WHAT IS WAR?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000400070006-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2005
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: May 23, 1966
• Content Type: OPEN

1046 Approved For RellUNGNOWD8129iLCRIEODIMY1301116M30400070006-5May 23, 1966
ers from furnishing soybeans for a re-
serve without in effect donating them?
While we have not produced enough for
our customers let, alone establish a re-
serve, everyone agrees that in order to
keep our customers, we must have some
reserve of soybeans available in the
event of a bad crop. Failure to have
that reserve has already cost us cus-
tomers and sales.
One method of protecting producers
is by having a $2.50 loan rate. That is
the method currently being used. This
method causes some problems in mar-
keting. When the difference between
the loan rate and the market price be-
comes so narrow that there is no incen-
tive for a farmer to dispose of his soy-
beans until delivery time the following
summer, a temporary shortage of beans
available for export and processing de-
velops during the winter months and
consumption is reduced. While a loan
at harvest time to avoid glutting the
market and to prevent depressing prices
is needed, we also need a good flow of
beans all through the winter months in
order to secure maximum consumption.
When too many beans are held until the
middle of the following summer and that
built-up supply is then dumped onto the
market, sales have been lost that cannot
be recovered and a sudden surplus causes
prices to go down even more just before
time to harvest the new crop. It seems
to me that we would have greater con-
sumption with a loan rate of about $2.25
per bushel and could find some other
way to protect farmers from any re-
duced income caused by producing
enough to provide a reserve.
Another problem with depending too
much on a higher loan for income pro-
tection is that it tends to cause the beans
to be out of position for sales. Forty
percent are shipped overseas and over-
seas buyers often want these soybeans
available on short notice. When they
are stored on farms, they are as far out
of export position as possible, especially
In view of the .chronic boxcar shortage
and other problems of weather and sea-
sonal labor shortages. More soybeans
could be sold if they were nearer to pro-
cessing and shipping facilities. Thus,
depending upon a higher loan rate for in-
come protection reduces some of the
ability to market the product and causes
us to lose some sales.
Another method of income protection
which I think would be preferable and is
Included in the provisions of my
.H.R. 12798, provides that if and when a
surplus of soybeans is produced, the De-
partment will buy that quantity of soy-
beans and place it in bins where it is
most readily available to possible cus-
tomers. The loan could be $2.25 per
bushel with this additional income pro-
tection provided, and the market would
operate much as if that reserve supply
had never been produced. Under H.R.
12798, the beans in the reserve would not
be sold until there is enough of a short-
age that they can be sold for at least
$2.90 per bushel.
There is a third method that could be
used and that is to give a direct payment
of perhaps 25 or 50 cents per bushel to
every producer of soybeans and let the
market seek its own level. I think it is
impractical to consider this method be-
cause 25 cents per bushel would cost $250
million per year and that kind of money
is not available now.
Since having an adequate supply of
soybeans is beneficial not only to farmers
to prevent substitutes from nosing out
soybeans but also is beneficial to the
first, users of soybean meal in livestock
and poultry production; second, our bal-
ance-of-payments problem; third, people
in the processing and transportation in-
dustries; fourth, furthering our foreign
policy goals; and fifth, all of, the 190 mil-
lion consumers in the United States, 99
percent of which use soybean products in
one way or another, I believe it is in the
national interest both to have an in-
creased acreage of soybeans and to pro-
tect the producers of these soybeans
against an inadequate return for produc-
ing the extra soybeans. Farmers will
receive much of this protection with a
$2.50 loan but I think they would receive
more protection with less interference
with the market under the method pro-
vided in HM. 12798.
I also firmly believe that if we sit idly
by and say, "do nothing," substitutes will
secure a part of the soybean market and
we will be giving away the best chance
we will have for a long time to use our
productive idled acres to produce Income.
WHAT IS WAR? V
(Mr. POOL asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute, and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. POOL. Mr. Speaker, in January
of this year I introduced a bill, H.R.
12047, which in short would make pun-
ishable the giving of any money, prop-
erty, or thing to any hostile foreign pow-
er acting in opposition to the Armed
Forces of the United States, and makes
punishable the obstruction of the move-
ment of military personnel or transpor-
tation. The press has brought to our
attention the fact that a number of per-
sons and organizations in the United
States?of whom most appear to be Com-
munist or adhering to Marxist dogma.?
were soliciting or forwarding money and
"medical aid" for North Vietnam and
were obstructing the movement of our
troops. This fact prompted the intro-
duction of my bill.
