HARVARD VERSUS OXFORD DEBATE ON VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 21, 2005
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: January 14, 1966
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
trends, as well as to search scientifically for
the causes of productivity growth.
We need better estimates of the Nation's
wealth. If we are to aim economic policy
vo that demand grows in line with potential
supply, we need better estimates of the
growth of that supply. And we will need to
know how much capital is needed to aug-
ment capacity in different lines. The Joint
Economic Committee, which has done so
much to promote better statistics for this
country through its Subcommittee on Eco-
nomic Statistics, published an important re-
port last year on this problem. We need to
improve our price information. The United
States has much the most comprehensive
set of price measures of any country in the
world. But our measures are not sufficiently
sensitive, probably overstate price increases
by inadequate allowance for quality improve-
ment, and do not adequately reflect actual
transaction prices or other aspects of total
cost such as the period of delivery, freight
absorption, etc. The report of the Stigler
committee provides some important insights
and suggestions.
We must continue to strengthen our un-
employment statistics, and supplement them
with figures on job vacancies. We need bet-
ter information on compensation per man-
hour. With fringe benefits becoming an
ever-larger share of total worker compensa-
tion, we should have regular, periodic infor-
mation on fringes along with straight wages.
Further, a larger part of the labor force con-
sists of nonproduction workers, and is en-
gaged in the tertiary industries. We need
more thorough coverage for these types of
workers and these sectors.
Finally, our statistical efforts must more
fully serve this country's increased concern
with its balance of payments.
We need to do a lot more work on indexes
of export prices, both for ourselves and for
our major competitors.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The Federal Statistics Users' Conference
has been a source of great strength to the
Federal statistical program. I have outlined
to you tonight some of the changing needs
for our Information base for continued pros-
perity. We shall look to you in the future
as we have in the past for advice and guid-
ance and for support in keeping our pro-
grams up to the needs of the times. We are
blessed that the challenges before us are
the challenges of prosperity and not of de-
pression. Speaking for those of us in the
Government, let me express our gratitude for
the support you have given us in the past
and for the continued support I know you
will give us in the future.
Thank you.
WISCONSIN'S DICK CUDAHY SHOWS
HOW INITIATIVE STILL PAYS OFF
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
think we all would agree that loyalty,
hard work, and initiative should be rec-
ognized. That is what I want to do to-
day in a brief comment on a young man
who restored to fiscal soundness an old
and famous family firm.
The man is Richard D. Cudahy, a
grandson of the founder of Patrick Cud-
ahy, Inc., of Milwaukee.
Richard Cudahy chose a career out-
side the family business after World War
II when he entered Yale University Law
School, graduated, and began the prac-
tice of law in Chicago.
But by 1961, his grandfather was de-
ceased and his father, Michael Cudahy,
was ill.
Without hesitation, Richard Cudahy
picked up the reins of leadership. With
the cooperation of the United Packing-
house Workers, he initiated modern, ef-
ficient, and productive meatpacking
practices. The success of his policies be-
came evident by the next year.
His continued success is truly a tribute
to those virtues of enterprise, imagina-
tion, and thrift which we hear too little
of today.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD an article of this
high example from Meat Processing
magazine.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, YOUTIIFUL LEADER OF
PATRICK CUDAHY, INC., SWITCHES PROFES-
SIONS To GUIDE 77-YEAR-OLD WIscoNstN
PACKING FIRM
Five years ago Patrick Cudahy, Inc., was
faced with a situation that has confronted
many packers at one time or another. Ris-
ing labor costs, outdated production meth-
ods, and unprofitable operations posed seri-
in the Milwaukee suburb that bears his name,
things had never been quite so desperate.
Today, however, the 77-year-old firm is
experiencing a relative prosperity that is sur-
prising the industry.
.Much of the credit for this turnabout
can be traced to a new management team
headed by the company's president, Richard
D. Cudahy.
WEST POINT GRAD
Although a grandson of the founder,
Richard Cudahy had severed direct relations
with company operations early in life to pur-
sue other career interests. In 1944 Cudahy
joined the U.S. Army Air Force but shortly
thereafter received an appointment to the
U.S. Military Academy. After graduation
from West Point, he served 4 years with the
Air Force. Upon leaving the service in 1952,
he attended the Yale University Law School
where he received his LL. B. degree in 1955.
With this background, Cudahy spent sev-
eral years in Government legal posts but in
1957 the Midwest beckoned and Cudahy
joined a prominent Chicago law firm.
In 1961, Patrick Cudahy's plight came to
a head. Michael Cudahy, president of the
firm since the death of his father, was ill and
unable to maintain effective company leader-
ship. He summoned his son to take the
helm-and that Richard Cudahy did.
UNION 'HARMONY
Cudahy explains that he rejoined the firm
partly to carry on the family tradition as
well as for the opportunity the new post pre-
sented. "Meat packing is a fascinating busi-
ness," he says. "Certain managerial policies
were not working out in the late fifties, but I
felt that a new approach could help resolve
the problems." Cudahy thus had the chance
to exercise his own ideas in regard to labor
relations, personnel, and marketing. "This
approach," says Cudahy, "is by no means
original-but our plans call for continued
development and emphasis of our more dis-
tinctive and distinguishable products as op-
posed to our commodity products."
Cudahy became president in January of
1961. Through his efforts and with the co-
operation of Local 40 of the United Packing-
house Workers, wage scales were realined
and a long-range modernization of produc-
tion practices was initiated. The first bene-
ficial effects of these policies were evident by
the end of 1962-and from then on the bene-
fits have been snowballing.
Cudahy retains an etive interest in the
legal aspects of burin ss. Associates reveal
that when legal problems arise, it is alto-
gether too easy to take them to Cudhay for
solution-and if an answer is not readily
apparent, he will research the problem until
one can be found. In fact, Cudahy spends
some of his leisure time as a lecturer in
law at Marquette University Law School.
ACTIVE DEMOCRAT
In line with this legal background, he has
been admitted to practice in three States and
the District of Columbia and is a member of
the American, Wisconsin, Chicago, and Mil-
waukee Bar Associations.
Cudahy is also on the Milwaukee Board
of Harbor Commissioners and active in af-
fairs of the Cudahy Marine Bank, the Wis-
consin Regional Export Expansion Council,
and a State subcommittee on education. He
is president of the Milwaukee Urban League
and has been active in Democratic political
circles including membership in the Wis-
consin delegation to the last Democratic Na-
tional Convention.
Still a young man at 39, Cudahy's prospects
for the future are bright. Meanwhile, he
is gaining valuable experience guiding Pat-
rick Cudahy, Inc., on a new course.
ON VIETNAM
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, one
of the finest examples in recent years of
debate in a free society took place less
than a month ago. It was, in fact, an
international debate between a trio at
Harvard University and their opposite
numbers in London. It was televised by
CBS via satellite.
Laurence Tribe, one of the Harvard
students, states the U.S. goal most elo-
quently when he said:
The United States has no ambitions in
South Vietnam. We have no interest in
creating an outpost of American democracy
there. Our purpose is not to impose a par-
ticular government on South Vietnam. Our
purpose is only to give them a chance to
choose.
The distinguished professor, Henry
Kissinger, also contributed an eloquent
summation when he said:
I would like to emphasize that our goal is
and should be freedom for the people of all
of Vietnam to determine the future of their
country. As Americans, we would far prefer
to engage in tasks of construction. We would
far prefer to do what President Kennedy said
in his inaugural address, that to those people
in the huts and villages of half the globe, we
pledge our best efforts to help themselves.
But we do not have the choice between de-
fense and construction. Unless we can do
both, we will not be able to do either.
I would like to emphasize that our con-
tinued efforts should be devoted to the
goals so well stated by these two articu-
late and outstanding Americans.
Because television debates, despite
their immense immediate impact, are
perishable, I ask unanimous consent to
have the text of that debate printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
[From "CBS Reports," as broadcast over the
CBS television network, Dec. 21, 19651
TOWN MEETING OF THE WORLD
(With CBS News Correspondent Charles
Collingwood. Executive producer, Don
Hewitt)
Mr. CoLLINGwooD. Good evening. As part
of our continuing special coverage of the
war in Vietnam, this CBS News broadcast,
"Town Meeting of the World," has arranged
a transatlantic debate on the subject: "Re-
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE January 14, 1966
solved that the United States should carry
out its commitment in Vietnam." The two
debating teams, one in England and the
other in the L nited States, are linked together
via Early Bird satellite. They :: ce each other.
On this side of the Atlantic, two Harvard
students and a distinguished Harvard pro-
fessor; on the other side, two Oxford stu-
dents and a, famous Oxford graduate. At
this time, I think I ought to introduce them
to each other. First, on the subject, the
debating side taking the affirmative ride of
this resolution, the team arguing that the
United States should carry out its commit-
ment, this its Robert Shrum, a student at
Harvard Law School. Mr. Shrum was picked
this year as the top debater at the National
Intercollegiate Debate Tournament.
Next, Prof. Henry A. Kissinger, of Har-
vard. Professor Kissinger is a leading scholar
and theoretician on defense and foreign
policy In the nuclear age. He's been an
adviser to the U.S. Government under four
Presidents and has recently returned from
Vietnam.
Mr. Laurence Tribe is, like Mr. Shrum, at
Harvard Law School. He's also a notable
college debater. his team having won the
national championship in 1961.
Now, Messrs. Shrum, Kissinger, and Tribe,
I'd like you to meet your opponents in Eng-
land. Mr. Tariq All, of Lahore, Pakistan.
A former president of the Union at Oxford,
lie's been quoted as predicting that he'll be
president of Pakistan in 10 years. In the
meantime, he's standing as candidate for
Parliament in the radical alliance interest
against British Foreign Secretary Michael
Stewart. Mr. Michael Foot, who is presently
a Member of Parliament and is generally re-
garded as the ablest and most articualte
spokesman for the Labor Party's left. Mr.
Foot has also had a brilliant career outside
of Parliament as an author and journalist.
Mr. Stephen Marks, a former chairman of
the Oxford Labor Club, has been called the
most formicti.ble debater at Oxford.
Now, gentlemen, let me give you the
ground rules of this debate of ours. We're
going to start with 1141-minute arguments
from the students on each team. You may
find that a little constricting, but there'll be
time later. They'll be followed by 21/2 min-
sites by senior members, Professor Kissinger
and Mr. Foot; and when your time is up, I'll
ring a bell, like that, carried across the At-
lantic via Early Bird. Now, after the open-
ing statements, we'll open things up for a
give-and-take discussion among the two
teams and later we'll invite the audiences
In London and New York to give questions to
you, and incidentally, I think I'd better in?-
troduce the audiences. In London, students
from Oxford, members of the Oxford Union.
We're making no pretense, of course, that
everyone at Oxford agrees with the view
taken by the Oxford debaters; nor for that
matter, that tie American college students
from the various schools in the New York
area here all agree with the views taken by
the Harvard debaters.
Now, after all that ado, but with no fur-
ther, let's begin with the first American
spokesman for the affirmative, Mr. Larry
Tribe. One and a half minutes, Mr. Tribe.
Mr. Tama. Ladies and gentlemen, Asians
and Americans are dying tonight in order
to preserve a world in which each nation
can shape W, own future. Peace was pre-
served in Cuba and Berlin because no one
doubted that we would carry out our pledge
not to back down.. We have made that
pledge in Vietnam. Nowhere have we ,said
more clearly, "We will stand." If we aban-
don that commitment, imagine a future con-
frontation and ask yourself, who would be-
lieve us then?
Vietnam was one country before it was
divided; so was Korea, so was Germany.
The issues are the same in Vietnam. There
can be no peace when international lines of
demarcation are challenged by military
force, when the pen that draws those lines
is challenged by the sword. Nor can there
be peace so long as unrest and social revo-
lution remains the prey of hostile powers,
the focal point of global confrontation. We
seek no military victory in Vietnam. We
will withdraw when North Vietnam ceases
Its support and guidance of the South, ceases
its support of the war. That will come
about when Hanoi is convinced of our resolve.
To retreat before she is convinced would
tempt aggressors everywhere.
Mr. CoLL*_ricwoon. Thank you, Mr. Tribe.
Now, for the negative. Mr. Tariq All, of
Oxford.
Mr. ALT. I would like to pick up where Mr.
Tribe left off on the subject of neg,tiations.
The Hanoi regime, before the Unit: ,d States
started bombing North Vietnam and in-
creasing its buildup of troops, told the Sec-
retary General of the United Nations that
it was prepared to negotiate. This offer W.I.
not made clear to the American per-plc, with
the results that we have the situr Lion-we
have the situation as it is today. And this
Is basically the point, that you can't expect
people to negotiate when you are bombing
their cities, when you are destroy'ng their
villages. I think it is unfortunate, and I
hope members-I hope members across the
Atlantic forgive this callous remark that the
United States and member citizei a of the
United States don't really know what bomb-
ing is. If they did, no decent U.P. citizen
could support it. An American pilot told
(a reporter) of the New York Times, "I don't
like to hit a village. You know you're hit-
ting women and children too, but you've got
to decide that your cause is noble and that
the work has to be done." This ituation,
as this statement, saddens me, as it should
sadden every human being, as it should sad-
den Professor Kissinger, who just returned
from South Vietnam and said that tie was
very worried that the South Vietnamese
Government did not enjoy the sipport of
the people; and that is why you cannot
equate Germany and South Korea with Viet-
nam, because the majority of the people in
South. Vietnam supports the Vietcong.
Mr. COLLINCwoon. Thank you, Mr. Ali.
And now, on the affirmative side of be argu-
ment, another student at Harvard, Mr. Rob-
ert Shrum.
Mr. SrrauM. Perhaps no nation i-i the his-
tory of warfare has ever known the horrors
of bombing better than the United Kingdom,
and yet the United Kingdom knew that in
World War II, bombing was necessary to meet
the Nazi threat, and if bombing is necessary
in Vietnam to meet the Communist threat,
then unpleasant as that course may be, it is
the only real one that the United :htates can
pursue. Why are we pursuing that. course?
Not because we seek a military victory, not
because we seek an economic advantage, but
because we seek to see to it that the people
of South Vietnam are not forced to choose
their way of life at the point of a gun.
Rather we seek for them a free election un-
der International auspices in wdiich they
can decide under what form of government
they want to live. The form of negotiations
proposed last year by Hanoi excluded the
South Vietnamese Government. lt.'s totally
antithetical to the American commitment in
Vietnam for we aren't fighting for ourselves.
We're fighting for the principle that people
shall not have to submit their wills to ag-
gression. We're there, fighting for the South
Vietnamese. We surely could no abandon
them at a time when negotiati.urs came
about. Our principal purpose In S iuth Viet-
nam is to repel aggression. When aggres-
sion is repelled, when the North Vietnamese
cease their aggression against South Viet-
nam, then the bombing will no longer be
necessary; then negotiations can take place,
then the people of South Vietnam can de-
cide their own future.
Mr. COLLINOWOOD. Thank you. And new,
on the other side of the issue, once again from
Oxford, Mr. :Marks.
MY. Maaxs. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm
very frightened by those last two speeches,
very frightened indeed, and I'd like to try,
in the short time I've got, to deal with some
of the frightening misconceptions that lie
behind them. First of all, Mr. Shrum's
statements-no, I'll start first with Mr.
Tribe. He talked about America's pledge.
Who was that pledge made to? The pledge
the United States is defending In Vietnam
was made to a government the United States
deliberately installed there in the first place
with the intention of frustrating free elec-
tions as provided for in the Geneva agree-
ment. That's how their government got
there. It represents no one except Ameri-
can dollars. That is all that government is
there for, and the commitment to that sort
of government isn't worth the paper it's
written on.
What other points did he make? Korea
and Germany. Neither Korea nor Germany
have specified for them in international
treaties that they have to be reunited within
a specified time under free elections. Amer-
ica agreed to that pledge In 1954 in Geneva.
She's broken her word. That's why the com-
parison with Korea and Germany doesn't
apply.
What other points were made? Support
and guidance from the North. We're told
when that stops, America has no quarrel
with the South Vietnamese. Then why was
America intervening, giving military help
in contravention of the Geneva agreement to
South Vietnam before they started getting
help from the North. From--sorry--from
the day the Geneva agreement:, were signed,
America was helping the South Vietnamese
Government and there's no reason to think
they will stop because if they did stop that
Government would fall. That's just, the 'be-
ginning.
Mr. CoLLIrrswoon. Thank you, Mr. Marks.
We'll hear from you later, but now we're go-
ing to hear from the two senior members of
each team beginning with Prof. Henry Kiss-
inger from Harvard. Two and a half min-
utes, Mr. Kissinger.
Mr. KISSINGER. Ladies and gentlemen, the
subject we are discussing this evening is
whether the United States should honor its
commitment to Vietnam. Let me first an-
swer the point about to whom this com-
mitment was made. I take it that the com-
mitment is made to the people of South
Vietnam to give them an opportunity to
choose their own future, free of outside in-
terference. We have an obligation as well
to the peoples of other new nations that the
dislocations that are inseparable from the
process of their development not be used by
more powerful or better organized neighbors.
We have a responsibility toward our friends
all over the world that they can rely on our
pledges. And finally we have an obligation
to the peoples of the world to be in the pur-
suit of these obligations-will explore every
avenue toward peace. If we withdraw from
our commitment in Vietnam today, we will
leave countless thousands to a brutal fate.
We will strengthen all those in the Commu-
nist world who argue that war is a means for
settling disputes. In the pursuit of our re-
sponsibilities, we have, of course, always to
be careful that our measures reflect a polit-
ical and moral purpose and not simply the
momentum of past decisions. We arc---_,e
have a responsibility to see to it that politi-
cal and military means reflect the proper
priorities. Of course, the war in Vietnam is
a grim and desperate struggle, but those who
defend the principle of peaceful change will
always; be challenged in difficult situations.
Of course, everyone watching the sacrifice
and the suffering must suffer great anguish,
most of all Americans whose sons are run-
ning-are risking their lives daily. But we
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 211
are not in Vietnam because we want to
stay. We are in Vietnam because we want
to withdraw, and we will do so as soon as
free choice is guaranteed to the people of
South Vietnam.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Kis-
singer. And now, from England, Mr. Michael
Foot.
Mr. FooT. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm still
not clear, despite the statements made by
the three movers of this motion, exactly
what Is the commitment which the United
States claims to be defending in Vietnam.
