the Ameri- the same hazardous area. major in the U.S. Air Force, but also as
can and Mexican sides of the Rio Grande In this region you know well both the a newspaperman and author-
truly reflect the very spirit of interna- blessing and the curse a great river can bring. Since the British-French Concord
tional cooperation and compromise. The You have seen parched land turn fertile and program appears to be in serious difii-
joint engineering and other studies car- productive with sufficient water for irriga- culty, coupled with the SST program
ried out by the various agencies of both tion. And you have experienced tragic underway in the United States, I com-
the American and the Mexican Govern- floods. The memory of the 1954 disaster mend the following editorial to the at-
must still be sharp in your minds. That
ments, which preceded the congressional year the Rio Grande lived up to its Spanish tention of the Members of Congress:
approval, and the continuing collabora- name-Rio Bravo, or fierce river. FLOGGING WITH FEATHERS
tion during the present construction, is Thanks to modern engineering develop- (By Robert Hotz)
indicative of the achievements that are ments, men no longer need to be helpless The U.S. supersonic transport development
possible when nations can negotiate and victims of rampaging water. And thanks to program is being flogged to death with feath-
the determination and good will on both
work within the framework of friendli- Rio Grande, Mexico and the err. This is the meaning of President John
e
Hess and good will, sides of the son's announcement last week that airframe
United States are working together to use firms will spend another 18 months in design
I believe that the remarks of our col- those modern techniques for the benefit of studies while engine builders will develop
league, the Honorable ARMISTEAD I. their people. The ceremony in which we test stand demonstrator engines. Since
BELDEN, JR., bring into focus the advan- have participated today marks the cere- President Johnson said that he was following
tages derived by nations working to- monial beginning of a major step toward the recommendations of the special com-
gether and I commend them to the taming the once indomitable Rio Grande. mittee headed by Defense Secretary Robert
House: As designed, the new Amistad Dam will S. McNamara, we can only conclude that this
THE AMISTAD DAM alleviate the recurrent floods along the 250- represents another example of the Secretary's
mile stretch from the dam site to Falcon by now well-defined propensity for postpon-
(Remarks of Representative ARMISTEAD Reservoir, affording increased protection to ing hard decisions under the guise of further
SELDEN, July 31, 1965) over 200,000 people who reside in Del Rio, study. it is a policy that will waste money
I am extremely pleased that I could accept Eagle Pass, and Laredo in the United States in the critical development phase and may
the cordial invitation to join with you today and In Ciudad Acuna, Piedras Negras, and easily lose the production jackpot to inter-
on this truly memorable occasion. Nuevo Laredo in Mexico, as well as to the national competitors.
in this strife-torn world, borders bristle irrigation developments aggregating over The Johnson-McNamara decision really
with armament. The Berlin wall and the 90,000 acres on the two sides of the river. It means that the critical decision to proceed
Iron Curtain sever people with barriers of has been estimated that the safeguards af- with building one or more supersonic trans-
hatred and suspicion. Egyptian troops fight forded by the dam will save over a million port prototypes has been postponed another
in Yemen, Indonesian troops in Malaysia, dollars annually in flood damage to property. 18 months. It would be difficult indeed to
mercenaries In the Congo. Yet we meet here But none can put a peso or dollar value on find any of the industry's engineers or man-
tsday, not to destroy, but to build; not to the protection the new dam will provide agers associated with this program who be
erect fortifications, but to ifiaugurate the from the loss of life and human suffering. lieve this additional 18 months of paper-
construction of a peaceful enterprise des- i am deeply pleased to have played some work design studies is really necessary. The
tined to advance the welfare of people on two role In this great achievement in interna- current plan will not come to grips with any
sides of an International frontier. tional cooperation. It was my privilege to of the major unsolved technical problems
Mexicans and Americans can be justly introduce legislation in the House of Repre- of supersonic transport development and will
proud. Throughout history two questions sentatives and to serve as floor manager for only pour another $220 million down the
have persistently troubled relations between the bill which authorized U.S. participation drain in a wasteful holding operation.
neighboring states--territorial disputes and in construction of the dam. In that ca- There Is no question that there are many
questions of water rights. We have had our pacity, and as chairman of the Subcommit- unsolved technical problems along the de-
share of problems. With a 1,500-mile bound- tee on Inter-American Affairs of the House velopment path of an operationally success-
ary, this is probably Inevitable. But for sev- Foreign Affairs Committee, I have had ample ful supersonic transport. But the solutions
eral-decades now, our record on both these opportunity to observe the constant, cordial, to these problems can be found only in the
potentially explosive issues has been excep- and constructive cooperation in which the air by flying prototypes. They no longer can
tional. Mexican and United States Governments en- be solved effectively on the drawing board
The recent ChamizaI agreement presents gage. I realize that the commendable collab- and slide rule or in the wind tunnel and on
a heartening example of the determination oration at official levels Is made possible, in the test stand. These useful tools have
to seek peaceful and just solutions to thorny large measure, because those of you who live served their purpose in the early develop-
territorial disputes. In the field of water along the border-Mexican and American- ment phase. But further reliance on them
distribution and conservation, Mexico and set the example and the environment in without the hard experience of flying ex-
the United States have demonstrated the which friendly relations can be conducted. perimental prototypes is a waste of time,
superb results of negotiations conducted in The name "Amistad"-friendship-for the money and technical talent.
the spirit of mutual respect and considera- new dam is well chosen. . Funding two engine contractors, General
tion. We have only to recall the bitter dis- We all can take pride in the record and be Electric Co. and Pratt & Whitney Aircraft,
pute raging between Israel and the Arab grateful for the beneficial results in accruing with $50 million apiece to produce demon-
States over Jordan River waters to realize to both sides of the border. Let us hope strator engines of their divergent design ap-
how productive our own efforts have been. that the Amistad Dam will be but another proaches, conveys a false sense of progress.
In the Middle East, where fertile land is link In a growing chain of cooperative ven- We think both contractors would agree that
scarce, the Jordan, if properly utilized, could tures by means of which Mexicans and the critical problems of the supersonic trans-
make deserts bloom. Modern technology Americans alike will grow and prosper. port engine will not begin to appear until
Approved For Release 2003/11/04: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300190001-8