Since offering the bill, I have received
many communications from members of
my constituency, and others, who have
expressed wholehearted support for the
objectives and purposes of my bill. How-
ever, there are indeed a few sincere per-
sons who seem to be confused as to their
duties and responsibilities when this
country is at war. One basis for this
confusion appears to derive from the fact
that no technical state of war has been
declared against North Vietnam. I have,
for example, recently received an inquiry
from a resident of Texas who wrote, in
part, as follows:
Individuals who send plasma, etc., to North
Vietnam, no matter how morally reprehen-
sible they may appear to you or me, are ex-
ercising a personal choice. In the absence of
a declared state of war, I fail to see why a
legal restriction should be placed on them.
This correspondent, in judging the
propriety of legal restrictions against aid
to one's enemies, apparently make his
determination on the basis of whether a
formal or technical declaration of war
has been made. Frankly, I do not see
the validity of any such distinction.
When our Armed Forces are actually en-
gaged in hosilities abroad, whether cer-
tain conduct of citizens of the United
States as harmful to our Nation and its
people should be determined independ-
ently of the question whether a legal
status of war has been declared. Never-
theless, the view of this constituent
makes evident the confusion surrounding
the issue.
This confusion arises in large part, I
believe, because of terminology. What
is war? The term "war" has been used
principally in two senses. The common,
nontechnical usage is that whieh is
descriptive of objective events, such as
a contest of armed public forces between
States. International law, on the other
hand, war is a "term of art." In this lat-
ter sense, war is principally a juridical
concept, resting on certain formalities,
and is descriptive of a certain legal rela-
tion which exists between and among
states which arises out of what Gentilis,
an early scholar on the subject, described
as "a properly conducted contest of
armed public forces."
We need not debate the adequacy or
validity of any particular definition, ex-
cept to point out that a nation is not
at war in the technical sense unless its
politictal or legislative department, hav-
ing the power to do so, announces that
fact. In the absence of such a declara-
tion, even though the armed public
forces of a nation are actually engaged in
hostilities with another nation, and a
war is hence in fact taking place a nation
is not technically at war. Conversely, a
nation may be legally at war even though
there is no contest of armed public forces
If a declaration of war is in effect and
has not been officially or legally termi-
nated. Hence, whether a nation is tech-
nically at war with another is principally
a subjective test, depending upon the
declared policy of the nation concerned.
When a nation is technically at war,
certain serious consequences ensue, in
accordance with the principles and us-
ages of international law. Some of the
Immediate effects of a technical state of
war are to suspend all nonhostile inter-
course between those states which are
parties to the war, to suspend the ordi-
nary nonhostile intercourse between the
citizens of those states which are parties
to the war, to introduce new principles
in the intercourse between the states
which are parties to the war and other
states, to impose new duties upon neu-
trals and allies, and to modify the opera-
tion of certain treaties or to bring into
operation treaties concerning the con-
duct of hostilities.
Since a technical declaration of war
thus sets in motion certain usages and
legal consequences in relation to the war-
ring states and other nations and neu-
trals, some of which have been above set
forth, it is apparent that a nation may
not choose to set all such usages in mo-
tion or to create all such legal con-
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : cIA-RDP67B00446R000400070006-5
10595
May 23, 1966 Approved ForclftimEggp?f1M9AMTIMPA7iinigf R000400070006-5
Our soybean programs of the past few
years have consisted mainly of a loan of
$2.25 per bushel and withdrawing so
much land through the feed grains, cot-
ton, and wheat programs, that the ex-
pansion in soybean acreage was reduced.
By setting aside the diverted acres and
conservation base acres, participants in
those programs could not shift land to
soybeans at the same rate that they nor-
mally would have. As long as the supply
is adequate without using any of this
acreage, it causes little concern; how-
ever, the time has now come when we
should carefully examine the whole soy-
bean acreage situation from the stand-
point of what is good for soybean pro-
ducers and livestock feeders and also
what is fair to participants in the other
programs.
In determining what actions we should
take relative to soybean production, I
believe we should first fully recognize
the peculiarity of soybeans as a com-
modity compared to other basic crops.