We are told by Professor Kissinger that the
commitment is made to the Government of
South Vietnam, and, of course, it is true that
the only possible excuse for the Americans
having 170,000 troops or 180,000 troops on the
other side of the world from the United
States itself is that they should be there on
the invitation of a foreign government. Now,
of course, there will be many arguments, no
doubt, in this debate as to who installed the
government in South. Vietnam and whether,
in fact, the United States did not help to in-
stall the Government that has issued the in-
vitation. There would be arguments about
that. There may be arguments, also, as to
whether in fact they are repelling aggression;
but even if Americans sent troops-think
they have the right to send troops to South
Vietnam In response to an invitation from
the South Vietnam Government, and even
if we were to concede that, and even if we
were to concede that the South had
suffered aggression from the North-I con-
cede none of these things; but even if we
were to accept all those parts of the argu-
ments put forward by those who sponsor this
motion, it still remains the fact that the
United States of America would not have the
slightest right whatsoever, under the charter
of the United Nations, in order to repel al-
leged aggression, to bomb indiscriminately a
neighboring country; and if South Viet-
nam were subject to aggression, why did
not the United States of America take this
issue to the Security Council of the United
Nations? Why did they not attempt to se-
cure-why did they not attempt to secure
the backing of other countries there? Why
did they not go and put their case? Why did
they not go and present their evidence to the
other nations, or does the United States of
America think that it has the right to decide
these things for themselves on the other
side of the world? Well, we contest that
right. We contest that right partly because
we don't think the American claims conform
with the facts, but also because we do not
believe that any single nation has the right
to decide how it is going to respond to aggres-
sion, particularly when they're doing it on
the other side of the planet.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Foot.
Now we have the outlines of the arguments
between the two teams on each side of the
Atlantic. Let's carry on from there. Who on
the American side wishes to answer Mr. Foot
and the British side? Mr. Shrum.
Mr. SHRUM. Mr. Tribe.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Sorry, Mr. Tribe.
Mr. TRIBE. Mr. Foot asks why did the United
States not take the issue to the United Na-
tions? In August of 1964, it was the United
States that invited Hanoi to take part in
Security Council discussions on the Gulf of
Tonkin incident. Hanoi refused. It was in
September of this year that the Govern-
ment of North Vietnam said bluntly any
United Nations resolutions in this area would
be null and void. Under those cicumstances,
what sense would it make to go to the
Security Council and simply make the motion
of having been there? Secretary Goldberg-
Ambassador Goldberg, in September of this
year, pointed out the majority of the mem-
bers of the Security Council are agreed that
while the United Nations can be used in a
conciliatory capacity in this area and that
America has done on a number of occasions, it
cannot effectively be used for anything other
than quiet diplomacy.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. How about that, Oxford?
Who wants to reply to that?
Mr. FooT, Well, I don't know what right
Mr. Goldberg has got to decide which mat-
ters should go to the United Nations. This is
the charter that we all signed, that the U.S.
Government signed as well. Their obligation
under that charter is that if they think they
or their allies are subject to aggression, we
should take this matter to the United Na-
tions to be judged. My answer to the reason
why the United States didn't take this major
matter to be decided at the United Nations
is because they had no clear case. They had
no clear case that in fact the cause of the
war in Vietnam was an aggression by the
North against the South. I haven't any
doubt that the North has given assistance
to the South during the course of the war,
but that's not the origin of the war. If
you're going to go to the origin of the war,
you have to go back at least to 1954, when
an agreement was signed as to how a settle-
ment should be made in Vietnam, an agree-
ment which, among other things, specified
that there should be elections in the whole of
Vietnam within a period of 2 years; and the
U.S. forces in Vietnam and the U.S. policy
in Vietnam has upset the demand and insist-
ence of the Geneva Conference that there
should be general elections in the whole of
Vietnam, so I would like to ask the question:
Do the sponsors of this motion, does the
Government of the United States now accept
the terms of the Geneva settlement of 1954?
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Kissinger.
Mr. KISSINGER. With respect to the United
Nations Charter, article 51 specifically pro-
vides for the right of individual and collec-
tive self-defense.
Secondly, the view that Mr. Foot has just
expressed does not seem to be shared by the
Government of North Vietnam, which on
September 23, 1965, stated as follows: "The
U.S. authorities are feverishly trying by every
means to secure a United Nations interven-
tion in Vietnam. They have, quote, 're-
quested help from the United Nations mem-
bership at large in getting peace talks start-
ed.' This is a maneuver to use the United
Nations to impose on the Vietnamese people
negotiations under U.S. terms." There have
been at least five other instances this year in
which the North Vietnamese Government
has asserted that the United Nations is not
competent to enter the Vietnamese dispute.
This Is the primary reason why the United
Nations has not been apprised of this prob-
lem.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Marks, you said at
the end of your speech that that was "only
the beginning." Do you have something
that you'd like to address to the proposers
of the resolution?
Mr. MARKS. Yes, there are a number of
points I'd like to add. I'm glad to get off
the United Nations. The North Vietnamese
don't think that it has much to offer and
quite frankly, I agree with them.
I'd like to take up this point which I
think Mr.-where are we?-I think Mr.
Shrum made. He said-and the others. He
said that America was in favor of the people
of South Vietnam choosing their own gov-
ernment. Now, I remember reading a news-
paper report on this. I'm afraid I don't
have the detailed reference here, but I hope
you'll take my word for it-of an interview
recently with Vice President HUMPHREY,
who said that the United States would not
permit the Vietcong to take part in free elec-
tions in Vietnam. Now, I'd like to know if
Mr. Shrum means the same thing by free
elections as President HUMPHREY, or whether
he means the same thing as most Democrats
mean by free elections. I'd also like to ask,
since our own Foreign Secretary, Michael
Stewart, who's usually an authoritative
spokesman for the Washington line, tells us
that there can be no free elections in Viet-
nam until there's been a period of classifi-
cation-of pacification. I would like to know
whether this pacification is a polite word for
killing all the Communists, because I have a
rather great suspicion that it is.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Shrum.
Mr. SHRUM. Well, I-before answering this
question about elections, I do want to say
that the United Nations is available. It
could be very fruitfully used in this problem.
I think that if North Vietnam were only
willing to accept the good offices of people
like Secretary General U Thant, then much
of the Vietnamese difficulties could be cleared
up.
If Vice President HUMPHREY said that the
United States should not allow the National
Liberation Front of Vietcong to participate
in elections, then I disagree with him. I
very much doubt that he said it. I think
that the U.S. aim in South Vietnam is to
give these people any kind of government
that they want as long as they freely choose
that government in a ballot box rather than
at the point of a gun.
By pacification, I would suggest Mr. Stew-
art probably means that the country must
no longer be seething with violence and ter-
rorism, because in that kind of atmosphere,
free elections can never take place.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now, let's have a ques-
tion from the American side to the Oxford
side. Mr. Tribe.
Mr. TRIBE. It strikes us that the idea that
the Americans should not carry out their
commitment in Vietnam may differ greatly
from the reality that the gentlemen from
Oxford want to impose. -We want to know
whether they are advocating unilateral and
immediate withdrawal. If not, are they
simply advocating that we seek a negotiated
end? If that's their point, I would like to
remind them that the position of the U.S.
Government has been and remains that we
want peace in Vietnam, simply peace that
will guarantee the right of self-determina-
tion to that wartorn country.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Ali?
Mr. ALI. Yes, I will reply to that, if I
may. We have tried to point out, and not
only us here in Britain this evening, but the
North Vietnamese have been trying to point
out that before the bombing of North Viet-
nam started, there were peace feelers from
Hanoi via U Thant which said that Ho Chi
Minh was prepared to go to Burma and dis-
cuss a negotiated peace with an American
spokesman, but unfortunately, President
Johnson was busy taking on Barry Goldwater
and the elections, and Dean Rusk's sensitive
mind thought that these offers were not sin-
cere and, therefore, they were rejected.
As to the second part of your question-do
I think that the United States should get out
of Vietnam now, my answer is yes-without
any qualifications, that the only way-it's
made out very often that this is a very com-
plicated Issue. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but
to me it seems very simple. The United
States is there, thousands of miles away
from Washington. Surely you can't claim
that this is self-defense and that the only
way in which they can earn the respect of
the world-better later than never-is by
leaving Vietnam now, and this I think is the
only alternative left to President Johnson.
If De Gaulle can do it vis-a-vis Algeria, why
not Johnson vis-a-vis Vietnam?
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Professor Kissinger?.,
Mr. KISSINGER. I would like to make a
slight factual correction about the overture
of U Thant. I'm not here to defend every
action of the American Government and I
have often been critical of it In other fields,
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966
but the facts of the situation seem to me to
be as follows: There was a feeler through
U Thant, which was very ambiguous and
which required us to negotiate without the
government ro which we were committed in
Saigon. We attempted to determine through
other sources just exactly what Hanoi had
in mind and received very Inconclusive and
rather negative answers and on the basis of
this information, the Government decided
that it would be better not to pursue this
overture. But it is not correct to say that a
clear offer to negotiate was rejected, and
whatever one's judgment about that over-
ture, there have been more than 15 Ameri-
can proposals since then which surely could
have provided an opening for another con-
versation.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Shrum, you were
bouncing around there in your chair. Do you
want to reply to Mr. Ali?
Mr. Saaum. Mr. Ali said that he is in favor
of complete withdrawal. Now, I think that
he should probably discuss the implications
of this, especially in light of the fact that
people like Lin Piao, who is Chinese Defense
Minister, have delivered statements-the one
I'm specifically citing was on September 2,
1965--saying that the war in Vietnam is it
test case and that if the Communists can win
there, they can then begin and start wars of
national liberation all over the world. Of
course, wars of national liberation is it
euphemism for Communist takeover in these
underdeveloped countries. I want to know
whether he wants to substitute a new form
of colonialism and a more iron tyranny for
the one these countries have just gotten
rid of.
Mr, COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Ali, you'd better
answer that
Mr. ALI. Yes, I will answer both Professor
Kissinger and Mr. Shrub-sorry, Mr. Shrum..
Professor Kissinger, first. I would like to
make this point again, Professor Kissinger,
with due respect to you and public opinion
in the United States, that really, when you
are bombing a nation, you can't expect that
nation to negotiate with you. If the Japs
had asked you to negotiate immediately after
they started bombing Pearl Harbor, what
would your answer have been?
As far as Comrade Shrum's point is con-
cerned-I don't accept that wars of national
liberation all over the world result in Com-
munist domination. The Sino-Soviet split
has shown that communism too has its own
nationalisms. And I would like to ask Mr.
Shrum, that--does he really believe that
12 Communists in Santo Domingo con-
stituted a national liberation movement and
were sufficient reason for the United States
to intervene in Santo Domingo? And an-
other point I would like Mr. Shrum to an-
swer, that what he quotes Marshal Lin Piao
as saying, when responsible American gen-
erals like Curtis LeMay say that the only
way we can win this war is to bomb North
Vietnam back into the stone age, when other
responsible American commentators say that
this is America's test case, when they are
treating Vietnam as a war laboratory with.
which to test new weapons, which could be
used in the future in Latin America.
Mr. Con uNGWO00. Well, we're getting a
little far afield in Santo Domingo, but I
think Mr. Shrum ought to have a chance to
answer that.
Mr. SHams. I don't think 12-I don't thnk:
12 Communists in Santo Domingo necessarily
constitute a Communist national liberation
front. I don't want to really talk about
Santo Domingo, but I think that thousands
of Communists in Vietnam do constitute a
national liberation front, and a real threat
to the peace and security of the United States
and of southeast Asia. Yes, this is a test;
casc7.for the United States of America, and
it's a test case because the United States has
to prove to aggression that It cannot sue-.
ceed and that communism cannot expand all
over the world, simply through wars of na-
tional liberation. Because someone like Gen.
Curtis LeMay sometimes might make an
irresponsible statement does not discount
Lin Piiao's statement when he said that wars
of national liberation could begin all over
the world, taking their inspiration from the
war in Vietnam. I'm. not here to defend
Curtis LeMay; I'm here to defend American
policy in Vietnam, because I think it's right.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now from England-
Michael Foot, we haven't heard from you for
a while.
Mr. FooT. We are told that the s im of the
United States in Vietnam is to prove that
aggression doesn't pay. First of all, as I
have said, they haven't yet proved that it's
aggression. They haven't attempted to prove
that it's aggression before any independent
tribunal. One of the reasons why they have
not done so, is because they wish to draw
a veil over what really happened, and what
are the real origins of the war in Vietnam.
This maybe is the reason why we have had
no answer in this debate and no clear an-
swer from the U.S. Government in all the
negotiations over-and all the discussions
over these years as to whether they accept
in full the Geneva settlement of 1954. At
the time, most of the other coun tries con-
cerned accepted that agreement, with its
commitment to free elections in the whole
of Vietnam, which we were told by the
spokesman here is what the United States
Is fighting for in Vietnam. But, we've never
had from the statement from the American
Government that they accepted to full the
Geneva settlement of 19.54. If they would
say that, there would be some advance, but
of course, if they accepted that, one of the
difficulties is that it would destroy a large
part of the American argument. Because
the Geneva settlement also laid down that
Vietnam is not two countries, there is one
country, and therefore, what has been hap-
pening throughout these years in Vietnam
is not a war of aggression, but a civil war,
and what the United States is doing is to
intervene in a. civil war, intervene in a man-
ner which they've certainly got no interna-
tional claim under any international law
to do. They intervene in a manner which
they have not been prepared to put before
any international tribunal. Now. this is a
very serious matter indeed, and you cannot
say that they are doing it in order to up-
hold international law when they are not
prepared to apply international law to their
own actions and moreover, it's no good to
say that they are repelling aggression. That's
what the people in North Vietnam think they
are doing.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Tribe?
Mr. FooT. The people in North Vietnam say
they want the right to shape their own right
and to shape their own destinies. So they're
fighting and will continue to fight very hard
for those same things. Somehow we have
to overcome that barrier and if we're going
to do that, the American Government, the
most powerful government in the world,
will have to retreat from its present position,
and be prepared to make proposals for a
settlement very much in advance cf .rnything
they've yet suggested.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. We'll give the American
debating team an opportunity to answer
the points made by Mr. Foot when we re-
turn with "Town Meeting of time World"
after this message.
[Announcement]
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. In this transatlantic
debate between students of Oxford and stu-
dents at Harvard and Mr. Kissinger and Mr.
Foot on both sides of the Atlanti" via Early
Bird, we've just heard a challenging state-
ment, on American policy, its defects, ac-
cording to him, by Mr. Foot. Who on the
American side would like to reply to that?
Professor Kissinger?
Mr. KISSINGER. I would like to raake--to
reply both to Mr. Ali and to Mr. Foot, briefly.
Mr. All presented the beginning of American
bombing as if it were a decision that Presi-
dent Johnson took because he felt angry one
Sunday morning and decided to proceed. I
think the facts of the situation are that
North Vietnamese - North Vietnam - had
been encouraging, supporting and supplying
an uprising in South Vietnam for 5 years;
and it is not obvious to me what the moral
distinction is between explosives carried on
the back of foot soldiers and explosives car-
ried by airplanes. Every argument that was
made against negotiation on the part of
Hanoi would apply equally well to negotia-
tions on the part of Saigon, which has also
been subject to attack. And I would say
that the only way to escape this logjam,
is to stop talking about the past and to try
to see whether one can find comparable re-
straints on both sides to stop the shooting
and to begin the negotiations.
Secondly, to Mr. Foot: It is not correct,
I believe, to say that there were no inter-
national commitments in the case of other
countries. At least in the case of Germany
with which l: am familiar, there was a com-
mitment at the Summit Meeting of 1955, to
settle--to achieve German unification on
the basis of free elections, and no one would
argue that the fact that no free elections
have been held in East Germany, and that
the government demonstrably does not en-
joy the support of its population, that this
entitles the West German Government to
start a guerrilla movement in Eastern
Germany.
Thirdly, it is the Geneva settlement. It
is my belief that the United States should
accept the Geneva settlement as a basis for
the settlement of the present war in Viet-
nam, and it is my impression that the Amer-
ican Government has indicated its readiness
to do so. The issue in South Vietnam with
respect to pacification is not to kill every
Communist. The issue is to induce the
Communists in South Vietnam to accept the
principle of free choice, and as soon as -this
is accepted, they should as individuals be
permitted to participate in the political
process.
Mr. CoLLIIsGwoon. The audiences on both
sides of the Atlantic have been following with
great interest. Let's bring them into this
discussion now. You may ask questions of
either side or individuals on either side, no
matter which side of the Atlantic you hap-
pen to be on. Let's begin though with the
American audience. Dave Diagan, do you
have someone who wants to ask a question?
Mr. DueAi. Charles, we have lots of peo-
pie who want to ask questions. It's a neat-
ter of getting as many in as we can. I think
in section D? in the front row, there's a gen-?
tleman, third from the aisle, who has a ques-
tion if we could get a microphone to him.
Question. Yes, I'd like to direct this ques-
tion to Mr. Foot. Does he believe that the
way to achieve peace is to allow the spread of
international communism to go unc:hal--
lenged, much as Prime Minister Chamberlain
did in World War II, when he gave Adolf
Hitler Czechoslovakia in return for peace iii
our time?
Mr. FOOT. The prewar situation was that
governments in Britain and America, were ap-
peasing fascism, and I think it was a very
dangerous policy to follow. But I don't be-
lieve there's any comparison between what
is happening in Vietnam and what happened
in Czechoslovakia before the war. You see,
I think what the United States is doing in
Vietnam, so far from resisting the spread of
communism, is increasing the likelihood of
the spread of communism. I think that the
more the United States continues to bomb
North Vietnam, the more they will rally sup-
port behind the Government of North Viet-
nam, the more they will drive the rest of
Asia into the hands of China. If that's what
 --~ Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
they want, if the U.S. policy was designed for
spreading communism, then I think It's
carrying it out extremely efficiently.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now-now let's have a
question from the audience in London. Bob
Trout, do you recognize someone?
Mr. TROUT. Yes, Charles. After listening so
far in comparative silence, I'm sure that our
50-odd Oxford students are eager to join the
fray. Who does have the first question? In
the first row on the right side?
Question. Professor Kissinger, I find
American Intervention in Vietnam as im-
moral as Nazi and Italian Intervention in
Spain before the last war. Why don't you?
Mr. KISSINGER. I don't find the interven-
tion in Vietnam immoral because our pur-
pose is to give the people of South Vietnam a
free choice. The Nazi intervention was to
deprive the people of a free choice, and I
would have thought that people in Britain
should know the difference between Ameri-
can and Fascist motivations.
Mr. COLLINGwooD. Another question now
,from the New York audience.
Mr. DUGAN. Yes, Charles, in section C there
is a gentleman In the third row on the alsle-
if we could get a microphone to him.
Question. This question is directed to Mr.
Foot. If you so ably agree with Mr. Cham-
berlain, how else do you think communism
would be able to be stopped throughout Asia
if not by domination by the United States?
Mr. FooT. I think it is a great folly and
Indeed one of the-I think it is a great folly
and indeed One of the great mistakes made
by the Government of the United States, and
one that we could all suffer for, to equate
international communism or communism
with prewar nazism. They're two very dif-
ferent institutions indeed; and indeed, inter-
national communism has not shown anything
like the aggressive tendencies which were
shown by fascism before the war. Indeed,
the meaning of fascism was that it was ag-
gressive in that sense. I don't think neces-
sarily that the international communism is
aggressive in that sense, although it some-
times is aggressive. But you know, the
United States is sometimes aggressive, and
you see the actions of the United States in
Vietnam are not merely actions taken in re-
sponse to aggression. We've been trying to
get to the bottom of this matter, right since
this dispute began-this argment began. We
asked Mr. Kissinger whether the U.S. Govern-
ment accepted the Geneva settlement. If
they accepted it, the war might never have
started.