While corn, wheat, and rice each have
limited acceptibility in limited areas of
the world, soybeans are a high protein
product in great demand all over the
world. They provide protein that is
cheaper than meat and is not resisted
for religious reasons. Forty percent of
the soybeans produced in the United
States last year were marketed over-
seas while a much smaller percentage
of other crops is sold overseas. Soy-
beans are not processed and consumed
on the farm: therefore, marketing of
them depends upon good transportation
facilities and them being in the right
location when a sale is available. Ninety-
five percent of all of the soybeans shipped
between countries of the world were pro-
duced in the United States. At the
present time we enjoy being the world's
storekeeper for soybeans.
While to some extent we seized this
advantage by accident, we do not want
to lose it. Other countries are willing
ler us to be the major supplier of soy-
beans and have indicated such by not
having any tariff on soybeans. While
mast of them have tariffs on other crops
Pa encourage higher local production,
Wiry seem content to depend upon us for
soybeans, provided we are able to supply
their needs every year. If they depend
upon us for soybeans and are unable to
secure them, they will find another source
euch as China or they will raise the
tariff to encourage local production of
snybrans, or they will encourage the pro-
duction and importation of substitutes
For soybean products. Unless we have
bath a supply and a price which is com-
petitive with substitutes, we will lose
existing soy bean markets instead of gain-
ing new ones.
A year ago we only produced about 700
ndilion bushels of soybeans and this
proved to he at least 100 million less
than our customers wanted. In 1965 we
produced 135 million more bushels than
in 1 964 and sold them for about the
same price per bushel. This proved
Dania that the price will only average
about $2.65 regardless of how short the
supply is. When we only had that 700
million bushel crop, many of our cus-
No. 84------
turners turned to substitutes such as urea,
:fishmeal, and olive oil. People interested
in broiler production in Belgium and
France told rue at the meeting of the
Council of Europe that they had to sub-
stitute other protein products in some of
the broiler rations, that they found the
substitutes very satisfactory, and that
they are now likely to continue using
those substitutes. They are builclina up a
broiler industry and want soybean meal
in the formula but whenever substitutes
replace soybean meal as a result of a
short supply situation, they tend to quit
depending upon us for that amount of
meal in the ration. Thai shortaae has
spurred the development of a substitute
protein supplement composed chi( fly of
urea and alfalfa meal and expansOn of
fishmeal processing. In other words, a
temporary shortage of soybeans becomes
a permanent loss of market.
Some say let us have a shortage? may-
be they will sell for $3 or $4 per bushel.
The fact is that there is a ceiling price
now which is set by factors beyond our
control. The effective maximum price
for soybeans is approximately $2.90 f.o.b.
track Chicago. Whenever soybeans go
above that price, customers turn to sub-
stitutes or emit buying. When arices
went over that level recently Japanese
buyers purchased from China and others
turned to substitutes. Enough buyers
leave the market at this point that the
demand is reduced; therefore, csiling
Prices are not determined alone lw the
sunply of soybeans in the United States
but are also affected by the price of
dozens of goad substitutes. Let us not
bury our heads in the sand like, the dairy
People did when they pretended there
were no substitutes for butter. 'Phere
are good substitutes for both soybean
meal and oil.
In March, the Department estimated
that 3'7.1 million acres of soybeans will
be planted this year with 36 million acres
being harvested and that they wit pro-
duce 882 million bushels of soybeans.
To secure that high a total production,
there will have to be an average yi Id of
24.5 bushels per acre and that is con-
siderably above the average of the past
few years. Since acreage is being re-
duced in the best soybean prodnetion
areas of the Midwest while it is bei; g in-
creased in the low-yield areas of the
South and East, many people est mate
the average will be no more than 231/2
bushels per acre and that the tota pro-
duction will actually be no more this
year than it was last year.
Since the reduction in cotton seed due
to the reduced cotton acreage will Ise th.e
equivalent of 45 million bushels of soy-
beans, we must have a real bumper crop
in 1966 in order to provide enough soy-
beans for our usual customers. Unless
acreage is increased next year we csnnot
even increase exports of corn unless our
customers find some substitute protein
supplement to balance with the feed
grains because enough soybean meal will
not be available. Rice and wheat allot-
ments are being increased and at least
300,000 acres that produced soybeans last
year will be used for these increased al-
lotments of rice and wheat. In view of
the above statistics it is a farce to talk
about a soybean reserve, including soy-
beans in a meaningful food-far-freedom
program in 1966, or keeping our custom-
ers supplied. For these reasons no one
should doubt that an increased acreage
of soybeans will be needed in future
years. The question is, Where shallhese
acres come from?