There would be no necessity to resist in-
ternational communism in Vietnam; and
incidentally, what right has the United
States to say that we're going to pick on
Vietnam for carrying out your crusade
against International communism. What
right have you got to pick on Vietnam, only
if you can claim that there was an aggres-
sion that you had every right to resist, but
you've never been prepared to take this be-
fore any international tribunal whatsoever
for them to judge. Moreover, Professor Kis-
singer would not tell us whether the U.S.
Government, his own government, accepted
the Geneva settlement or not. He said they
should accept it. Well, I agree, they should.
Why don't they? He said it was his impres-
sion that the U.S. Government does accept
it. I think for an expert of Professor Kis-
singer's eminence to say that it's his impres-
sion that they accept it-why does not the
United States say quite clearly they will
accept the whole of the Geneva settlement.
If they did that, then I think we would make
progress toward real negotiations and an
escape from the present-confrontation, which
certainly will spread international commu-
nism much more likely than it will kill it,
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now, I don't want to
turn this into just a debate between Michael
Foot and Henry Kissinger. I'd like to get
some of the students in, but I think I really,
must let Professor Kissinger have a chance
to answer that.
Mr. KISsiNGEs. I used the words, "it is my
impression" in deference to the debating
skill of my British friends. I have every rea-
son to believe that the American Govern-
ment accepts the Geneva settlement, what-
ever may have happened in the past. I simply
do not have the document in front of me in
case I am challenged to produce the exact
words.
Mr. COLLrNGwOOD. Now let's have a ques-
tion from the London studio, but let's ad-
dress this one to one of the students and not
to Professor Kissinger.
Mr. TROUT. In the front right section, you
have a question?
Question. I don't mind which of the
American students answers this question.
The government which invited the American
troops into Vietnam in the first place was
not a democratically elected government.
The government which is now supported by
the American troops in Vietnam is possibly
even less democratic, since it was installed by
a military coup d'etat. I should like to
know the legalistic basis on which the Amer-
ican Government claims to be justified in
sending troops to South Vietnam.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. They're both law stu-
dents, but let's have Mr. Tribe answer that.
Mr. TRIBE. I think it's important to re-
member with regard to the particular gov-
ernments in South Vietnam that our com-
mitment is broader than a commitment to
any one of them; but with regard to either
the government of Diem or the government
of Marshal Ky, Bernard Fall, recognized as
an objective, impartial authority on this
question, points out that at least 9 out of
10 of the member states of the United Na-
tions have no greater a claim to legitimacy.
It is not our contention, and it is not
the position of the United States, that any
particular government of South Vietnam is
the preordained and necessarily legitimate
representative of the people. That is the
contention of the North when it insists that
no settlement can be reached which does not
accept the Vietcong and the National Libera-
tion Front as prima facie the representative
of the people. What we want is to ask the
people that question, and you cannot ask
them that when the Vietcong are conducting
terrorist raids within Vietnam. The only
reason America is in Vietnam is to create
a condition in which the people- themselves
can constitute a truly representative govern-
ment.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now, we have time for
a very quick question from the American
audience, and a very quick answer. Question
from the New York audience, quickly.
Mr. DUGAN. Yes, Charles, in section A, in
the second row, can we get a microphone
down to the second gentleman from the aisle,
please.
Question. A question directed to the
American team. They have said that it is
our purpose to give a free choice to the Viet-
namese people. Let us attempt to expose
this hypocrisy. As long as there is a chance,
which is now good, that we will lose those
elections, we will not permit them.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Quick answer, Mr.
Shrum.
Mr. SHBUM. We're committed to democ-
racy, and as long as we're committed to self-
determination in Vietnam, all the North
Vietnamese have to do is agree to free inter-
nationally supervised elections, and we will
hold them.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Thank you very much.
We'll be back with more of this transatlan-
tic debate on "Town Meeting of the World"
after this message.
[Announcement]
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Let's have some more
questions now from the audiences both in
London and New York, addressed to the
debaters on this "Town Meeting of the
World." I think it's the London audience's
turn. A questioner from London.
Mr. TROUT. The gentleman in the
Question. Would a member of the U.S.
team like to state quite clearly whether or
not the United States would accept a demo-
cratically elected Communist government in
South Vietnam?
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Tribe.
Mr. TRIBE. The answer is yes. The United
States has no ambitions in South Vietnam.
We have no interest in creating an outpost of
American democracy there. However, we
think it is extremely unlikely that South
Vietnam would be the first nation in the
history of the world to accept in free elec-
tions a Communist government-unlikely
not only because of the 1 million people who
fled the Communist government from the
north, but unlikely as well because of the
fact that the basic traditions in Vietnam, the
traditions of land ownership, of family and
of religious belief, are inconsistent with the
fundamental tenets of communism. Even
if it were true that Ho Chi Minh had some
popularity, it is certainly not demonstrable
that the people of South Vietnam would, in
any free election, elect a Communist regime.
But I emphasize, our purpose is not to im-
pose a particular government on South Viet-
nam. Our purpose is only to give them a
chance to choose.
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. And now a question
from the New York audience.
Mr. DUGAN. Yes, Charles, in section A in
the front row, we have a gentleman right by
the aisle, if we can get a microphone to him.
Question. I address my question to Mr.
Foot, who says the United States picks on
Vietnam, and to Mr. All, who says the ma-
jority of the people in South Vietnam sup-
port the Vietcong. If this is true, how do
you explain the half million South Viet-
namese soldiers who have been fighting and
dying, and often dying valiantly, for their
country; and how do you explain the fact
that there are 1 million North Vietnamese
who have fled their country and are now
living as refugees in Saigon?
Mr. ALT. Yes, I'll answer to all three of
your points. Point No. 1, how do I say
that the Vietcong is supported by the ma-
jority of the people in Vietnam? I say this
because it has been admitted by every-
almost every-newspaper correspondent in
Saigon and, indeed, even admitted by Mr.
Kissinger. When he returned from a visit
from South Vietnam he said he was dis-
tressed to find that the gulf between the
Government and the people was very large.
There's more evidence for this: the whole
attempt to herd people into concentration
camps or strategic hamlets, as you euphemis-
tically call them, was an attempt to separate
people from the Vietcong, an attempt which
did not succeed. And also, the North Viet-
namese, according to every American report-
er and the State Department-
Mr. COLLINGWOOD. At this moment. Mr.
Ali, I must interrupt you because our time
is running out and I want to ask the senior
members of both teams for a brief summa-
tion of the debate so far. And let's begin
with Mr. Foot. -
Mr. FOOT. Of course, all of us must be
passionately concerned to see the end of
this appalling war and I am glad that Pro-
fessor Kissinger has said that the U.S. Gov-
ernment now accepts the Geneva settlement
of 1954. I didn't ask him that as a kind of
trick question. I wanted genuinely to know,
and I think it is correct that they have said
sometimes that they do accept the Geneva
settlement. Unfortunately, they may have
accepted it in the letter, but never in the
spirit. This very weekend we have Mr. Rusk
in Paris saying United States still wants
peace talks on Vietnam, but only if South
Vietnam's independence and territorial in-
tegrity are guaranteed. In other words, they
are still saying two Vietnams. That Is con-
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE January 14, 1966
traryy to the t_,eneva settlement. The Amer-
i.cnns refused free elections. That is con-
trary to the Geneva settlement. The Amer-
icans are obviously refusing to neutralize the
area. That is contrary to the Geneva set-
c:lemen.t. If the United States would come
forward with proposals for genuinely seek-
ing a settlement on the basis of the 1954
agreements, Chen we could begin to end this
appalling horror which, if it continues,
could drag not merely the United States but
the whole world into nuclear catastrophe.
Mr. CoLLlraowoon. Sorry, Mr. Foot. And
rurx, a last word, 1-minute summation from
Professor Kissinger.
Mr. KISSINCER. The war in Vietnam is a
tragic and desperate effort. I'm distressed
that so many of the questions seemed to
challenge not the judgment but the motiva-
tion of American policy. I would like to
emphasize that our goal is and should be
freedom for the people of South Vietnam to
chart their own future, and freedom for the
people of all of Vietnam to determine the
future of their country. As American;:; we
would far prefer to engage in tasks of can-
;aruction. We would far prefer to do what
President Kennedy said in his inaugural.
address, that to those people in the huts and
villages of half the globe, we pledge our best
riforts to help themselves. But we do not
have the choice between defense and con.-
struction. Unless we can do both, we will
not be able so do either.
Mr. COLLINCWOOD. 't'hank you very much.
Thank you, gentlemen of Oxford and gentle-
men from Blarvard, for an hour's interesting
and provocative debate. Tis is Charles
Collingwood. Good night.
A]vNOUNCI':R. 't'his "Town Meeting of the
World" was produced in cooperation with the
British Broadcasting Corporation, using the
facilil;ics of the Early Bird communications
satellite. 'rhe Oxford students and Mr.
Foot were seen from a BBC studio In London..
't'he two Harvard students and Professor
:Basinger were seen from a CBS studio in
New York. We wish to thank the Oxford
Union and universities in the New York area
or their cooperation in helping us to select
rhe student audiences on both sides of the
Atlantic.
RESERVATION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC
LANDS FOR A NATIONAL WILD
RIVERS SYSTEM
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair lays before the Senate the pending
business, which is S. 1446.
':i'he Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 1446), to reserve public
lands for ii. National Wild Rivers System,
to provide a procedure for adding addl.-?
tional public lands and other lands to
the system, and for other purposes.
THE VIETNAM CONFLICT
Jr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
the most pressing problem facing our
Nation and the world today is the war in
Vietnam. I hope our President will cosh-
[sere to s.,rike out boldly for a peaceful
settlement of this bitter conflict. Bona-
tide peace negotiations mean concessions
by its, concessions by the Vietcong and a
cease fire with no one an abject loser and
no one an arrogant winner. Unless
there is a negotiated settlement, Amer-
ican GI's are likely to be fighting arid
dying in Vietnam until 1980.
President Johnson is to be commended
for directing; a pause in the bombing of
North Vietnam. But standing alone,
this is not enough.
In his outstanding state of the Union age." That, to quote Gen. Curtis Le-
message, the President set forth our May. Let us hope President Johnson
goals in Vietnam when he said: rejects these proposals. Bombing Hanoi
We seek neither territory nor bases, eco- would be compared with the Nazi bomb-
nomic domination or military alliance in ing of Guernica in the Spanish Civil War.
Vietnam. We fight for the principle of self- Furthermore, no one can accurately fore-
determination that the people of South Viet- cast jL.st how damaging the reaction
nam should be able to choose their own would be. It would certainly at least
course, choose it in free elections without any nna.cihlP military gain.
The people of all Vietnam should make a
free decision on the great question of reuni-
fication.
We have also made it clear from Hanoi to
Now York that there are no arbitrary limits
to our search for peace. We stand by the
Geneva agreements of 1954 and 1962. We
will meet at any conference table. We will
discuss any proposals-4 points or 14 or 40-
and we will consider the views of any group.
We will work for a ceasefire now, or once
discussions have begun.
I wholeheartedly agree with the goals
set by our President. However, because
in the past there have been conflicting
statements by our officials on our sup-
port for the Geneva, accords, on nego-
tiations v: ith the Vietcong, and on free
elections, we must further clarify our
war aims and negotiating position.
We sho.lld clearly announce our will-
ingness to seek a settlement based on the
1954 Geneva accords providing neutral-
ity, self-determination, and free elections
for Vietnam. The Geneva accords which
we agreed to but did. not sign state that
"the military demarcation line at the
17th narnllel is provisional and should
not in any way be considered as consti-
tuting a political or territorial bound-
ary." Historically, there is no North
and South Vietnam.
We should indicate explicitly our read-
iness to participate in negotiations with
all parties involved--I mean with dele-
gates of the Vietcong, or National Liber-
ation Front, so-called. We should agree
to abide by the results of a peaceful, free
election by the people of Vietnam of their
own Government, their own leaders, and
their own destiny. I know our CIA offi-
cials in Vietnam and Prime Minister Ky,
of the Saigon government oppose an
armistice at. this time. Our President
should overrule their views along with
those of the Curtis LeMays.
If our President moves deciooively for
such peace our people will support him.
If instead, he approves steadily expand-
Ing military involvement, he will please
our militarists, and warhawks in Con-
gress. Then in the 1966 con;rressional
elections and in 1968, as casualty lists
mount, some Republican politicians, now
urging acceleration of the war by bomb-
ing Hanoi and Haiphong and even Red
China, will be the first to den: unce this
as "Lyndon's var."
Were we to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong,
thousands of Vietnamese civilians in-
cluding women and children would be
killed and wounded. Ii' we failed to de-
stroy all the war planes of North Viet-
nams some might bomb Saigon, and ele-
ments of the North Vietnamese army,
numbering some 400,000, would cross the
demilitarized zone and invade South
Vietnam.
Pentagon gossip reports plans to bomb
Haiphong and Hanoi followed by an am-
I was in southeast Asia most of the tinge.
I went, looked, and listened. Very soon
I learned we are involved in a civil war
over there. In South Vietnam I was at
every airbase except one-traveling
through the entire area by helicopter,
airplane, and jeep. It is my considered
judgment that South Vietnam is of no
strategic importance whatever to the de-
fense of the United States. Further-
more, the fact is that the conflict raging
in Vietnam is a civil war. General
Westmoreland stated to me that the bulk
of the Vietcong fighting in South Viet-
nam were born and reared in South Viet-
nam. General Stilwell, in Thailand,
went further. He stated that 80 per-
cent of the Vietcong fighting in the Me-
kong Delta area south of Saigon, were
born and reared in that area. They were
not infiltrators or Communists from the
North.
Na matter how often we profess our
intention to defend freedom in Vietnam,
the increasing escalation of the war is
raising grave doubts throughout Asia and
elsewhere in the world as to the wisdom
of our policy. Attacks with sophisticated
weapons on unsophisticated and illiterate
Asians are building a vast reservoir of
anti-Americanism and misunderstanding
of our country among the masses of the
people in Asia.
A military surrender to the United.
States will never produce acceptance of
American presence in Asia by most
Asians. It would be a legacy of ill will
which we should not leave to future gen-
erations of Americans. Until Asiatic:,
show more interest in defending them-
selves, then unilateral American involve-,
ment in Asia is doomed to failure. The
ugly reality is that for the most part it is
American GI's who are fighting and dy-
ing in Vietnam for the alleged defense of
freedom in Asia. Do we Americans have
a mandate from Almighty God to police
the entire world?
President John F. Kennedy said on
September 3, 1963, shortly before hi;;
assassination :
I don't think that unless a greater effort
is made by the Government to win popular
support that the war can be won out there.
In the final analysis, it is their war. They
are the ones who have to win it or lose if..
We can help them, we can give them equip-
ment, we can send our men out there as ad-
visers, but they have to win it-the peopls
of Vietnam-against the Communists. We
are prepared to continue to assist them, but
I don't think that the war can be won sin-
less the people support the effort, and, in my
opinion, in the last 2 months the Govern-
ment has gotten out of touch with the people.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I ams glad to
phibious landing at Haiphong and then yield to the distinguished Senator from
"bombing Red China back into the stone Alaska.
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. GRUENING. Is it not a fact that
when President Kennedy made that
statement in September of 1963, we had
been in Vietnam for practically a decade?
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. GRUENING. Yet, at the end of
10 years of assistance of all kinds, in-
cluding vast sums of money, we had a
situation that was deteriorating; and it
was clear then, was it not, that the gov-
ernment of South Vietnam, either the
puppet government that we had installed
there, or its successors after various
coups were out of touch with the needs
of the people, were uninterested in those
needs, and were doing little or nothing
to bring about the reforms which Presi-
dent Eisenhower had made conditional
upon our giving them aid for 10, years
previously? Is that not a fact?
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. That is true,
of course.
Mr. GRUENING. Is that not a dem-
onstration of the folly of our policies
there?
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I agree with the
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. GRUENING. I thank the Sen-
ator.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
on our initial commitment to South Viet-
nam made by President Eisenhower in
1954 in a letter to the President of South
Vietnam stated:
I am instructing the American Ambassa-
dor to examine with you how an intelligent
program of American aid can serve to assist
Vietnam in its present hour of trial.
He added:
The purpose of this offer is to assist the
Government of Vietnam in developing and
maintaining a strong, viable state capable
of resisting attempted subversion or aggres-
sion through military means. The U.S. Gov-
ernment hopes that such aid, combined with
your own continuing efforts, will contribute
effectively toward an independent Vietnam
endowed with a strong government.
That was a very "iffy" commitment
made by President Eisenhower.
Can anyone claim that Prime Minister
Ky, of South Vietnam, who himself was
born and reared in Hanoi, heads a
strong, viable state? He could not re-
main in power 1 week except for the op-
erations of our Central Intelligence
Agency and- the support of our Armed
Forces.
To justify sending a military advisory
group to Vietnam and increasing its size
from 327 in 1953 to 695 in 1961, President
Eisenhower on April 7, 1954, said.
The loss of Indochina will cause the fall
of southeast Asia like a set of dominoes.
That was in the Stalin era. Today,
there is no bitter cold war between the
Soviet Union and the United States as
when Stalin was dictator. The Soviet
Union is no longer a "have not" nation.
It is veering toward capitalism. Its lead-
ers and the Russian people seek coexist-
ence instead of coannihilation. Moscow
and Peiping are now in bitter conflict,
This domino theory has been completely
discredited.
Red China is a paper dragon. It is
overrated as a great power. It has crude
nuclear capability, that is true. How-
ever, it will take at least 5 or 10 years
before it will have the know-how to de-
liver any, nuclear warheads on targets.
Its air force is inferior. It'has no surface
navy except a few torpedo boats and
gunboats-no modern transports-noth-
ing except thousands of junks. It is an
agrarian nation, with 85-percent of its
population engaged in agriculture. On
the Pacific, under the Pacific, and in the
air, we have a more powerful Navy, sub-
marine fleet, and Air Force than all the
nations of the world combined.
Red China does have a huge land
army. The elephant can fight neither
the eagle nor the whale. As General
MacArthur in his "Reminiscences"
stated:
Anyone in favor of sending American
ground troops to fight on Chinese soil should
have his head examined.
Can anyone claim that we would lose
face and that our prestige in Asia would
be damaged were we to withdraw from
this conflict? France was bled white
during the 8-year struggle to save her
vast colonial empire in Indo-China.
France became a greater and more pow-
erful nation following her withdrawal
from what is now North and South Viet-
nam, Cambodia, and Laos. Further-
more, did De Gaulle lose face or prestige
when he surrendered Algeria, that vast
domain larger than France? A great
nation like ours does not lose face by
withdrawing from a miserable war. We
have lost face by messing around with it
in the first place.
The winds of freedom are blowing
across the China Sea and elsewhere
throughout the world in a manner and
to an extent almost beyond belief.
Surely we should not respond with our
Armed Forces whenever the winds of
change strike a country in southeast Asia
or in Africa or elsewhere outside our
hemisphere and sphere of influence. In
Vietnam the security of the United States
is not the issue. Saigon is not and never
will be an outpost defending Seattle.
Vietnam very definitely is of no strategic
importance to the defense of the United
States.
We should have long since learned that
the outcome of a guerrilla war in the
swamps, jungles, and highlands of south-
east Asia does not threaten the security
of the United States. We should, if we
wish, give money, food, or guns, giving
this aid from afar. We should withdraw
from implicating ourselves so deeply into
this conflict converting it into an Ameri-
can war.
This steaming jungle where thousands
of American GI's have already been
afflicted with malaria and other jungle
diseases is the worst place in the world
for us to wage a ground war.
Americans should not blindly accept
the propaganda coming from Washing-
ton. If mistakes are compounded on
mistakes, then the conflict will be ex-
In my judgment, our national interest
requires a redirection of our policy in
Asia. We should not be the sole def end-
ers of freedom as we define freedom in
Asia. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and our
CIA should take a back seat when it
comes to formulating foreign policy. I
hope that President Johnson will reassert
that civilian authority must remain su-
preme over military authority. The men
who wrote the Constitution of the United
States provided that civilian authority in
this Nation must always be supreme over
the military. We should adhere to that.
Any forces we have in Vietnam should
be only part of the forces of many na-
tions under the United Nations and for
peacekeeping and not warmaking pur-
poses.
Vietnam is a land of breathtaking sea-
coasts, green jungles, fertile rice paddies,
picturesque mountains-a lovely Garden
of Eden converted into a hell on earth
by man's inhumanity to man.
I have just quoted the distinguished
senior Senator from Maryland [Mr.
BREWSTER] who revisited the scene of his
youth in the early part of World War II
when he served as a marine in Vietnam.
Let it not be written by future his-
torians that American boys died need-
lessly in far distant jungles because of
weakness of diplomats and indifference
of politicians. I wish I had as much
confidence in the skill and intelligence
of our diplomats in trying to settlp this
war as I do in the bravery and high
competence of our soldiers fighting the
war.
The primary reason for our being in
Vietnam today is our stubborn. refusal
to admit a mistake in our attempt to
make Vietnam a pro-American and an
anti-Chinese state. More than anything
else, we are fighting to avoid admitting
failure. As Walter Lippmann bluntly put
it, "We are fighting to save face."
The late President John F. Kennedy
said, "Transforming Vietnam into a
Western redoubt is ridiculous."
Sallust, the Roman historian, about
40 years before the birth of Our Savior
wrote:
It is always easy to begin a war, but very
difficult to stop one, since its beginning and
end are not under the control of the same
man.
That is true now as it was then.
President Johnson deserves praise for
ordering a holiday in bombing North
Vietnam while his executive department
officials are seeking to secure an armistice
and cease-fire at the conference table
with representatives of the Vietcong or
National Liberation Front, so-called, and
Hanoi.
We Americans should not be so much
interested in saving face as in saving
lives.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
congratulate the Senator from Ohio on
his forthright, penetrating speech. I
think it is one of the most important
statements that have been made in Con-
gress on the war in Vietnam. It deserves
the widest attention. I am happy to wel-
come the Senator from Ohio to the ranks
of those of us who feel and for nearly 2
years have stated that our military in-
volvement there is folly and represents a
tragic mistake, perhaps the most tragic
ever made by this country. As pointed
out in the report of our distinguished
majority leader, an expert on southeast
Asia, and our colleagues who went to
South Vietnam and other parts of the
world, that unless we can bring the war
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966
to an end at the conference table there
appears no prospect except more and.
more destruction and killing. I think,
we should get out in the best way pos-
sible and admit that we made a mistake,
Individuals who do this are honored.
Great nations find it harder to do.
I applaud President Johnson for the
efforts he is making for peace, but I feel
he is handicapped by some needlessly
unqualified verbal commitments he has
made.
Three Presidents did not, as President
Johnson has indicated-I think he is
mistaken in this-promise military aid
and establish thereby a national pledge.
President Eisenhower offered only eco--
nomic aid, provided certain reforms were
made. As the Senator from Ohio l Mr.
YOUNG] pointed out, it was a very "iffy"
offer, and was contingent upon improve-
ment and reforms in the then Diem gov-
ernment-reforms which never tool:
place.
During the 6 years of President Eisen-
hower in the White House, there was no
military involvement, that is, no Ameri-
cans were sent into combat, only a mili-
tary mision with an advisory role. Un-
der President Kennedy, we sent military
advisers, ;and President Kennedy con-
tinued to maintain that it was South
Vietnam's war-and that they had to
win it. It has been only in the past year
that we have become involved with our
troops in combat-a tragic mistake.
I hope the speech that the Senator
from. Ohio has delivered will have wide
circulation.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President
I thank the distinguished junior Sen-
ator from Alaska. Contrary to what. we
sometimes read in the press, the Viet-
nam issue was debated in the Senate dur-
ing the past year; and as we settle down
to the final session of the 89th Congress
the debate is renewed. There is a great
difference of opinion among Senators.
It Is going to be a good thing that all.
Senators debate this pressing problem,
the greatest problem before the country
at this time, and express their views.
Mr. President, supplementary to what
I have said, I have a letter from a Con-
stituent of mine, Thomas A. Gianfagna,
of 841 Alhambra Road, Cleveland, a vali-
ant young constituent of mine. I do net
know him personally, but he wrote me
as follows:
DFAR SENATOR YOUNG: I have followed With
great interest your views on the situation In
Vietnam. As an ex-GI just recently granted
the blessing of rebirth into civilian life and
as a veteran of 2 months service in the Geri--
tral highlands of Vietnam with the lst Cav-
alry Division, I want you to know that :L
agree with you 99 percent.
As you say, we are not the policeman of
the world. As you say, the situation in Viet-
Rain is more a civil war than a war of aggres-?
r,ion or subversion. Thank you for saying
it so loudly.
']'hank you again.
Yours truly,
THOMAS A. GIANFAGNA.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
M.r. YOUNG of Ohio. I yield.
Mr. BREWSTER. I believe I heard
the distinguished Senator from Ohio
state that the senior Senator from Mary -
land had visited Vietnam during World
War II.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I did so-inad-
verteiatly. I meant Okinawa.
Mr.. BREWSTER. I thank the Sena-
tor, because I was in Vietnam only with
the Senator from Ohio and the Senator
from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], where the
three of us spent some time. My world
war service took me to Espiritu Santos,
Guadalcanal, Ulithi, Eniwetok, Guam,
and Okinawa, but not until recently was
I in Vietnam.
My own observations are somewhat
different from those of the Sene'tor from
Ohio, but I appreciate the deep sincerity
with which the Senator from Ohio has
expressed his point of view.
Mr. YOUNG.of Ohio. I greatly re-
spect the Senator from Maryland who
is a great Senator. He is one of the he-
roes of World War II, and he Las a fine
record in the Senate. It was a slip of
the tongue when I used the word "Viet-
nam" for "Okinawa," because I knew he
was with the Marines who conquered
Okinawa in World War II.
I had two sons, both of whom served
in the Pacific, and I know something
about the hardships of those fine young
men who, some 22 and 23 years ago,
fought for their country in the Pacific.
Whenever I see a marine like DAN
BREWSTEP., of Maryland, who fought
there, I feel like taking off my hat to him.
Of course, I readily accept the fact that
both he and Senator CANNON have views
and conclusions somewhat different from
mine. I know both of them and many
other Senaotrs will express those views
later this year.
It was not a correct statement for any-
one to assert that the Vietnam situation
and the conflict there had not been de-
bated in the last Congress; and it is fair
to assume that it will be fully debated in
the final session of this Congress. It
deserves to receive more attention and no
doubt will receive more attention, than
any other issue.
I yield the floor.
BILLBOARDS
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, last
year Congress enacted the so-called bill-
board bill, or highway beautification bill,
which many of us criticized vigorously
and tried to correct in many different
ways in order to make it a workable law.
I do not believe the purpose of any-
one in this area is too different. My
own record in that regard, when this
first matter came up, with the Senator
from Oregon, Richard Neuberger, is very
clear. The two of us supported the mea-
sure on the floor at that time.
However, as everyone know:,, the bill
was hastily rewritten over the weekend
and did not reflect the bill which the
committee had reported, nor did it re-
flect., in my opinion, the will of the ma-
jority of the Senate, although the
majority of the Senate voted for it.
A tremendous amount of pressure was
brought on the Senate from down the
street, and it was changed when it was
-taken up. As a consequence, as I have
pointed out many times since, it is filled
with faults. It is filled with errors, and
it will have to be rewritten completely
someday.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in
the RECORD at this point an article writ-
ten by William Logan and appearing in
the Rocky Mountain News of December
10, 1965, which points out a few of the
problems that are beginning to rise in
our own State, although it refers to
other States in this, as a result of the
hasty and ill-considered action that was
taken on that bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PROXMIRE in the chair). Without ob-
jection, the article will be printed in the
RECORD.
The article is as follows:
COLOR%Do BILLBOARD CONTROLS EXAMINED BY
FEDERAL COURTS
(By William Logan, Rocky Mountain News
writer)
The courts are going to have to decide
whether Colorado and 21 other States that
have championed highway billboard controls
now face a prospect of being penalized in
Federal funds for their efforts, State highway
department officials believe.
Colorado was among States that agreed
under the original 1958 Federal law to use its
police powers to control signboards under
Federal standards. Last spring's legislature
enacted a law to control billboards that be-
came effective July 1.
The new highway beauty bill of the John-
son administration, enacted after the Colo-
rado law became effective, requires ",just
compensation" be paid to billboard owners
when signs are removed.
The Federal Government will pay 75 per-
cent of the cost of removing signs and States
must pay 25 percent, under the Federal law.
CAN BE PENALIZED
Any State that refuses to pay-or that re-
fuses to control billboards-can be penalized
up to 10 percent of its Federal road funds.
under the new U.S. law.
Many of the States that earlier enacted
antibillboard legislation have listed the signs
as public nuisances and have laws that pro-
hibit payments to owners for removal. of
nuisances.
Colorado, in a series of notices just going
into the mails to owners of signs found in
violation by the highway department, is di-
recting the owners to remove them.
The State isn't planning to pay costs for
removal, but isn't terming them nuisances
either. The notices merely state the sLgns
are in violation of the new State law and
ask their removal.
MOST NOTICES
Darrell Vail, highway department main-
tenance engineer, said most of the notices
mailed thus far concern signboards erected
since the law took effect "and are clearly in
violation."
Notices will be mailed shortly to owners
of signs put up earlier, ordering their re-
moval, he said. Each highway department
maintenance district is charged with enforc-
ing the law In its territory.
Vail believes the fact Colorado is just be-
ginning to enforce its law probably will mean
the State can receive 75 percent of sign re-
moval costs from the Federal Government.
But it's up to the courts to decide the
whole course of the antibillboard legislation,
he said.
A test case is pending in Denver District
Court involving a sign on Interstate High-
way 805, about 5 miles northeast of Brush,
a section of interstate highway that opened
this fall along new right of way.
UNREASONABLE?
Fred Efken, motel operator and plaintiff,
represented by Denver Lawyer C. Hamilton
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966
from the human suffering and degradation
that is involved pose a serious threat to
peace. And second, to create a tribunal of
opinion in which solutions can be organized.
Much has been done. There are national
freedom-from-hunger committees in so many
countries. Much has been done by individ-
ual countries, none more than by the United
States.
I don't know if you know of your Public
Law 480, but millions of hungry people do.
If I may give you just one example, the food
provided under that law at this moment is
feeding one-fifth of the total population of
Bechuanaland, where they have had no rain
for 3 years. Some of us are worried that the
Public Law expires next year. Worried be-
cause far too many of you don't know it.
And we hope and pray and believe that the
U.S. people and Government will continue
to look at world hunger compassionately and
creatively. What was planned as a 5-year
campaign has become a permanent campaign.
It's a long-term job, but it is a long-term job
charged with urgency. The gap between the
hungry and the overfed has widened in those
5 years, not narrowed. It's urgent because
the hungry can't afford to wait. And it is
urgent because the world can't afford to
wait.
Lord Boyd-Orr once said "hunger is the
worst politician." And how right he is. If I
wanted to preach communism it wouldn't be
to you, it would be to the hungry. You can't
digest Karl Marx on a full stomach. If I
wanted to cause trouble in the world it would
not be to you I would turn, but to the
hungry. Hunger is the worst politician.
There are two other things that most disturb
me as a Christian. The one is that the mass
of the hungry are, by and large, the so-called
colored people. And the mass of the well-
fed are, by and large, the white. And race
relations, God knows, are bad enough with-
out their being exacerbated by hunger.
What's even more disturbing is that, by and
large, the well-fed call themselves Christians.
And, by and large, the hungry don't. And I
find nothing in Holy Writ that links obesity
with sanctity.
It has been said that every war is either a
crime or a crusade. I'm talking to you about
a crusade. The war on want. It is a world
problem. It is a governmental and inter-
governmental problem. We can't do it by
private societies, collecting subscriptions.
The effort of every one of the rich nations
must be harnessed if we are to achieve vic-
tory. Only governments can do that and
only they in concert. Aren't you relieved to
hear that? So what? I'm not a govern-
ment. But this, I say, neither precludes nor
excuses the churches. God's purpose as re-
vealed in Jesus Christ is to redeem the whole
of human life. And if the church is to carry
conviction that His Gospel is the only Gospel
it must do so by showing that redemption is
for the whole of human life and is offered by
One who came not only that man might have
life but have it more abundantly. And I am
proud that there is so great a Christian re-
sponse to this tragic need. In Germany, in
Austria, in Switzerland, there are bread for
my brother campaigns. Here in America,
Church World Service and National Catholic
Relief have been sending millions of tons of
food to the hungry. And with your continu-
ing compassionate help could send more.
Again I say, it's clear that only massive inter-
national action can begin to solve the prob-
lem. But this depends for success on pubilo
understanding, public compassion, and pub-
lic support. And if we can get understand-
ing in the churches and in the Y's, we'll get
compassion. I know it. And where there is
compassion there will be a wave of public
support for the most liberal kind of govern.
mental and intergovernmental action. If
this campaign has a philosophy it might be
the old Chinese proverb "If you give a man a
fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach
him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime."
And the main theme of this campaign is to
teach the hungry how to fish if you like, how
to plow deeper furrows, plant better seed and
grow better harvests. It's education. But I
need not remind you that while you are be-
ing educated your parents have to feed you.
And every kind of emergency aid, the work of
UNICEF, the work of the church agencies, the
work of anybody who sends food to the hun-
gry, helps to feed them while they're learning
how to fish. And I am glad that not only
member churches of the World Council of
Churches, but the great Roman Catholic
Church also, are committed to this ctm-
paign. Pope John the XXIII said of it,
rightly and holily, "Beloved children, must
we repeat and exalt the principle of human
solidarity and remember and preach loudly
the duty of those communities and individ-
uals who live in plenty to reach out to those
who live in want." I treasure all, those
phrases, but one I love most of all was when
he says, "Preach loudly." I remember when
I was an undergraduate I used to buy the
gramophone records of some music-hall type
who called himself Jack Smith, the Whisper-
ing Baritone. I have an uneasy feeling that
our pulpits are filled with the Reverend John
Smith, the whispering preacher. Preach and
preach loudly so that we may be heard out-
side. Now one of the great privileges I have
had in America is meeting many of my
brother clergy who tell me that the pace of
life in your country is so fast that apparently
you all have tranquilizers for breakfast, and
that their ministry consists almost entirely`
of comforting the disturbed. And I thank
God it isn't mine. If I were to define my
ministry just now, it's disturbing the com-
fortable, and nobody looks more comfortable
than you do. Nicolas Berdaiev once said that
"bread for oneself is a material preoccupa-
tion; that bread for others is a spiritual pre-
occupation." Give us this day our daily
bread, not every other day as happens in some
countries. And so I remind you again of our
Lord's command. You give them something
to eat. You remember the disciples replied,
"We only have five loaves and two small
fishes." You daren't give that answer. It
wouldn't be true. But you do have an
answer. It's the theme of your week. You
give them something to eat. Yes, Lord.
SENATOR HARRIS HONORED
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
call the attention of the Senate to a
signal honor which has been awarded
to one of our colleagues, Senator FRED
R. HARRIS, the junior Senator from my
home State of Oklahoma. He has been
named by the U.S. Junior Chamber of
Commerce as one of the Nation's 10 out-
standing young men in 1965, and has
gone to St. Paul, Minn., for an awards
congress scheduled Friday and Saturday.
I believe my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle join me in congratulating the
honored Senator from Oklahoma. De-
spite his youth-he is 35-he has made
an excellent record since he won election
in 1964 to serve out the last 2 years of
the late Senator. Robert S. Kerr's term.
He not only has been a faithful Member,
with an excellent attendance record, he
has presided hour after hour with the
patience we ask of new Members. He
also has made an extensive study of Sen-
ate rules and procedure in carrying out
what could have been a routine chore.
Those of you who have served on the
Public Works or Government Operations
Committees with him have learned what
a hard and effective worker he is. The
senior Senator from Arkansas, chairman
of the latter group, has appointed him
to the chairmanship of a new Special
Subcommittee on Government Research.
Under his vigorous leadership, I am sure
we are going to learn a great deal about
our national research effort with answers
to such questions as where it is done,
by whom, whether or not there is dupli-
cation, and whether or not its results
are readily available.
FRED HARRIS'S excellent first year rec-
ord in the Senate undoubtedly had to do
with his selection by the Jaycees. They
probably also considered important the
fact that a man, barely old enough to
serve and making his first statewide
race, won a runoff primary as well as
a general election against impressive
contenders.
Elevation to high office at a minimum
age has happened before to the junior
Senator from Oklahoma. He was elect-
ed to the State senate at the age of 25,
a year and a half after his graduation
from the University of Oklahoma Law
School. He also has practiced law in
Lawton, Okla., not far from his home-
town of Walters, Okla.
I congratulate both Senator HARRIS
and the U.S. Junior Chamber of Com-
merce for a wise selection.
there are very few Members of Congress
who have as clear an understanding of
the history and the conflicting forces in-
volved in the Vietnam war as has our
colleague the distinguished junior Sena-
tor from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING]. I am
glad to say "junior." It happens that,
according to the calendar, he is one of the
older Senators, but in accord with his
activity and with his thinking, he is one
of the youngest and most vigorous.
He was one of the very first of our
statesmen to speak out repeatedly in op-
position to the policy being pursued in
Vietnam by the United States. Whether
or not citizens agreed with his point of
view, he has demonstrated outstanding
leadership in helping to initiate a public
debate on Vietnam, and our present
policies in southeast Asia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that I may be
permitted to continue for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
on December 9, 1965, Senator GRUENING
in a speech entitled "U.S. Policy and Ac-
tions in Vietnam," delivered at Harvard
and Boston Universities, made a master-
ful and scholarly argument opposing our
Nation's present policy in Vietnam. I
commend this to my colleagues and ask
unanimous consent that it be printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
, anuai-j 11,., 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Beyond that there should be a great in-
crease in the planned movement of individ-
uals between the Federal Government and
the other worlds that make up American
life-the world of business, the mil'tary, the
universities, the labor unions, agriculture,
State and local government. I have moved
in several of these worlds, and I am continu-
ally shocked at their mutual Ignorance of one
another. That Ignorance breeds both com-
placency and paranoia. Each of these worlds
imagines that It Is uniquely close to the
moral center of American life, and believes
that the other worlds aren't really quite to
be trusted with the American future.