Except for the acreage that could be
shifted from corn or cotton, the prin-
cipal source of acreage for soybeans is
conservation base acres, diverted acres,
and new land being brought into pro-
duction. Most everyone now agrees that
shifting allotted acres from corn and
cotton to soybeans is about out cif the
question because a price that would
make soybeans more profitable than corn
or cotton would be high enough that
substitutes would replace the market for
the soybeans at an alarming rate.
Diverted acres total about 46 million
under various programs and about 35
million of those acres are under the feed
grains program. Some farmers would
take a reduction in their Government
payments if they could produce soybeans
on some of these acres. Of course, many
of these acres are also not suitable for
soybean production. Most of them are
located in the corn-soybean area.
Of the conservation base acres that
are suitable for, and could be released
for soybeans, most are in the corn area
because there were no conservation bases
established for most other crons until
last year. By 1965, the acreage farmers
under the cotton program had diyarted
to conservation crops was reduced com-
pared to 1959. As cotton acrearm de-
clined, they shifted toward soybeans and
high-production crops. Although there
has generally been a shift in fal.:111/1ff
methods away from conservation crops,
participants in the feed grains PrOr
have not been permitted to make this
shift. A high percentage of the con-
servation base acres that could shil[t to
soybeans are in the Corn Belt.
Most of the new land coming into Tiro-
duction is outside of' the good corn ,irea.
Some is land that was in pasture in the
South and some was on dairy farms in
areas where the climate is not suitoi for
corn production. Beef cattle dire ases
and other problems have proven so ereat
in the warm climate areas that the trend
is away from the cow-calf pros cam
where soybeans can be raised. jimmy
farmers who were pasturing flat land
outside the Corn Belt are also stiff Idris; to
soybeans. Some other land t eing
brought into production was in scrub
timber or swamps in the South. Most
new land that can come into soy sean
production is outside the Corn Belt.
I believe it is clear to see that ulless
either conservation base acres or di-
verted acres are released to provide some
of the increased soybean acreage needed,
most of the new acreage will be en side
the Corn Belt. Unless conservation base
acres or diverted rcres are released as
needed, Iowa and the corn area will not
receive anything like a fair share ol the
increase in the soybean acreage.
Another problem with which I am
concerned is, How do we prevent fsrm-
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 10597
sequences by declaring a technical state
of war even though it is actually engag-
ing in war.
Indeed, while it is common knowledge
that both the United States and North
Vietnam are actually engaged in war, it
is a curious fact that neither the United
States nor North Vietnam has declared
war. However, as I shall note, the United
States has adopted a policy of not de-
claring war for reasons different from
that which has prompted North Vietnam
to adopt the same course.
The President of the United States has
carefully refrained from seeking a formal
declaration of war against North Viet-
nam. We are, however, openly assisting
South Vietnam in resisting aggression.
The United States does not seek to con-
ceal the fact that it is employing its
Armed Forces for that purpose. The
reasons for not declaring a formal state
of war were recently made explicit in a
State Department position paper, dated
November 19, 1965, which was prepared
by the Department of State at the re-
quest of the Senate Committee on For-
eign Relations. Among the reasons for
making this choice, the State Depart-
ment set forth that it sought to avoid
"unnecessarily enlarging the scope of the
conflict," and to improve the prospects of
an early peaceful settlement. I think
that this was a reasoned choice and
was undoubtedly made with a view to-
ward promoting the best interests of this
Nation and world peace.
On the other hand, North Vietnam
has' also carefully refrained from a dec-
laration of war against either South
Vietnam or the United States; but, as I
repeat, for other reasons. North Viet-
nam has not declared war in an attempt
to conceal the fact that it is committing
aggression against South Vietnam. Al-
though North Vietnam is engaging in
actual war against South Vietnam, a
public admission of this fact, which
would be the result of a formal declara-
tion of war, would not accord with her
policy of stealth and subterfuge.
The Communist strategy?based on
the Communist tactical doctrine of so-
called wars of liberation?is to expand
the area of Communist conquest by the
deceit and subterfuge of making the con-
flict in South Vietnam appear to be an
internal revolution or civil war, rather
than an international war between the
State of North Vietnam and the State
Vietnam. The aggression from North
Vietnam has been, and is being, accom-
plished by clandestine techniques?the
secret infiltration of troops and revolu-
tionary cadres into South Vietnam, and
the organizing, equipping, and financing
In secrecy of Communist cadres within
South Vietnam.
By seeking to create an illusion that
a civil war is taking place in South Viet-
nam rather than external aggression,
they hope to make it difficult and im-
practical for South Vietnam to gain sup-
port from other nations. They also hope
to make it difficult for other nations, who
would come to South Vietnam's assist-
ence, to gain support form their own
people for intervention in aid of South
Vietnam. This was clearly explained by
our able Secretary of State in his state-
ment before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations of February 18, 1966.
Secretary Rusk said, in part:
The North Vietnamese regime has sought
deliberately to confuse the issue by seeking
to make its aggression appear as an indige-
nous revolt. But we should not be deceived
by this subterfuge. It is a familiar Commu-
nist practice. Impeded in their efforts to
extend their power by the use of classical
forms of force such as the invasion of Korea,
the Communists have, over many years, de-
veloped an elaborate doctrine for so-called
wars of national liberation to cloak their ag-
gression in ambiguity.
A war of national liberation, in the Com-
munibt lexicon, depends on the tactics of ter-
ror and sabotage, of stealth and subversion.
It has a particular utility for them since it
gives an advantage to a disciplined and ruth-
less minority, particularly in countries where
the physical terrain makes clandestine infil-
tration from the outside relatively easy.
At the same time the Communists have a
more subtle reason for favoring this type of
aggression. It creates in any situation a
sense of ambiguity that they can exploit to
their own advantage.
In employing the Armed Forces of the
United States, the President has acted
with the authority of that branch of the
Government which is empowered to de-
clare war. Article I, section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States gives
to Congress the power to declare war.
In adopting the southeast Asia resolu-
tion, approved August 10, 1964 (Public
Law 88-408, 78 Stat. 348), the Congress
of the United States expressly authorized
the President of the United States to use
the Armed Forces in assisting any mem-
ber or protocol state of the Southeast
Asia Collective Defense Treaty request-
ing assistance in defense of its freedom.
This resolution was adopted by a com-
bined vote of 504 to 2.
This resolution makes clear that while
the Congress did not use the precise
words "declare war", the Congress has
nevertheless authorized the President to
engage in actual war. A rose by any
other name is still a rose. The resolu-
tion was adopted in the manner and
form required of a declaration of war
by that branch of the Government hav-
ing the power to declare war. While
thus giving the President a mandate
which authorizes him to undertake war,
the Congress acceded to the policy of
avoiding the consequences in interna-
tional law which would ordinarily flow
from a recognition of a formal status
of war.
Moreover, in employing the Armed
Forces of the United States the Presi-
dent?and the Congress?were fulfill-
ing the commitments of the United
States to which our country had bound
itself by the Southeast Asia Collective
Defense Treaty and Protocol thereto, of
September 8, 1954, by which we agreed
to act in the event of aggression against
South Vietnam. By the terms of that
treaty it was explicitly agreed that?
Each Party recognizes that aggression by
means of armed attack in the treaty area
against any of the Parties or against any
State or territory which the Parties by
unanimous agreement may hereafter desig-
nate, would endanger its own peace and
safety, and agrees that it will in that event
act to meet the common danger in accord-
ance with its constitutional processes.
Measures taken under this paragraph shall
be immediately reported to the Security
Council of the United Nations.
It is important to recall that this
treaty was adopted in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the 'U.S.
Constitution. By virtue of article VI of
the Constitution, a treaty is declared to
be "the supreme Law of the Land."
Thus, as in the case of any law of this
land, all of our citizens are bound to
give support to this treaty and to abide
by it. It is a duty and obligation of citi-
zenship to support the Government of
the United States as it acts to comply
with that treaty.
Our soldiers are fulfilling their duties
In support of their Government. They
neither have nor claim a freedom of
choice as to where or when they shall
serve. It is intolerable to think that
any citizen has the right or freedom of
choice to endanger the life, or to increase
the burden, of any one of our boys in
the armed forces by strengthening his
enemy. Moreover, to permit freedom of
choice in either instance would result
in anarchy. It would make impossible
the execution by our Government of its
constitutional duties and would seriously
impair, and possibly destroy, our con-
stitutional processes. It would be a be-
trayal of our Nation. I therefore think
that the restrictions that are sought to be
Imposed against rendering of aid and
comfort to North Vietnam are wholly
t'
E ?AY THE CIRCUS CAME TO
WASHINGTON
(Mr. CAMERON asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Speaker, quite
recently a vast majority of House Mem-
bers earned for themselves the dubious
distinction of being duped en masse. Of
course, anything can happen in an elec-
tion year, and I am now convinced that
this political rule of thumb holds just
as much for the House as it does for the
hustings. Nevertheless, this case history
of how the House got hoaxed bears tell-
ing if only to demonetrate that histrion-
ics and the legislative process are not
mutually exclusive.