Of all these worlds, the Government serv-
ice has the least excuse for being provincial.
TI; should have the capacity to understand all
of the other segments of society. Without
that understanding it will not be able to
serve them effectively.
T would also favor an oversea assignment
early in the career of those young Govern-
ment people who seek to rise to the top.
We have gotten past the day when only those
Individuals who have an explicit interna-
tional interest should think of going overseas.
The work of Government at home and
abroad needs the breadth of perspective
acquired by experience overseas. Such ex-
perience is valuable any time during one's
career, but the earlier it comes the better.
All the processes of refreshment I've men-
tioned are particularly needed in the case of
professional, scientific, technical, and schol-
arly people. Government needs such people
more and more. But it will neither get them
nor keep them if it doesn't provide the op-
portunities for further growth that they
value so highly.
There is no excuse for Government to lose
out in the competition for talent. It has
it built-in advantage over every other em-
ployer. The cynics would deny this but the
tirlith is that talented people are attracted
1,o Government because it gives them an op-
portunity to render service to the entire
:Nation. They come with the highest mo-
;ives. They leave when their purpose is
thwarted or when they begin to feel trapped.
Government cannot afford to be inhospitable
;o these people.
The administration of the affairs of this
Nation is complex and dynamic. They are
going to become increasingly so. The Con-
gress has just enacted a staggering amount
of legislation which must now be translated
'.nto action. It would be hard to overstate
tither the magnitude of the tasks ahead or
?-heir importance to the Nation.
President Johnson made this abundantly
clear in his state of the Union message on
Wednesday.
Now, let me ask these questions:
is the Federal service capable of meeting
.his challenge? O:f course, but to do so it
:dust take some significant steps to renew its
spirit and its people.
1s renewal compatible with the Federal
merit system? It most certainly is. The
merit system, now in its 83d year, represents
e great advance in the personnel practices of
government. We ire not about to return to
it spoils system.
Out tenure was not designed to trap peo-
aie, to make them inert. It was designed to
-'ree them from the capriciousness of politics.
They need both the protection of it career
,system and opportunities for growth.
We can preserve all the great traditions of
he system and still maintain the vitality
shat is so essential in this rapidly changing
and infinitely challenging moment of history.
Recognizing that the very size and nature
of the system make it particularly suscept-
ible to stagnation, we can make special ef-
::arts to build in arrangements for renewal.
'through some of the devices I have men-
cioned we can turn the concept of tenure
.nto a positive asset rather than a deterrent
"o the full use of our talent.
The momentum generated by the Presi-
dent and the flood of legislation enacted by
the Congress have given us unparalleled op-
portcmitles to create new patterns of work
and to bring new strength and vitality to
the career service.
I am optimistic that we will do so, and
that optimism is based in no small measure
on the fact that one of the boldest inno-
vators in government today, John Macy, is
also Chairman of this Commission.
John Macy Introduced this session with
some kind remarks about hie and I want to
end it with a tribute to him. I think he is a
superb example of the best that the Federal
service can produce, and I am proud to have
shared this platform with him.
THE WAR ON WANT
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President,
while Congress was out of session, an
outstanding sermon was preached at the
YWCA service in Washington Cathedral
by the Reverend Dr. Elf an Roes, who is
secretary of the Commission of the
Churches on International Affairs, for the
Wor:'d Council of Churches, Geneva,
Switzerland.
In discussing "The War on Want," a
world problem, on November 14, Dr. Rees
urged public understanding, public com-
pass'.ion and. public support for the most
liberal kind of governmental and inter-
governmental action to prevent widening
of the gap between. the hungry and the
overfed in the world.
Be recalled the Chinese proverb:
If you give a man a fish, you feed him .or
a, day, but if you teach him how to fish, you
feed him for a lifetime.
While we are teaching the hungry to
fish, "how to plow deeper furrows, plant
better seed and grow better harvests," he
added, there is need to feed the hungry,
just as parents feed their children while
they are being educated.
I ask unanimous consent that this very
pertinent sermon be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sermon
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
You know my text very well. It is tare
sentence from the Lord's Prayer: "Give us
this day our daily bread." I know you all
say the Lord's Prayer, but I don't suppose any
one of you here has ever thought of saying it
in the first person singular. My Father
which art in Heaven, as though you wore
the only chilld of God. Forgive .me my tres-
passes as though you couldn't care less about
the sins of mankind. Lead me not into
temptation, as though the pitfalls of life to
other people were immaterial. Now, this is
not a bright. idea of mine. As long ago as
1400 the great Mcravian reformer, Jan Huss,
preached a sermon in which he accused his
congregation of doing exactly that. And I
was so fascinated by the idea, as one is by a
snake, I tried it myself just for the hell of it.
And. it sounded like a prayer out of hell.
And. the more I said it the more I began to
feel that I. was separating myself from _mny
family, from my community, and from m:.n-
k:ind. And the words that stuck most in my
gullet was when I said "give me this day Illy
daily bread," as though it was immaterial
what was on the table for my family-as
though it mattered not that my neighbor
next door was short of food--as though it
mattered not that millions unknown to me
were half starved. And then I remembered
that one of the temptations of our Lord was
that He should turn stones into bread. And
He refused it because at that time it was only
His personal hunger that mattered. But
when later in His ministry He was told that
thousands were hungry, you remember what
He told His disciples? "Don't send them
away. You give them something to eat."
You know, as one who is too old and of the
wrong sex to belong to the YW, one of the
things that I'm sorry about your generation
is that you have forgotten one of the great
things of my generation. The four freedoms
that were enunciated by Franklin Roosevelt
and Winston Churchill. Do you even re-
member them? Freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom
from want. Even in those dark days of 194:0
the specter of hunger was stalking the world.
Today it is a much more material thing than
a specter. The facts of life that happen
around us today is that two-thirds of the
world go to bed hungry every night. The
privileged one-third, those of us who live in
North America and Western Europe and Aus-
tralia, we have 17 percent more food than we
need. And the rest of the world has 24 per-
cent less than is required to keep it reason-
ably healthy. Let me put this in a more
vulgar fraction. In the United States of
America in a day the average person eats
41/2 pounds of food and very often looks like
it. In Asia they eat 11/4 pounds of food a
day, and 85 percent of that is rice. And in
the big cities of India at this moment the
rice ration has been cut by 50 percent. One-
third of the world has to diet, two-thirds
starve.
And the grim factor in this situation is
that the hungry are multiplying the popu-
lation far faster than the wise are incre.s-
ing food production. During the course of
this service the population of the world will
increase by 5,000. Ely this time tomorrow it
will have increased by 120,000. We antici-
pate 48 million more births than deaths in
the next 12 months. You know, even In
North America you have a sort of popula-
tion explosion. Your population has in-
creased 30 percent in the last 20 years. But
during the same time your food production
has increased by 50 percent. Why should
you worry? You can use that unpleasant
English phrase, "I'm alright, Jack." In
Asia the population increase is also 30 per-
cent, but the food production has increased
only by 25 percent. Twenty years of tech-
nocracy, of technical assistance, of charity,
of science, and the food consumption of the
hungry is down by 8 percent. You would
think, wouldn't you, that this staggering
problem of population explosion and the
lag in food production would be one and in-
divisible. But that is not so in fact. While
scientists and the United Nations are bend-
ing their energies to increase food produc-
tion, far too many obstacles are being placed
in the way of internationally planned faan-
ily control. Let's be frank; too many of
those obstacles are placed there by the
Christian church o:r parts of it. And not.
until we who call ourselves Christians have
greater unanimity and greater wisdom on
this problem can we play our proper role in
this tragic situation. Meanwhile, we can
turn ourselves to what we can do for the
hungry with what we have.
Five years ago the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations started
a freedom-from-hunger campaign. Like any-
thing else in the United Nations it had to
begin with a resolution. Sometimes that's
where things end as well. And I want to
read you the preamble of this resolution.
"Considering," it says, "that a large part of
the world's population still doesn't have
enough to eat and an even larger part doesn't
get the right kind of food * * *." Now this
isn't a resolution by a church synod: this is
a resolution adopted by hard-bitten diplo-
mats and specialists. The campaign has two
aims. First, to create a worldwide aware-
ness of hunger and malnutrition which apart
"' 'p" oved''rco R~C P6,7
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 203
U.S. POLICY AND ACTIONS IN VIETNAM Yet thost who disagee with our national as President of the Cabinet and in a subse-
(Remarks of Senator ERNEST GRUENING de- policy in this area can support President quent plebiscite backed him against the
livered at Harvard and Boston Universities Johnson's statement in his April 27 news playboy Emperor Bao Dal.
December 9, 1965) conference, which is pertinent to recall. Now we come to what I consider the perti-
I have been asked to address you on the Asked: "Mr. President, do you think any nent part of the history of U.S. involvement,
subject of the U.S. Policies and actions in of the participants In the national discussion The United States did not sign the
Vietnam. As you know, for reasons which I on Vietnam could appropriately be likened Geneva Accords but it expressed support of
will discuss in detail, i am not in agreement to the appeasers of 25 or 30 years ago?" them in a unilateral statement.
with those policies and actions. He replied: "I don't believe in character- This statement by Under Secretary of
Recently those who have publicly criticized izing People with labels. I think you do a State Walter Bedell- Smith, dated July 21,
those policies have come under Increasing great disservice when you engage in name 1954, was declared by him to be a unilateral
attack. This is a surprising development. calling. We want honest, forthright discus- declaration of U.S. position in these mat-
I would assume that in this land of freedom, sion in this country, and that will be discus- ters, and it stated:
the right to speak out openly on behalf of sion with differences of views, and we wel- "The Government of the United States
peace would be taken for granted. I would come what our friends have to say, whether, being resolved to devote its efforts to the
consider It not only a right but a duty-an they agree with us or not. I would not want strengthening of peace in accordance with
imperative duty. to label people who agree with me or dis- the principles and purposes of the United-
As the St. Louis Post Dispatch-one of the agree with me." Nations takes note of the agreements con-
Nation's finest newspapers-stated editorially It is not a secret that I have been one of cluded at Geneva on July 20 and 21, 1954."
on December 2: those who have disagreed. I began voicing The statement declared its support of
"One of the striking things about the criti- my disagreement in a full-length speech on paragraphs 1-12 Inclusive of the Geneva
cism of Vietnam policy is its persistent re- the floor of the Senate on March 10, 1964, agreements and that "it will refrain from the
fusal to be silenced. We hope that continues just 21 months ago. It was entitled: "The threat or the use of force to disturb them
to be the case. Every citizen shares the United States Should Get Out of Vietnam." In accordance with article 2(4) of the Char-
moral responsibility for his country's con- That was before our country had committed ter of the United Nations dealing with the
duct. If he believes his country's conduct to a single soldier to combat, or dropped a obligation of members to refrain in their
be wrong, but fails to speak out, he is betray- bomb. It would have been far easier to nego- international relations from the threat or
ing his own obligations as a citizen. Just as tiate an honorable settlement at that time use of force," and second it "would view any
public criticism of a no-negotiation policy and to obviate much of the slaughter and all renewal of the aggression in violation with
brought about a policy of pro-negotiation, so else that has happened since and the grim grave concern and as seriously threatening
criticism of mistaken objectives in Asia can prospect that now lies before us. International peace and security.
bring about adoption of the right objectives. Among the imperative reasons for full "In connection with the statement in the
It is vital that discussion of the Nation's public discussion and disclosure is because, declaration concerning free elections in Viet-
Asian objectives be free and vigorous." in my view, the justification for the course nam my Government wishes to make clear
Since the Bill of Rights, the first of the 10 which has now so deeply and tragically in- its position which it has expressed in a
amendments to the Constitution, prohibits volved our country in Vietnam and in south declaration made in Washington on June 29,
the Congress, and by implication all other east Asia, with apparently only a prospect for 1954, as follows: 'In the ease of nations now
legislative and executive authorities in the further and deeper involvement, is that the divided against their will, we shall continue
Nation and State, from abridging freedom of basis-the alleged basis-as I have studied to seek to achieve unity through free elec-
speech, the burden of proof should rest it differs very materially from the actual his- tions supervised by the United Nations to
heavily on any who would deny or seek to toric record. And it is not possible realis- insure that they are conducted fairly.'
impair such freedom. I know of no right tically to appraise what should have been "With respect to the statement made by
more precious or more inherent in our Na- our course of action and what it should be the representative of the State of Vietnam,
tion's philosophy and its often reiterated pro- now and in the future without a presenta- the United States reiterates its traditional
fessions. tion of that other side of how we got into this Position that peoples are entitled to deter-
But our Nation is now at war-an unde- meas. mine their own future and that it will not
Glared war, to be sure-and many of our fel- During World War rI the French colony of join in an arrangement which would hinder
low citizens hold the view that it is our duty Indochina was overrun by the Japanese. this. Nothing in its declaration just made
as patriotic Americans to support the ad- Fighting to liberate this area were Viet- Is intended to or does indicate any departure
ministration, which has assumed the respon- namese and the Allied Forces at war with from this traditional position.
sibility for our course of action in southeast Japan. The native aspirations-part of the We share the hope that the agreements
Asia, and is conducting the war. When our worldwide revolt against foreign domination, will permit Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam
men are dying In combat deep passions are against colonialism-were for independence. to play their part, in full independence and
naturally aroused, the martial spirit becomes But the French wanted to regain their sovereignty, in the peaceful community of
rampant, and dissent and protest become in- colonial possessions. Because of the fear nations, and will enable the peoples of that
creasingly perilous. that Communist China would take over this area to determine their own future."
Yet it is just at such a time that speaking area, the Eisenhower administration was You will note that in this declaration by
out is more than ever essential. urged to assist the French in reconquering the United States, we speak only of Vietnam,
Earlier this week I received a letter from their former colony. Certain voices in the not of South Vietnam or North Vietnam,
a professor In a large western State univer- United States urged all-out military assist- but Vietnam, and we reiterate our tradi-
sity, asking me to come there and address the ance. Others advised against it. President tional position that its People are entitled
student body and faculty on Vietnam and Eisenhower declined to send our troops into to determine their own future.
related matters. I quote from his letter: combat to aid the French although we did On the same day, July 21, 1964, President
"We have had a small protest demonstra- give the French substantial financial assist- Eisenhower issued a statement confirming
tion ''? * and this has produced a most vio- ance and some cooperation in military Under Secretary Bedell Smith's declarations.
lent reaction which has assumed chilling pro- training through a military mission estab- Now the official justification for our sub-
portions, creating a climate extremely un- lished in Saigon. But lacking this all-out Sequent and present military involvement
favorable to rational discussion of these prob- support, the French were defeated by the there and our steadily increasing involve-
lems." local forces, the Vietminh, suffering stagger- ment in South Vietnam was stated as fol.
There in a brief sentence you have what is ing losses and surrender at Dienbienphu. lows:
going on all over the country, and it em- In consequence, there was a meeting at In the state of the Union message in Janu-
phasizes the need for presentation on both Geneva of representatives of 14 nations, there, 1965, 1965, first, Johnson said: ' on has
sides of the case for and aaginst the U.S. poll- where accords were drawn up which fs, beca use a frie ndly nation in southeast Asia, and our armed inter- that 3 new nations should be born lot asked us for years against Communist rghelp.
vention there. of the former French colony-namely Laos. Three sion. en years ago we pledged our help.
So, whatever the consequences, I agree with Cambodia, and Vietnam. The accords pro-
ThrePresidents have supported that pledge.
the Post-Dispatch editorial that he who dis- vided that Vietnam was to be temporarily- We will abo break it.
sents from his country's policy but falls to but only temporarily-divided into North John, s elabo Hopkins rated speech th on nApril 7, 1965, sprit 7, 9Ssa y-
speak out, is indeed betraying his obligations and South Vietnam for reasons of demobi- -
lug:
as a citizen. lization, but that within 2 years an election
Clearly it is not easy to oppose the publicly would be held to choose the officials who We are there because
"Why are we in South we have Vietnam? expressed and reiterated declaration of pol- would govern the reunited Vietnamese. keep. Since 1954 every have an Presi-
icy and related action by the President of The United States was in South Vietnam dent has offered sup every American the United States, policies largely supported with its military mission at Saigon, and with South Vietnam. We have helped to build,
by the press-with some honorable and cou- the political demise of the French, was in and we have helped to defend. Thus, over
rageous exceptions-and in behalf of which charge. It was the United States that many years, we have made a national pledge
the powerful machinery of Government is brought Ngo Dien Diem back from monastic to help South Vietnam defend its independ.
militantly mobilized. life in the United States. was installed by us euce
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966
"I intend to keep that promise. To (I's" might wish to impose a foreign ideology on hhold the old therele ti
c the reasond they refused tst d?c to for honor that pledge would be an un-? yoi-ir free people."
forgivable wrong." So here we have a third precondition for that it was felt that Ho Chi Minh would be
Now let us go back and see what that first U.S. aid. The Viet Government was to be a elected President. But what principles are
pledge was-- the pledge by the first of the government respected both at home and we espousing when we agree to go to an elcc-
the unquestion-
three Presidents President Johnson refers to, theoa abroad. of its people, how enlightened are going to lose it?itTha because
It was s c unta od in a letter to President its purpose, how much respected at home- able record on this issue. How do we square
It temfo Ei
Diem as President of the Council of Minis- since a civil war broke out against. it. And that with cur national conscience and a
tors of Vietnam on October 23, 1954. I will it was not respected abroad, as evidenced by tradition that would be inviolate under our
read it. the fact that Ambassador Lodge :.,xpported standards?
"DFaa Mrt. PRESIDENT: I have been follow- the removal of Diem and the Mills. Of Now, some deny that this is a civil war
ing with great interest the course of devel- course, those conditions prescribed by Presi- and one of the partial myths on which we
opments in Vietnam, particularly since the dent Eisenhower were not fulfilled by the base cur actions is that the whole trouble
conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The Diem regime. But in any event nothing was stems from aggression from Hanoi. Well.
implications of the agreement concerning said about sending in our troops. There was no one could have been better informed. or.
Vietnam have caused grave concern regard- no promise or pledge of military aid. this issue than John F. Kennedy who war.
fag the future of a country temporarily di-? This is further confirmed by a White House in the Senate since 1953 and who, in his newe
vided by in artificial military grouping statement of November 3, 1054, which states conference of July 18, 1963, referred to "the
weakened by a long and exhausting war ant, that President Eisenhower had ,structed civil war which has gone on for 1.0 years. ,s his spc
the
host16, prov des:1eWith
agre faced enemies without and by their sc tsLt ve "toxexplore"s with Preside ntrDiem the c 3,ationartoficle
"Your collaborators
"Your recent requests for aid to assist in and his government how "to help them with effect from the date of entry into force of the
requests within.
the formidable project of the movement of their critical problems and to supplement present agreement, the introduction into
several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese measures adopted by the Vietnamese them- Vietnam of any troop reinforcements and est
onal mil
onnel is citizens away from areas which are passing b 1 esem Aratin, hat od.e Had there been,it is adAnd furtheritaryy phseffect fromr7theited.'
under a de facto rule and political ideology by
which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am hardly likely that such a request would not of entry into force of the present agreement, wliy
m
Vietna
t
any glad that the United States is able to assist thave hat been
mentioned. rThe mosbtethat forcem-ents inxthe form of all t p;,s of arms,
that
in this humanitarian effort."
will note that what I shall read now, was implied was economic aid which was munitions and other war materiel, such as
which follows those first two paragraphs of given, and President Eisenhower himself combat aircraft, naval craft, pieces of ord-
President Eisenhower's letter to Diem, says declared a few months ago that h>n had only nance, jet engines and jet weapons and ar-
nothing about a further request by Presi- offered economic aid. During the remaining moured vehicles, is prohibited."
dent Diem for assistance. 't'he only request 6 years of the Eisenhower administration, we The Geneva agreement provided for an
of record was limited to assistance in moving had a military mission which did not exceed International Commission to supervise the
several hundred thousand Vietnamese from some 600 officers and men; not me of these carrying out of the Geneva Accord and to see
the north to the south. There is nothing to were engaging in combat, no American lives that its provisions were carried out in Viet-
indicate that Diem was asking and that Pres- were risked or lost during that period. So nam. The Commission consisted of three
ident Eisenhower was responding to a re- inuc:h for the first of the three Presidents. representatives, one from Canada, one from
quest "for help against Communist aggrea_ Now we come to the second President, India, and one from Poland. They made vari-
sion." John F. Kennedy, who was persto ded by his ous reports which indicated increasing viola-
s now resume the quoting of Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, Robert Me Camara, to tions of the agreements by both parties.
letter: escalate our commitment to the extent of When one reads them objectively one gains
"We have been exploring ways and means sending military advisers wise number the impression that the violations by the
to permit our aid to Vietnam to be more rose before the end of his Presidency to some South Vietnamese under U.S. tutelage were , far
extensi effective elfa eo make a greater of tof contribution lee1,000. an 3tmonthsebeas Scpteool~vr 2, fo a his death, in9an special report byathefCommission inVpars-
the the welfare and stability the he Govern-
merit of Vietnam. I am, accordingly, ;in_ interview with CBS newscaster, Walter Cron- graph 12 states:
strutting the American Ambassador to Viet- kite, President Kennedy said: "I don't think "Since December 1961 the Commission's
nam to examine with you, in your capacity that unless a greater effort is made by the teams in South Vietnam have been per-
as chief of Government, how an intelligent Government to win popular support that the sistently denied the right to control and i i-
program of American aid given directly to war can be won out there." spent, which are part of their mandatory
your Government can serve to assist Vietnam So, President Kennedy had reached the tasks. Thus, these teams, though they were
in its present how' of trial, provided that conclusion that Diem had not fulfilled Eisen- able to observe the steady and continuous had 9
arrival your Government the is prepared give assort yorto do conitions although he
And then carriers wi hahe icopters onboard, wereeun-
from 1954 to 1 63. had
would as e standards of performance it years
b be able to maintain in the event such President Kennedy ;goes on to sriy: "In the able, In view of the denial of controls, to de-
aid were supplied." final analysis, it is their war. They are the termine precisely the quantum and nature
Consider now this language. "We", ones who have to win it or lose it. We can of war material unloaded and introduced in-
namely, the Government of the United give them equipment, we can send our men to South Vietnam."
States, "have been exploring ways and meats" out there as advisers, but they have to win And it continues in paragraph i7:
of aiding Vietnam. But that aid is to be it--the people of Vietn:-,m-against the Com- "As the Commission has been denied
given only "provided that your Government nhumists. We are prepared to continue to mandatory controls, as pointed out earlier
is prepared to give assurances as to standards assist them, but I don't think that the war in paragraph 12 above, it has not been able
of performance it would be able to maint??.in can be won unless the people :support the to make a precise assessment of the number
in the event such aid were supplied." effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 of military personnel and the quantum of
Now to continue President Eisenhower's months the Government has gotten out of war materiel brought in. However, Pram
letter: touch with the people." December 3, 1961, up to May 5. 1962, Cho
"The purpose of this offer is to assist the ][ believe this record shows theft we did not Commission's teams have controlled the en-
Government of Vietnam in developing and rri..ke a solemn pledge to support that Gov- try of 72 military personnel, and observed
maintaining a strong, viable state, capable crument. And in any event that Govern- but not controlled 173 military personnel,
of resisting attempted subversion or aggres- merit ceased to exist after its failure was 62 helicopters, 6 reconnaissance aircraft, 5
Hon through military means. The Govern- manifest. One of the reasons why civil jet aircraft, 57 fighters/fighter bombers, 25
inent of the United States expects that this war broke out against Diem in addition to transport aircraft, 26 unspecified types of
aid will be met by performance on the part his own oppressive tactics of jailing hundreds aircraft, 102 jeeps, 8 tractors, 8 105-mm.
of the Government of Vietnam in undertak- of people without trial, some of them being howitzers, 3 armoured carriers (tracked), 29
in1; needed reforms." tort red in prison, was the repudiation of armoured fighting vehicle trailers, 404 other
t continue to quote from President Eisen- the provision to hold general elections in trailers, and radar equipment and crates, 5
bower's letter: July 1996. This was the most basic item in warships, 9 LST's (including 4 visiting
the Geneva Accord and you will recall our LST's), 3 LCT's, 5 visiting aircraft carriers
such aid, Government of bi the d ith unilateral commitment to it by Walter Bedell and spares of various kinds."
"Ie (oho els the
=looted) Hopes that aid, will contribute t Smith, Under Secretary of State, when he In the case of North Vietnam. the Com-
your own continung efforts, will stated: mission (the Polish delegate dissenting,
en odowed wed with a ltoward an inovernmenndent Vietnam am a "In Use case of nations now divided against which is not surprising since he represented ong toend, I hop v, errtheir will, we shall continue to seek to achieve a country behind the Iron Curtain) con-
to nationalist f responsive
to the he natit aspirations s of its people, unity through free elections." eluded that "in specific instances there was
so enlightened in purpose and effective in Yet, the United States, which dominated evidence to show that armed and unarmed
performance, that it will be respected both the situation of South Vietnam, approved personnel, arms and other supplies had been
at hone and abroad and discourage any who and ratified that Government's refusal to sent from the North to the South with the
?,,ap,u8d m IWefll~6/1'~I'~fl~* C,I"t=RD17'BY~4~~IC}
maw,..........
 ' Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
205
purpose of supporting, organizing and car- ment of disputes by peaceful means. An- Vietnam and anywhere else in southeast
rying out hostile activities including armed other violation war that of article 37 which Asia that he saw fit. This the President made
attacks, directed against the armed forces provides that if parties to a dispute of the clear at the outset of his message, when he
and administration of the zone in the south. matter referred to In article 33, fail to settle stated: "This is not a routine appropriation.
These activities are in violation of articles it by the means indicated in that article For each Member of Congress who supports
10, 19, 24, and 27 of the agreement of cessa- they shall refer It to the Security Council. this request is also voting to persist in our
tion of hostilities in Vietnam." Again not "may" but "shall." The United effort to halt Communist aggression in South
Obviously, both sides, North and South, States has not done that. Vietnam. Each is saying that the Congress
were violating the Geneva agreement. It So when those in authority in Washington and the President stand united before the
would appear that those of the South were speak of "a national pledge" as a justifica- world in joint determination that the Inde-
far larger and they had the support and tion for our course of action in Vietnam, I pendence of South Vietnam shall be pre-
approval of the United States. The viola- find it difficult not to contrast that dubious served and Communist attack will not
tions on both sides were charged by the conditional, qualified, tentative offer of help succeed."
Canadian and Indian representatives who to a vanished South Vietnamese Chief of Since this money was not needed and was
may well be credited with impartiality. State-who did not fulfill the conditions- to be used merely as a symbol of support for
The Polish delegate, whose report may not with our violation of the unqualified treaty our policy, I found myself unable to vote for
be accepted as unbiased, refused to join in commitments, of which there could be no it, as likewise did WAYNE MORSE, and we were
the indictment of the charges against North more solemn category-the United Nations joined by another Senator, GAYLORD NELSON,
Vietnam but joined with his colleagues Charter, the Southeast Asia Treaty, and the of Wisconsin. In the House, seven Members
against those of the South. violations of the unilateral statement by voted against it.
We now come to further U.S. violations. Under Secretary Walter Bedell Smith, reit- Going from these factual presentations to
The United States is a signatory to the United erated on the same day by President Eisen- the realm of personal opinion, it is my deep-
Nations Charter. In fact, the United States hower, that we would support Vietnam su- seated belief that we made a very serious mis-
was largely instrumental in creating the pervised elections In 1956. take in getting involved militarily because
United Nations. To review briefly what has happened in first, in my view, nothing that happens in
Article 2, of chapter 1, paragraph 4, pro- the Congress: In August of 1964 it was re- South Vietnam jeopardizes the security of
vides: ported that two, or possibly three, PT boats the United States. And even if it did so
"1. All Members shall refrain in their in- had attacked our 7th Fleet in the Tonkin there is a question of whether that would
ternational relations from the threat or use Gulf. But if, as reported (although it is justify our invading Vietnam and bombing
of force against the territorial integrity or questionable whether the full facts have it any more than we can justify the seizure
political independence of any state, or in any been'revealed to the American people), this by Stalin of the formerly independent coun-
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes was an act of aggression-although perhaps tries surrounding Russia-Latvia, Lithuania,
of the United Nations." as unimportant as an attack by a 14-year- Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary-
Article 33 of chapter 6, provides: old boy with a beanshooter against Cassius on the grounds that their control was es-
"1. The parties to any dispute, the con- Clay-the President was wholly within his sential to the security of Soviet Russia. Nor
tinuance of which is likely to endanger the rights to order a retaliatory attack by air- do I subscribe to the domino theory which is
maintenance of international peace and se- planes from the fleet on the base from which that had we not gone in, these nations of
curity, shall first of all, seek a solution by these PT boats emerged. However, the next southeast Asia would have fallen into the
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conflation, day a resolution drafted in the White House hands of the Communist Chinese. And then
arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to was submitted to the Congress not merely we are told in Sequent flights of fancy that
regional agencies or arrangements, or other approving everything that had been done after southeast Asia the Philippines, Aus-
peaceful means of their own choice." before in southeast Asia, but giving the tralia, New Zealand would fall and we would
Now you notice that this article does not President unlimited power in his own dis- have to be fighting the Communists on the
say that they may do this but that they cretion to use the Armed Forces of the United beaches of California. That to me is ar-
shall do it, and lists eight alternative meth- States anywhere in southeast Asia. It rant nonsense. Certainly our control of the
ods which should be used "first of all." Now Passed the House unanimously and in the Pacific by sea and air renders that absurd.
we may well ask, did we, the United States, Senate there were two opposing votes-those Moreover I am not a pacifist and I do not
when there were violations of the Geneva of Senator WAYNE MoRsE and mine. I could like and am utterly opposed to the advance of
agreements, seek a solution by negotiations? not justify giving the President this unlim- totalitarianism anywhere. If a situation
We did not. Did we seek a solution by Ited, unrestricted power out of which our should arise whereby a free government such
inquiry? We did not. Did we seek a solu- steadily escalating military commitment as that of Australia or New Zealand were
tion by mediation? We did not. Did we stems. For one thing the Constitution of threatened by attack and invasion by the
seek a solution by conciliation? We did not. the United States is specific that only Con- forces of imperial communism and there was
Did we seek a solution by arbitration? We gress can declare war. We are now at war, a request from those governments for our aid,
did not. Did we seek a solution by judicial and in my judgment, and that of WAYNR I would be for giving that aid without stint
settlement? We did not. Did we seek a solu- MORSE, who is a constitutional lawyer, we or limit. The situation in South Vietnam is
tion by resorting to regional agencies or ar- are thereby in violation of the Constitution quite different. I am confident, and this is
rangements? We did not. Or did we seek a In February last we started bombing North further in the realm of opinion, that had we
solution by "other peaceful means of our Vietnam. The justification for this drastic stayed out entirely we would have three in-
(their) own choice?" We did not. change of policy was that there had been an dependent countries formed out of French
One of the "regional agencies or arrange- attack on one of our outposts at Pleiku. Indochina, that they would have installed
ments" whose aid we might have invoked for Pleiku is about 200 miles south of the 17th their own social and political ideology, which
a peaceful solution was the Southeast Asia parallel, the boundary between North and they would have had every right to do, and
Treaty Organization which was created at the South Vietnam. At night a group of Viet- that a united Vietnam would have adopted
instance and by the leadership of Secretary cong passed through the lines of the South communism as its social and economic sys-
of State John Foster Dulles and whose sig- Vietnamese troops who were either too inert tem. But it would have been a Communist
natories were the, United States, Australia, or uninterested to alert our men in the bar- regime independent of Peiping and there is
France, New Zealand, Pakistan, The Philip- racks. The Vietcong opened fire with a evidence that many non-Communists are en-
pines, Thailand and the United Kingdom. It mortar of American make, which they had listed in the civil war against the South Viet-
reaffirms in article I the agreement to settle apparently secured from the South Viet- nam Government. The history of Vietnam
international disputes by peaceful means namese forces, and killed 8 American soldiers, shows conclusively their people's dislike and
and, to quote it exactly: There was no direct relation between this fear of the Chinese, and their war is largely
"The parties undertake, as set forth in the incident and North Vietnamese infiltration, motivated by a desire to get rid of all foreign
Charter of the United Nations, to settle any but It was made the justification for the rule. They want independence, and that
international disputes in which they may bombing which has now continued for 10 should be a cause that ought to appeal to
be involved by peaceful means in such a months with no appreciable result. It ap- Americans, They did not want the French
manner that international peace and recur- pears rather to have hardened the deter- in. They did not want the Chinese, and I
ity and justice are not endangered, and to mination of the North Vietnamese to con- doubt whether a majority want us in. In
refrain in their international relations from tinue what they have been doing and rather Europe, to achieve a corresponding situation,
the threat or use of force in any manner to increase their aid to the South Vietnamese namely in Yugoslavia, a Communist state in-
inconsistent with the purposes of the United National Army of Liberation. dependent of Moscow, the United States in-
Nations." Last May the President sent to the Con- vested $2 billion in aid for Tito, and our
Thus having used force the United States gress an appropriation request of $700 million policy makers considered that, and now con-
was also violating the SEATO treaty. I to conduct this undeclared war in Vietnam. sider it, a sound and profitable investment.
have spoken ,of the violation of article 2, President Johnson frankly stated that this I need not detain you longer to point out
paragraph 4, chapter 1 (which was specific- request was being made not because moneys what has happened and what is happening.
ally mentioned by Under Secretary Walter were needed to supply our Armed Forces in I consider our bombing of North Vietnam
Bedell Smith's declaration of U.S. policy Vietnam, for he could transfer money needed totally without justification morally, legally,
which we would adhere to), and the viola- from other sources, but rather as a vehicle or otherwise. It is the sort of thing we
tion of article 33, chapter 6, of the United to secure additional congressional approval condemned scathingly when done by totali-
Nations Charter that provides for the settle- of his carrying on the undeclared war in tarian powers in past years; and as we have
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 19 66
seen now alter 10 months of such bombing, cumstances-this senseless war will go on
it has merely stiffened the resistance of and get steadily more disastrous.
those whom we are fighting. We are get- What the United States should do-in
ting in deeper and deeper; not only are our sum--is to return to the rule of law. We
casualty lists growing, but the toll of not should have invoked the United Nations at
merely those fighting but of civilian non- the very beginning when we felt that treaty
combatants mounts daily. It is my rea commitments were violated and wa have not
coned view that in our effort to stop the: used the United Nations as we should have.
advance of imperialist communism, we are: In this connection, the disci sures by
actually aiding it. So far, at least, the sit_ Adlai Stevenson to :Eric Sevareid, which ap-
nation must be to the liking of the Cons- peared in the November 30 issue of Look
munist rulers of China, for to date they maga.zine, that both McNamara and Rusk
have not committed a single soldier to thils
war. And yet there we are--a great Western
Power, the greatest in the world-engaging
in. a desperate, bitter, and horrible struggle
on the continent of Asia with a small Asiatic
nation, sacrificing the lives of our youth
and spending billions of dollars.
The situation is different even from that
of Korea. First, there was overt aggression
from the North there. Second, we were
there under a United Nations mandate.
Third, the South Koreans wanted to fight.
These factors are not present, at least not
in the same degree, in Vietnam. There was
no overt initial aggression from the North
at the start. There has been infiltration,
subsequent infiltration, but paralleling the
U.S. support of South Vietnam, and at least
not appreciably until our and Diem's re-
fusal to hold elections. The United States
went in unilaterally and until very recently,
and only in response to great pressure from
us, we had little support from our SEATO
allies-none from Pakistan, none (to speak
of) from Britain, none from France, and
when administration spokesmen cite the
total number of nations that are allegedly
with us-in a kind of numbers game-we
find that they have come In late and largely
with only token assistance. In the Novem-
ber 29 issue of Newsweek there was a little
item in its Periscope column entitled "Spain
Lends a Hand" which reads: "Spain is the
latest country to lend a hand in Vietnam.
After much prodding from L.B.J., the Franco
government hopes to ship in four ambu-
lances with medical crews. Actually the
ambulances will have little significance (the
helicopters do their work now) but the
medics are wanted and the Spanish con.-
tingent wi1.1 be welcomed as evidence of sup-
port for the United States and Saigon."
When I was in South America last January
I found that every American Ambassador had
received orders to go to the President of the
country to which he was accredited to 're-
quest support for our efforts in Vietnamm.
Many of them were reluctant to do this and
in many cases their pleas were unheeded,
while in others there was the same kind of
token compliance which we now see we have
canning from Spain. These countries are all
recipients of lavish American aid and the
United States is, in effect, paying for these
tokens and is in a position to apply pressure.
I could only wish there could be a ready
and quick answer to and a way out of the
tragic dilemma that the President, his act-
visors, and the people of the United States
find themselves in. We are now so deeply
committed that a way out is extremely di:ili-
cult to find. There have been numerous sug-
gestions made and we should explore them
all actively. Our so-called unconditional
discussion; are not unconditional as long as
we do not firmly pledge willingness to nego-
tiate also with the people who are doing the
fighting, the National Liberation Front, or
Vietcong; guarantee the carrying out of the
general agreements to which we once pledged
support, namely supervised elections in all
Vietnam, but whose violation we approved,
anal make every effort for a cease fire and
simultaneous phasing out of the combatants
of both sides. Unless we make such modAi-
cations in our attempts at negotiation and
stop the bombing of North Vietnam-he-
cause no people will yield under those cir-
turned a deaf ear to the efforts of U Thant
to secure negotiations which were then pos-
sible, are very disturbing
Because I strongly value adherence to law,
I c.. onot approve the action of a cow of our
draftees in burning up their draft cards.