This extravaganza occurred one rainy
April afternoon when House Republicans
decided to stay indoors and stage a little
demagoguery for the gallery audience.
The curtain went up with our great
Chamber ringing with plaudits and praise
for the Subcommittee on Agriculture be-
cause it had restored the administra-
tion's proposed cuts in the school lunch
and milk programs. It was warranted
praise.
Having long been a critic of the gigan-
tic farm subsidy program, I saw no rea-
son why two worthwhile programs in
the whole mess should be the first to
get the President's economizing ax when
so many other programs deserved the
real hatchet job. As I stated at the
time the milk and lunch cuts were pro-
posed:
If our country is wealthy enough to con-
tinue pumping billions into farm price sup-
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10598 Approved For ReleAttiaNAMMA,c14-REAUBSTMM0400070006-5
port schemes, it is also wealthy enough to
continue providing good nutrition for school
children.
The other farm programs which really
deserved slashing in this year's agri-
culture appropriations bill were such un-
economical and costly subsidies as the
food grain, wheat, cotton, and tobacco
programs. Every time the Congress votes
to extend and expand the Nation's agri-
cultural program, the taxpayer, small
farmer, and consumer reap the detri-
ments. Only the large corporate farmers
reap anything beneficial: indeed, the
Federal Government's artificial price
supports have helped enlarge corporate
farms. It is this aspect of the farmer's
growth that, gives me cause for criticism.
As t said in the summer of 1965:
I certainty have no objection to farms be-
coming larger and larger if they grow within
'the context of the free enterprise system and
if such growth is in response to reasonable
laws of supply and demand, But I cannot
sanction. the corporate farm growing ever
larger through the artificial support of the
Federal Government. In my judgment, an
entrepreneur capable of producing such
quantity should also be capable of adjusting
to the competitive market and doing without
the largess of the Federal Government.
There is one heavy subsidy to the big
growers that offers a particularly poign-
ant paradox. it is incongruous to me
why our Government pays to subsidize
the production and use of tobacco on the
one hand, and then reaching for a mint
with the other hand, authorizes a warn-
ing about the health hazards attendant
to smoking. This grotesque govern-
mental game between public health and
private happiness recalls to mind a poem
that perhaps sums the whole thing up
'tobacco is a dirty weed. I like it.
IL satisfies no normal need, T like it.
ft makes you thin; it makes 7,rou lean;
IL takes the hair right off your bean.
IL's he worst, darn stuff I've ever seen,
I like it.
But if tl-w poorly conceived structure
of price subsidies was the real issue to be
debated, House Republicans proved
themselves a sporting lot and gamily
dodged it. Instead they focused their
limy forensic on the President and his
budgeteers for daring to reduce the
school milk and lunch programs, insect
and disease control programs, soil and
water conservation programs, the crop
insurance program, and the rural elec-
trification and telephone loan programs.
in the process, they conveniently forgot
avowed Republican promises to cut every
appropriation bill this year by at least, 5
percent: a policy the GOP has paraded
until the mind is weary contemplating
ia This across-the-board cut is neces-
sary, Republicans charge, because infla-
tion is rampant in the marketplace and
the administration does nothing to cut
back en domestic spending. Yet, in the
rare of agriculture, when the adminis-
1,ration pi rnoselv Prepared a diet to fight
the battle of the bulge and the distin-
guished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee cut back the President's orig-
inal request by over $113 million, the
GOP spared their 5 percent rod and
epoiled the farmer. Instead. Republi-
cans favored restoring fund:; for the
programs they thought had teneral ap-
proval in the traditionally GOP farm
belt. Votes and vitamins, we learned,
are, not dissimilar. As the Los Angeles
Times summed it up
On the Republican side * * * the dikes
washed out on a proposed straiegy to cut
every appropriation bill 5 percent. GOP
House members announced the plan April
6. But when AgricUlture aporopriations
came up, the GOP, traditionally mindful of
farm eominunities, found the going too
tough..