They are in violation of the law and must
take the consequences, however one may
sympathize with their feelings that we
should never have been in Vietnam and that
what we are doing there is morally wrong
and self-defeating. But peaceful protests
and freedom of speech should remain in-
violate and we should continue _o urge al-
most any sensible solution that would put
an end to the killing. It would be much
better than the dark prospect of more and
more slaughter which lies ahead and which
ultimately, in my judgment, will result in a
solution which could have been achieved
bloodlessly a few years ago. The sad fact is
that we cannot wi:a this war. When I say
"win" I do not necessarily mean that in a
strict military sense. If we continue to pour
troops into southeast Aria, blast its villages
from. the air with bombs and napalm, kill
more tens of thousands, we may in time im-
pose a military domination, although even
that Is by no means certain. But even if
we did, what then? Sooner or later the
problems of Asia will be settled by Asians,
as they should be. We should h:,.ve learned
that the white man cannot settle t' :ern for the
Asians. We will be told that there are some
Asians fighting on our side, as fa the case
of the Koreans, but they are bgh' Iden to us,
.and in general, it appears to me that we have
very litle spontaneous enthusiasl.ic support
from almost any source.
:I cannot conceive that it is desirable or
wise for us to throw our young; men into
every cockpit in the world where Clommunist
totalitarianism rears its ugly lead. And
why should we assume the role of self-ap-
pointed "citizen fixit," of world policemen,
all over the globe? If the cause i sufficient-
ly good and urgent, an approach should al-
ways be made under the United Nations on
a basis of international legality and with
the support, from. the very beginning, of
others who believe that freedom is truly at
stake and that those for whom we fight also
know and value freedom and are prepared
to do their share. This is far from the reality
in Vietnam.
There are still other impending grave
casualties of our military plunge into the
quagmire of southeast Asia. T l date over
1,500 fine young Americans have been killed
in action. Several hundred more have died
in noncombat fatalities. Ten thousand have
been wounded, many crippled fr life, and
that ghastly toll is just beginning. Mean-
while, the great achievements on the domes-
tic, front of President Johnson and the 89th
Congress in its let session-and they were
great-will be largely nullified. They will
be nullified just as their implementation was
to begin. The inspiring vision of the "Great
Society" will be b'turred if not il:ascked out.
There will not be the means b th for the
construction of that society at h, me and the
destruction of war abroad. Most tragic of
all, apart from the human sacrif.ces and the
blighting of countless homes, is the fading
of the national image of our beloved country,
of which, despite some of its failings, we
have had every right to be proud. to cherish,
and. to wish to maintain.
I can only express the fervent hope that we
can, somehow, soon, call a halt before that
image and that vision of this great land be-
come a memory. Let us all do our utmost to
bring that about.
PROXMIRE POSTMASTER BILL SUP-
PORTED BY ARTHUR D. LITTLE,
EFFICIENCY EXPERT
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, last
year I introduced legislation which would
place postmasters' appointments under
the civil service system. At that time I
pointed out that the present system of
political patronage injured post office
employee morale. Postal employees are
forbidden by Federal law to participate
in the very political activities that are
essential under the patronage system if
they are to get a postmastership. I also
indicated that patronage matters of this
kind tie up valuable staff personnel.
They create dissension in State and local
parties. For every party worker who is a
successful postmaster appointee, there
are 5 or 1.0 who are disappointed and
resentful.
The distinguished management con-
sultant firm of Arthur D. Little has re-
cently cited the present postmaster ap-
pointment system as an example of time
wasted "on nonpolicy business by Con-
gress that could be saved without signifi-
cant political cost or effect." This con-
clusion was included within a manage-
ment study of the Congress commissioned
by NBC News in connection with its
special report "Congress Needs Help."
The specific language of the Arthur D.
Little report states:
The time spent on postmaster and service
academy appointments serves little useful
purpose. Some 21,000 postmaster appoins-
ments and all appointments to the military
academies clear through congressional offices.
These appointments * ? * are an avoidable
distraction. In the judgment of many Con-
gressmen, the political values of this time-
honored custom are not commensurate with
the amount of time it takes.
I agree with the report's comments. I
hope that the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee will schedule early hearings
on my proposal, S. 252, in the coining
year.
CHURCH CONCERN FOR DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on
November 12, 1965, the board of directors
of the Council of Churches of Greater
Washington passed two resolutions which
I deeply hope the Senate heeds in carry-
ing out its duties and responsibilities to
the citizens of the District of Columbia
and the Nation at large during the id
session of the 89th Congress.
The first resolution expresses the
council's support for appropriations to
implement the rent supplement program
authorized by Congress last year as part
of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1965. As a member of the Hoas-
ing Subcommittee of the Senate Bank-
ing and Currency Committee, :I am par-
ticularly aware of the long hours spent
in committee and in conference on, tiLis
legislation. All of my colleagues in the
Senate remember the thorough floor
IPTP
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966
same spirit that so many Alaskans showed in
rebuilding after the Good Friday earthquake
of 1964.
Rather, my purpose is to call national at-
tention to the loss of a building on which it
is impossible to place a value-St. Michael's
Cathedral.
Estimates have been made on the cost of
reconstructing St. Michael's, but I know of
no way to put a price on the historical value
of the church. The cathedral is' believed
to be the oldest church in Alaska and was
one of the few buildings remaining from
the days of Russian rule. -
The cathedral, called by the National Sur-
vey of Historical Sites and Buildings the
finest example of Russian architecture In the
United States, was dedicated in 1848.
Construction began 4 years earlier.
From 1848 until 1862 and from 1905 until
the present it was the cathedral for the
Russian Orthodox Church P Alaska.
Some of the ornaments ',Inside the cathe-
dral date from an earlier church at Sitka.
The icon of the Archangel St. Michael,
patron saint of Sitka, was brought to the
colony in 1816 by Father Alexis Sokoloff, the
first priest assigned to the town founded 17
years earlier.
Father Ivan Veniaminov, the great Rus-
sian missionary, came to Sitka, capital of
Russian-America, in 1834. He returned to
Russia 4 years later to appeal for an expan-
sion of church activities in Alaska.
Father Veniaminov came back as Bishop
Innocent of Alaska and launched a program
which included schools and theological semi-
naries. It was under his leadership that the
cathedral was built. Sitka became the home
of the bishop.
For a time after the Alaska purchase the
church continued to receive support from
Russia, but since 1918 local congregations
have been the sole support of orthodox
clergy and churches in this country. In 1933
the ruling bishop of the Russian Orthodox
Church of North America declared the
church on this continent to be temporarily
autonomous from the Communist-controlled
organization in the Soviet Union.
As cathedrals go, St. Michael's was not im-
posing in size. Built in the shape of a cross,
the church was 97 feet long and 66 feet wide.
Despite its modest dimensions, the build-
ing had a graceful grandeur and beauty seen
against its backdrop of beautiful mountains.
A four-story bell tower, constructed of mas-
sive, hand-cut logs, supported an octagonal
belfry which held eight bells ranging in
weight from 75 to 1,500 pounds. A carrot-
shaped steeple topped by a gilt cross rose
above the belfry.
A dome, like the steeple, showing the in-
fluence of oriental architecture, covered the
center of the church.
The interior of the cathedral was as ornate
as the wood exterior was plain. Walls were
covered with painted cloth, but of most in-
terest were the many sacred objects, paint-
ings, and icons on display.
I won't attempt to note all that the church
contained, A brief description of the
iconostas, the partition in an Eastern Ortho-
dox Church which separates the main part of
the church from the sanctuary, will suffice to
give an idea of the richness of the church's
interior. The partition was adorned with 12
icons, splendid examples of repousse art. In
this art form, figures are painted on canvas.
Then a craftsman, working with a thin sheet
of silver, beats out the form of clothing
worn by the. figure, reproducing folds and
ornaments in the original painting. The 12
icons on the St. Michael's iconostas required
50 pounds of silver.
Perhaps the cathedral's most famous icon
is the Sitka Madonna, known throughout the
world. The painter of the icon was Vladimir
Lukich Borovikovsky, a great portrait painter
who died in 1826. Employees of the Russian-
American company gave the icon to the
church.
Fortunately, through the efforts of firemen,
priests, and residents, all of the precious
items of the cathedral, with the exception of
a single painting, were saved. Unfortunately,
the church books, dating back to the early
1800's, were destroyed.
There are many reasons why St. Michael's
should be rebuilt, but the most compelling
reason is to give these beautiful ornaments,
sacred objects, paintings and icons saved
from the flames a proper setting. While a
reconstructed church will not be of equal
,historical importance as the original, it
seems only right that the ornaments be dis-
played in a church which recreates as closely
as possible their original setting.
It will be possible to rebuild a replica of
St. Michael's because detailed plans of the
cathedral are on file in the Library of Con-
gress.
The plans are on file because of a project
of the National Park Service known as Mis-
sion '66. In 1956, Congress approved appro-
priations so that the Park Service could em-
bark on a 10-year program to upgrade na-
tional parks which had been neglected during
and immediately following World War II.
Part of that effort was directed toward re-
suming the Historic American Building Sur-
vey, which had been suspended during World
War II.
The six measured drawings of the cathe-
dral were done as part of the survey. I think
the tragedy at Sitka demonstrates the value
of that survey. Because of that survey, it
will be possible to reconstruct the cathedral.
I am happy to report that a drive to raise
funds for construction of a replica already
has been started by interested Alaskans.
Contributions are being sent to the St.
Michael's Cathedral Fund established by the
Bltka Historical Sites Restoration Committee,
a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under
the chairmanship of James T. Thomason.
The drive has attracted statewide support.
For example, a formal campaign has been
launched in Anchorage. The committee is
headed by Merrill Mael, and includes among
others Mayor Elmer Rasmuson, William Hop-
kins, an aid of the Governor, and Robert D.
Arnold, my special assistant in Alaska.
It was reported that the Alaska State
Chamber of Commerce has pledged $10,000 to
the fund.
A radio station in Cleveland, acting on its
own, reportedly made an appeal for funds.
A nationwide effort is being planned, and
I am pleased to serve as the honorary chair-
man of this portion of the drive.
Estimates on reconstructing the church
range from $500,000 to $800,000. I hope that
money will be raised and that Sitka will
once again be the site of historic St. Michael's
Cathedral.
In closing I would like to quote from a
study made for the National Park Service.
Better than I could, the quotation sums the
historical importance of the cathedral:
"In our opinion, St. Michael's Cathedral is
of sufficient national historical and cultural
significance to qualify as a national historic
site.
"First, as the cathedral and spiritual center
for the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska
for many years, both during the Russian and
American periods of Alaskan history, it is the
structure best suited to commemorate the in-
fluence of the Eastern Orthodox Church in
the development of Alaska.
"Second, as the oldest known surviving re-
ligious structure in Alaska and as a splendid
any typical example of Orthodox church
architecture in Alaska, it is eminently quali-
fied to illustrate for future generations one
of the cultures which has contributed to the
formation of our American civilization and
our national scene.
"Third, as one of the very few structures
of any type still remaining from the period
of Russian occupation, it symbolizes and
commemorates the meeting of Eastern and
Western cultures on the western edge of
America.
"Fourth, because of its association with
Father Veniaminov it commemorates one of
the great, though little known, men of the
American missionary frontier.
"This site is a natural point at which to
present these broad aspects of American his-
tory. No other national historic site com-
memorates these particular phases of our
country's history. Nearby Sitka National
Monument presents another, though related,
phase of Alaska's story-the culture of the
natives and their resistance to white settle-
HE MANSFIELD REPORT ON
VIETNAM
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, our
distinguished majority leader, Senator
MANSFIELD, of Montana. and his col-
leagues, Senators AIKEN, MUSKIE, INOUYE,
and Boccs, deserve the highest com-
mendation for their forthright report on
the grim realities of the situation con-
fronting us in Vietnam.
If there is to be a meaningful debate
in Congress on the war in southeast Asia,
it must be based upon a realistic assess-
ment of where we are, whence we came,
and where we are headed. Too much
mischief has already been done by the
instant victory advocates who keep as-
suring us that the Vietcong will collapse,
if we will just push the war up still an-
other notch.
The sobering effect which the Mans-
field report should inspire cannot help
but add new momentum to the quest for
a rational settlement of the war in Viet-
nam.
Mr. R. H. Shackford, staff writer for
the Scripps-Howard newspapers, has
given a fine appraisal of the Mansfield
report in an article published in the
January 10 edition of the Washington
Daily News. I ask unanimous consent
that the article be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
VIETNAM DEBATE WARMS UP-THE MANSFIELD
REPORT HAS STIRRED HAWKS AND DOVES
(By R. H. Shackford)
Senate Democratic Leader MIKE MANS-
FIELD'S grim but extraordinarily candid re-
port about the mess in Vietnam has set the
hawks and thn doves at it again.
It has created the background for a debate,
already under way, that is certain to grow in
intensity as Congress reconvenes and Presi-
dent Johnson faces new decisions.
The hawks in private denounce Senator
MANSFIELD for his candor, claiming that his
report aids and abets the enemy and will
mislead Hanoi about U.S. Intentions.
The doves praise the report, especially for
its candor. They argue that it is about time
some one courageously painted the real, pes-
simistic picture as a contrast to the ones
created daily by U.S. military and diplomatic
spokesmen.
The hawks, who include those who for
years have argued that just a little more
pressure will bring the other side to its
knees, claim the situation is more hopeful
than Senator MANSFIELD sees it-provided a
little more escalation is ordered.
The doves suggest that the outlook in
Vietnam is eve_i bleaker than Senator MANS-
FIELD'S public report and that the Senator's
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
fire protection, and sanitation. The initiative
for creation usually came from the citizens
of the community. The legislature granted
broad powers and duties to the governing
boards of these municipalities, including
complete power to determine their organiza-
tional structure. This made it far simpler
to centralize the administration of cities and
towns.
MI )RE SERVICES
Paced later with demands by the people for
services, the legislature granted power to
counties to decide whether other activities
should be carried. on, and if carried on, the
extent to which performed. Thus the legis-
lature has authorized counties to establish
public health programs, to establish and
maintain hospitals and, more recently, to
provide mental health services, libraries, agri-
cultural extension programs, trade and voca-
tional courses, industrial education centers,
and community colleges. The legislature has
authorized counties to protect property
through firefighting programs, building
codes, and zoning, and to build and operate
airports, to establish, recreation programs, to
maintain civil defense programs, and to con-
duct other activities.
'l'hns counties today serve a twofold pur-
pose. They are subdivisions of the State and
they are units of local self-government.
Because of the county's role as a subdivi-
sion of the State the direction of county gov-
ernment is a matter of State policy. It is
true that county officials often have their
own suggestions with respect to activities
they administer, but because of the State-
county partnership they share the initiative
with others.
External influences, which grow out of the
traditional role of the county as a subdivision
of the State, thus have a substantial bearing
on the direction of county government.
UBRAN COUNTY ]PROBLEMS
The large urban counties have a growing
mobile population and an expanding urban
area. These combine to create problems.
First of all, the urban counties are faced
with the problem of taking over and provid-
ing on a countywide basis some of the serv-
ices traditionally performed by cities. For a
number of years there has been a movement
toward countywide operation of library serv-
ice, for example. Since World War II, county
activity in hospital construction and main-
tenance has far outdistanced municipal in-
terest. An interest in airports has recently
become evident, and if county experience in
North Carolina follows county experience
elsewhere, there will soon be an increased in-
terest in parks and recreation. None of these
activities is a respecter of municipal boun-
daries, and counties will become more and
more involved in all of them.
A second problem lies in the demands of
people in unincorporated areas for services
traditionally provided by cities. Many coun-
ties have recently received demands for
water and sewer service in unincorporated
areas, and some have come from areas into
which the nearby city cannot justify ex-
panding its service. The near future may
bring demands on counties for pure water
on a wholesale basis for both unincorpo-
rated areas and smaller municipalities, and
the same may be true of demands for the
disposal of sewage. There are already the
faint stirrings of. Interest in housing and
renewal to clear up slums in unincorporated
areas.
A third problem is developing as communi-
ties spill across county lines and make re-
gional cooperation imperative. This is mak-
ing itself apparent in the physical planning
area. The organization of the Piedmont
Crescent 2,000 Commission recognizes the
fact that land development is no respecter
of county lines. Regional cooperation in
.hospital planning has already developed in
several areas and will develop in others. We
may see in the future a recognition that
decentralization of industry has advantages
in the overall development of an area,
whereas at present each county desires maxi-
mum industrialization for itself.
A, fourth problem of the large urban county
lies in the necessity for developing rural-
urban cooperation and communication. Ur-
ban growth patterns affect rural areas quite
dramatically, not only through the effects
of changing land uses on property values,
but also through tax increases on rural as
well as urban property to meet the cost of
growth.
Finally, there is the problem of recsga-
nization. Most large counties have already
reorganized internally to meet the challenges
ahead. They have county managers and
county planning departments to provide
centralized administration and long-range
planning. Will there be it need for external
reorganization, like city-county consolida-
tion or "metro" government? In North Caro-
lina, we do not have the overlapping and
duplication of activities that have led to
this kind of development elsewhere, and we
may achieve the major advantages of con-
solidation merely through cooperatiol; in
planning between counties and munici-
palities.
RURAL COUNTY PROBLEMS
The small rural county has a different, set
of problems. More often than. not, there is
a decline in population, through small in-
creases in town population will often partly
offset the declining population of the rural
areas. But size, more than population loss,
presents the problem of providing adeq,.late
services with too few people to serve and too
few taxpayers.
The schools may have too few students for
a full curriculum geared to the needs and
abilities of the students. The welfare de-
partment may have too few cases to justify
the intensive services that some people re-
quire; child welfare service is a typicai ex-
ample. Many departments have too little
work to justify the salaries demanded by
highly trained people. And finally there is
the limited tax base that must finance these
services.
Some of these difficulties are being offset
by multicounty operations, particularly in
the health and library areas. Joint opera-
tions in other areas may follow. But the
regional arrangement is easier in some cases
than others, and problems arise where moun-
tains or water add transportation difficulties.
The problem of sufficient population must
be solved, or the people in these smaller
counties will suffer. Merger of counties is
no answer, for merger itself can do little to
overcome the problems presented by a ,:scat-
tered population.
A second. problem faced by the small rural
county is the need for industry and job op-
portunities. The competition, however, is
terrific. There are some :14,000 communities
in the United States engaged in the hunt
for new industry, and industry continues to
be attracted to the more populous areas
where other business is succeeding.
A third problem may lie in reapportion-
ment. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions
announcing the "one man, one vote" rule,
unless changed by constitutional amend-
ment, will mean loss of representation to
many of the smaller counties. Legislative
representation, certainly, has been one of
the biggest single factors militating against
merger of counties, and loss of representa-
tion could change the picture. Whether re-
apportionment itself will affect the direc-
tion of county government cannot be fore-
told.
One important problem that faces all
counties is the necessity for obtaining and
retaining sufficient competent personnel. In
small counties, the salary problem is cou-
pled with the necessity for finding people
who want to live in smaller communities.
An additional problem lies in money. for
all counties will be faced with increased de-
mandr for services, and these demands will
mean higher taxes. The one thing worse
than higher taxes is the consequences of
failure to meet the demands. If they are
not met, people will turn to the State capitol
and Washington for help. History tells us
that there the call will be answered. Gen-
erally speaking, it has proved true that the
demands for services are stronger than the
demands for economy in government, and
the greatest threat that faces county govern-
ment in the years ahead is failing to provide
what the people want and demand.
SIGNIFICANCE
If the problems are met, this itself will
give a changing direction to county govern-
ment. If the problems are not met, we can
expect to see increased State and Federal
activity, and this, too, will affect county
government's direction.
One difficulty is that large counties are
faced with different challenges from those
of small counties. Large counties will need
help from small counties In solving their
problems, at least where legislation is needed.
And small counties will need help from the
large counties in financing expanding serv-
ices to serve people who live in the rural
areas and small towns.
As we look at the direction of county gov-
ernment, we can count ourselves fortunate
that we do not face the problems of those
States where one metropolitan area is domi-
nant. Our more even spread of population
in North Carolina, is advantageous in that
problems are more widely shared and under-
stood.
But with the differences we do have, small
counties and large counties can develop to-
gether. Working together, we can continue
to build, and the direction of county govern-
ment, like the direction of State and munic-
ipal government, will be in the tradition. of
good government.
A NEW CATHEDRAL FOR SITKA
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
behalf of the distinguished senior Sen-
ator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETTI, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed at
this point in the RECORD a statement
prepared by him concerning a new ca-
thedral for Sitka.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR BARTLETT
On January 2, fire, spread by 15-mile-an-
hour winds, swept a section of the city of
Sitka in southeast. Alaska. Before the fierce
flames were extinguished, 2 churches and
11 buildings housing 21 businesses and 8
apartments were razed.
According to figures I have received, the
loss in real and personal property was close
to $2 million. Perhaps a more important
figure is the estimate of $3.5 million put, on
rebuilding the burned-out section of,Sittka.
Insurance will cover only $835,000 of the loss.
For Sitka, a small city, the loss is exten-
sive. However, I am happy to report that
residents led by Maj. John W. O'Conn.ell,
launched plans to rebuild their city almost
immediately after the flames were put out.
They will have the aid of the Small Business
Administration, which already has declared
the city eligible for disaster loans.
Robert E. Butler, SBA Alaska Director, and
two aids, inspected the site of the fire the
day after the tragedy. I know I speak for
the people of Sitka when I say the speed with
which the SBA investigated and acted was
greatly appreciated.
But my principal purpose in speaking
today is not to pay tribute to the courageous
people of Sitka who are demonstrating the
hmawmh~~Mmaamnwmmu nmm~n,umA'd"""~'I ~~~1~i"~nur;~lz,7
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
private report to President Johnson was
much more ominous about the future.
NOT THAT SIMPLE
The hawk-dove formula is a gross over-
simpllflcation of official Washington. And
there are no known official doves who would
cut and run.
But the hawk-dove formula today does de-
scribe roughly the views of those who, given
today's facts, would proceed quite differ-
ently-those who would go all out for a mili-
tary solution and those who would hold only
what we have and play for time.
Within the next few days and weeks, after
the President's state of the Union message
and the end of the jet-borne diplomatic mis-
sion (both American and Soviet), the battle
lines for the debate will be much clearer.
Response to the Mansfield report, however,
already has shown the broad outlines.
GOP UNITY
Republican leaders, including Senator
EvEaETT DIRKSEN, Republican, of Illinois,
whom the President has done so much to
flatter and woo, have put their prestige be-
hind the hawks who want total military vic-
tory before negotiations.
Democratic leaders are divided. - Some of
the conservative congressional, committee
chairmen, such as House Armed Services
Chairman MENDEL RIvERs, Democrat, of
South Carolina, would light the fuse, even
if it leads to Peiping, if Hanoi does not back
down immediately.
But other influential Democrats oppose
further escalation and would, in fact, seek
ways to deescalate, even unilaterally.
The value of the Mansfield report is that it
states without flinching several facts that
Johnson administration officials have con-
ceded privately for some weeks but have been
unwilling to spell out for the public.
These include:
The vast U.S. escalation of the war in Viet-
nam has failed to produce the original objec-
tives-to reduce Communist military activity
and to bring Hanoi to the conference table
for a negotiated compromise settlement.
Senator MANSFIELD says the Communists
have matched the increased U.S. commit-
ment.
Senator MANSFIELD estimates that the ac-
celeration of Vietcong efforts is so great that
it is doubtful the Saigon government can
even hold what it has, let alone extend it,
without a further augmentation of Ameri-
man forces on the ground.
The situation is already perilously close to
where it will no longer be possible to retain
the myth that it is a Vietnamese war. The
mere weight of American involvement makes
it an American war. Weekend reports from
Saigon confirm this trend-the huge U.S.
troop operation against the Vietcong's "iron
triangle" was undertaken without even tell-
ing the South Vietnamese high military com-
mand anything about it.
After nearly a year of high-intensity bomb-
ing, both in the north and south, and bloody
ground-fighting, the control of the country-
measured by both terrain and popula.tionr-
is no better than it was early in 1965 when,
Senator MANSFIELD discloses, the Saigon re-
gime was about to collapse and sent an S 0 S
to the United States for American ground
troops.
Vietcong recruiting in the south continues
to be successful. And the North Viet-
namese-undeterred by our bombings-have
doubled their infiltration rate and are ex-
pected to triple it to 4,500 per month soon.
A high desertion rate in the South Viet-
namese army continues and, Senator MANS-
FIELD warns, there is no chance of the South
Vietnamese substantially increasing their
regular forces much above the current 300,-
000 figure.
All the American military talk about the
pro and con effects of the monsoon on the
military operations of both sides was a mis-
calculation and pcor judgment. Senator
MANSFIELD said the consequences of the mon-
soon were minor, if there were any at all.
Weekend news stories from Saigon quoting
Air Force pilots achieving "excellent results"
from large raids on the Ho Chi Minh trail in
Laos will be taken with a grain of salt by
readers of Senator MANSFIELD's report. He
says the trail is "not easily susceptible to
aerial interdiction" because moat of it is
protected "by double canopies of jungle
foliage."
Senator MANSFIELD's basic conclusion is the
center of the debate-that there is "only
a very slim prospect of a just settlement by
negotiations" with the "alternative prospect
of a continuance of the conflict in the di-
rection of a general war on the Asian main-
land," meaning war with Communist China.
Privately, many administration officials
have agreed with that appraisal, if our mili-
tary policy continues unchanged. In fact,
some thing it is inevitable in the long run,
and a few would argue the sooner the better.
Senator MANSFIELD warns that Asians, fre-
quently portrayed by administration officials
as wholeheartedly behind us, are most fearful
of a United States-Chinese war, but recognize
their "relative powerlessness" to influence
the big events.
THE SIGN AT TASHKENT
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, Mx.
Walter Lippmann, ever the journalist of
substance and insight, has given us an-
other profound statement on the mean-
ing of the recent events at Tashkent. I
ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lipp-
mann's column, which was published in
the Washington Post of January 13, 1966,
be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the column
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE SIGN AT TASHKENT
(By Walter Lippmann)
Death came to Shastri at a high moment
in his life, and the grief which is worldwide
is therefore lighted with the poetic grandeur
of the circumstances. He did his best day's
work and died in the evening when he had
completed it. The world is the better for
what was done in Tashkent. For mankind
has needed badly to be shown that it is still
possible to get on top of the intractable
violence of human affairs.
None will suppose that peace has now
been established. No doubt the way ahead
will be full of trouble. Nevertheless, we have
seen at Tashkent at least a part of the pat-
tern of what might be the shape of things
to come. The conflict between Pakistan and
India could become a catastrophe for hun-
dreds of millions of people. What we have
been shown in Mr. Kosygin's mediation has
been that the primary responsibility for mak-
ing peace lies with those who are most di-
rectly concerned. The powers most directly
concerned are those who are nearest to the
conflict-Pakistan, India and the Soviet
Union.
Mr. Kosygin was able to do what neither
Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Johnson could have done.
That is not because he is cleverer than they,
but, in the last analysis, because he is nearer.
Great Britain, in spite of the ties of the
Commonwealth, has been helpless; the Unit-
ed States, in spite of its wealth and power,
has been ineffective. The critical advantage
of the Soviet Union has not been due to race,
color, or culture, but to geography. The So-
viet Union can talk with authority about
peace in Asia because it is a power with an
Asian frontier of thousands of miles.
I have come increasingly to think that the
cardinal defect of our own foreign policy in
this century of the wars and disappointments
and frustrations has been the pursuit of
idealism separated from the geography of the
world. The American globalist school of
thought has dominated American strategic
and diplomatic policy since 1917.
In that time we have fought and won two
have always been too high minded to make
peace after either of them. The globalists
have always been too high-minded to make
the compromises and concessions which are
the essential ingredients of any peace settle-
ment. Now we are engaged in a war which
has no visible limits, and the reason given
to us by our globalist leaders comes down
to saying that we have appointed ourselves
the guardians of the peace of the world.
.Before the globalist illusion came upon us,
we thought it was our business to define our
vital interests and defend them. As against
the gross self-delusion of globalism, there is
the traditional realism which holds that a
sound foreign policy is based on a careful
and constant study of the geography of the
world. This leads to the realization that
American power cannot be equally effective
all over the globe, A full understanding of
this simple, self-evident, profound truth is
the beginning of wisdom in foreign affairs.
Globalism is the thinking of those who
have not learned the facts of life. They
include the zealots of the world revolution
who expect all mankind to imitate and fol-
low them. They include also the idealists
who have overreacted from their old isola-
tionism and expect to enforce everywhere
their own views of the moral law.
They cannot do that, and when they try
to do it, the reality of things asserts itself
and the reckoning cannot be long postponed.
POLITICAL LUXURIES
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to have print-
ed in the body of the RECORD an editorial
entitled "'Political Luxuries," published
in the Wall Street Journal of today, Jan-
uary 14, 1966.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
POLITICAL LUXURIES
"I have not come here tonight to ask for
pleasant luxuries or for idle pleasures."-
Lyndon B. Johnson in the state of the Union
message.
In the sense that, but for Vietnam, the
administration presumably would be asking
for much more domestic spending, the Pres-
ident's claim of modest budgeting is correct.
All the same, th4programs he has sketched
seem amply supplied with luxuries and pleas-
ures for a time of grievous war.
Mr. Johnson argues that his civilian rec-
ommendations represent a sort of minimum
that must be done for schoolchildren, the
sick, and the poor. Any sacrifices required
by war, he insists, must not come from cut-
ting back on aid to those most in need.
It follows, then, that anyone who ques-
tions this huge spending on the homefront
is a monster of hardheartedness. The un-
fortunate fact nonetheless is that the proj-
ects the Government has embarked on and
now wants to expand are not necessarily in
the interests of those they are supposed to
help. In some cases, like the notorious busi-
ness of urban renewal dispossessing the poor,
they are injurious.
Consider the so-called war on poverty,
which the President asks Congress not only
to continue but to speed up. At present it
is a costly and wasteful chaos which benefits
politicians but scarcely the poor. Instead of
a speedup it needs a pause for an examina-
tion of its faults and to see why it is being
run so badly.
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2
For another example of good governmental
management, look at Mr. Johnson's remark-
able plea for a new Department of Trans-
portation-because, as he puts it, the exist-
ing structure of no less than 35 agencies,
spending $5 billion a year, is practically
incapable of serving the Nation's needs. No
institution except Government could get
away with failure on that grand scale.
What would benefit the people, including
the poor (and the poor taxpayer) is Federal
austerity to reduce the danger of a serious
inflationary outbreak. Here, too, in imply-
ing that the forthcoming budget will be
noninflationary, the Government appears on
weak groundd; the President himself suggests
so when he warns we must all increase our
vigilance against inflation.
Tito budget forecast is for fiscal 1967 spend-
ing of nearly $113 billion, a staggering drain
on the economy. But with the hope that
revenues will reach $111 billion the antici-
pated deficit is "only" $1.8 billion as com-
pared with much higher earlier estimates.
Tiro revenue expectation may well be un-
duly optimistic and will prove wildly op-
timistic if the economy should slow down
Jost: it bit or fail to expand between now and
the end of the period 18 months hence. Ac-
cep-: the revenue figure at face value and it
still depends on rescinding the excise tax
cuts put in effect only at the beginning of
this year acid on various gimmicks such as
accelerating corporate tax payments.
I?von if they were not excessively expensive
and inflationary, the administration's plans
rest on an intellectual confusion that Fed-
eral outlays are good for your soul as well
as your body.
"A great nation is one which breeds a great
people," says Mr. Johnson. "A great people
flower not leans wealth and power but from a
society which spurs them to the fullness of
their genius ` * ? This year we must con-
tinue to improve the quality of American
life."
In practice, though, that noble dream turns,
out to have very little to do with quality; it
is, and in the nature of government must
be, almost wholly quantitative and ma-
terialistic. Doling out dollars does not auto-
matically make education better, and cer-
tainly it does not spur people to the fullness,
of their genius. The hand of Government
pressing down everywhere is more likely to
demean the quality of life, including the
precious quality of individual liberty.
We agree with the President that this
Nation is strong enough to fight in Vietnam.
and do what is necessary at home. It Is
difficult to agree that all the proposed do-?
mestic spermcting is necessary, wise or effective.
And there can be no guarantee of continued.
strength if the Government persists in in.-
Bulging in the political pleasures of handouts
and the exorbitant luxury of inflation.
RENEWAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
SERVICE
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, to-.
day marking the 83 years since the estab-
lishment of the Civil Service Commission,
the Honorable John W. Gardner, Secre-
of Health, Education, and Welfare, de-
livered an address on "The Renewal of
the Government Service."
'Phis excellent address commemorated
the 33 years of the merit system service
in the U.S. Government. It preceded the
awards for distinguished service of Civil
Service Commission employees.
Secretary Gardner emphasized that
the duty of the career service was not
only to search out the gifted young,
people of our schools and colleges for
recruitment into Government service, but
to continue their growth and education
and qualifications after formal education
ceases.
All organizations of our society today are
competing desperately to get their share of
the flow of talent-
Secretary Gardner said-
but few are developing that talent properly
after they get it.
I commend this excellent speech to the
attention of the Congress, and ask
unanimous consent to have it printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be :printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
RENEWAL of THE GOVERNMENT ~:J:LVICE
(By John W. Gardner, Secretary :1 Health,
Education, and Welfare)
We are here to commemorate an important
beginning and to honor a fine tradition.
The civil service is one of our ;;,ablest so-
cial institutions and I am proud to have a
part in this tribute to it.
But I have learned from long experience
that it is not really necessary to congratu-
late institutions. They have built. in mech-
anisms for self-congratulation that are mar-
velously effective. Having particil~lted inti-
Inate;.y in the life of Government agencies,
the military services, business firm.,. and uni-
versities, I feel that I can make that gen-
eralization on the basis of fairly comprehen-
sive experience.
So I am going to honor the civil service by
talking about the goals ahead rather than
the laurels already won.
First, let me clear away some general ques-
tions. Is the Federal Government bureau-
cratic? It is indeed. But so arts business
firms, colleges and universities, the military
services, State and local governments, and
philanthropic organizations.
Is the Federal Government in danger of
going to seed? It is in the gravest danger.
But so are all other organizations large and
small.
I think most of you know my views on the
decay and renewal of organization
Briefly, I believe that most human orga-
nizations that fail in their missions or fall
short of their goals do so not because of
stupidity, not because of faulty doctrines,
but because of the internal decay . nd rigidi-
fication to which they are all subject. They
get stiff in the joints. They get in a rut.
They go to seed.
I know that many of you are familiar with
my diagnosis of what brings that condition
about. So I am going to limit myself today
to a few brief comments on what I regard
as the most important single line of therapy
for moribund organizations.
Organizations go to seed when the people
in them go to seed. And they awaken when
the people awaken. The renewal of organi-
zations and societies starts with people. And
since the first and last business of the civil
service is people, this seems an appropriate
occasion to examine the problem.
Specifically, I want to talk about what
the Federal Government does to develop tal-
ent-after recruitment. Recruitment itself
is worthy of discussion, and there is a vastly
better job to be done on that front, but that
is not the problem that interests me at the
moment.
As a society, we are pursuing energetically,
almost feverishly, the identification and nur-
ture of gifted young people in our schools
and colleges. In contrast, we are quite hap-
hazard about the provisions for their contin-
uing growth after formal education ceases.
Almost all organizations in our society today
are competing desperately to get their share
of the flow of talent.. But few are developing
that talent properly after they get It.
January 14, 19,66
The still untapped source of human vital-
ity, the real unmined reservoir of talent is
in those people already recruited and there-
after neglected.
The quickest and most effective road to
renewal of the Federal service is the mining
of that untapped resource. It is not only
a means of tapping unused talent and open-
ing up new stores of vitality, it is it solution
to the old, old problem of developing a gov-
ernment service that is responsive---respon-
sibly responsive-to changing top leadership.
Vital people, using their gifts to the full, are
naturally responsive. People who have
stopped growing, defeated people, people who
no longer have confidence in the use of their
own powers, build bastions of procedure be-
tween themselves and any vital leadership.
Now, how does one go about renewing the
people in the Government service--or any-
where else for that matter? There are maiiy
sources of renewal, of course. One is the
uninvited crisis. Wars and depressions bring
a certain amount of renewal, though the price
is far higher than sensible people are willing
to pay.
Another source is challenge and competi-
tion, and in this respect our Constitution
has built-in provisions for the renewal of
elected officials. But appointive officials, not
facing the challenge of an election, are de-
nied that stimulus.
Another source of renewal is rapid growth.
Very rapid expansion of an agency is apt
to have a highly stimulating effect upon the
people within it.
Still another source of renewal is the
sheer vitality of top leadership. I think,
for example, that President Johnson has
been as vigorous, if not cyclonic, it force for
renewal as we have seen in this Government-
But what about the more mundane things
that good government administrators can
do to renew their organizations'? What about
the good personnel practices and procedures
that will insure renewal? I'm going to give
you an oversimplified answer, but an over-
simplification bared on having observed the
personnel field with a professional eye for
30 years.
I am going to assert that the best means
of inducing growth, developing talent, and
insuring continued vitality in the individual
is change. The change may take many
forms-a change of troubles, a change of
assignment, promotion, living in different
parts of the country, moving in and out of
Government., sampling the different worlds
that make up this society, serving abroad,
serving in an organization that is itself
rapidly changing.
It follows, I believe, that the single con-
dition that would contribute most to greater
vitality in the Government service today is
flexibility of reassignment. In his state of
the Union message, President Johnson
pledged bold. leadership to bring this about
The size of the Federal Establishment and
the diversity of activities it encompasses
offer unexampled opportunities for imagi-
native reassignment. With such an array
of possibilities it Is unforgivable that any
reasonably competent Government; servant
should suffer in a job that does not suit hie
talents.
It is unforgivable that any Government
servant should lack the stimulus to personal
growth that comes with change. The indi-
vidual should be allowed to move and the
agency should be allowed to move him with-
out damage to his status or his feelings.
Free, frequent, and fluid movement among
all the agencies of Government should be
the accepted rule. The ambitious or merely
restless young person who wants to sample
several different lines of work should not be
punished or penalized. Restlessness and
vitality go together. And especially prom-
ising young people should be systematically
reassigned through several ar-ncies to in-,
sure their growth.