Besides an "amen' I would add that
the domestic realities of an election year
always seem to have a sobering effect on
so-called Republican thriftiness.
If press and spectators thought that
the pachyderm pantomime was finished
for the day, they had a surprise in store.
The circus had just started. From the
back of the Chamber somewhere arose
a merry-faced mahout announcing that
he had an elephant trick to show the
House. The Republican gentleman from
Illinois I Mr. FINDLEY': offered his trick
in the form of an araendment designed
to be a real crowd-pleaser.
His amendment, we soon learned,
would prohibit the sale of U.S. surplus
agricultural commodities under the food-
for-peace program, to nations which sold
or transported goods to North Vietnam
SO long as it remained Communist.
At first glance, this amendment cer-
tainly seemed like a reasonable means
to reach a very desirable end. The ad-
ministration, Congress, and the Ameri-
can people are all anxious to prevent the
enemy from. receiving the supplies it
needs to wage war against out fighting
boys. But perhaps the Illinois gentle-
man had a different goal in mind when
he proposed his abrupt amendment. He
obviously knew that in this election year,
it would be very difficult for an incum-
bent to face his constituents, having
voted against such a "patriotic" oroposal.
His prediction was very accurate, and the
amendment soon passed 290 to 98. By
the time a final vote was taken on the
amended bill, the dissenters had dwin-
dled to 23, myself included, and I could
not help muttering what Ovid once said
long ago:
While fortune smiles you'll have a host of
friends; but they'll des2rt you v hen the
storm descends.
All of the original dissenters were
Democrats and as they plodded down to
the well to change their votes from a
forthright "nay" to a safe "yea," the Re-
publicans sat on the sidelines truinpeting
triumphantly and cheering wildly. The
circus had indeed come to the Nation's
Capitol.
Was the North Vietnam amendment
worthwhile? Surely we would expect its
sponsors to think so, but when we turn
to the record we can not help noticing
that the gentleman from Illinois voted
against the amended farm bill.
Though a critic's first judgment would be
that the gentleman was just clowning, my
judgment would be that the gentleman
saw the farm bill for what it really was?
agrarian aggrandizement by legislative
largess--and accordingly voted against
it despite his own amendment. As he
said during the debate:
May
, 196'6
This appropriation bill contain; a number
of items which are attractive and very
popular, but we should not lose sight of the
fact that it also contains a number of items
which, if they knew the full story, the tr,x-
payers would find difficulty digesting.
Indeed, it is no secret that ray colleague
has offered consistent opposition to the
farm giveaway programs over the years
with an enviable eloquence that be-
speaks a genuine horror. Even his own
"get tough" amendment could not alter
the honorable gentleman's farm stance.
Why?
Mr. Speaker, let us delve for a minute
into the alleged merits of the gentleman's
amendment, so that we can sea what it
really means. Presumably, the intent of
this proviso is to decrease the flow of
nsuapplies and equipment to North Viet.-
a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, I have been actively con-
cerned with promoting this 0,bjectivc
for some time. It is my duty o report
that the effectiveness of the administra-
tion's campaign to accomplish this goal
through diplomatic channels has been
remarkably successful and should ba
recorded for all to see.
In 1964, excluding Hong Kong, the
monthly average of free world ship calls
to North Vietnam was 35. In the last
quarter of 1965, through continual dip-
lomatic pressure, this figure dropped to
a monthly average of 15. And most re-
cently, the number is down to an average
of about 12.
Most of the ships trading with Nortle
Vietnam are under British registry in
Hong Kong but owned by non- English
parties?in some cases Communist. For
the most part, they ply between Hone
Kong and Vietnamese ports carrying
such nonstrategic items as textiles, food-
stuffs, soft coal, and fertilizers. It
should especially be emphasized that
British-owned vessels registered in the
United Kingdom are either now with-
drawn or being withdrawn frcm this
trade when the charter terms eiapse.
Mr. Speaker, since this subject ,vas riot
debated in the House that astonishing
afternoon, it was never determined which
nations receiving U.S. food-for-pc ace aid
would actually be affected by the amend-
ment. Though the House then chose to
ignore the facts with a vengeance, it
later became apparent that the ships
from such countries would merely have
to change their registration pape rs and
fly another flag to dodge the previsions
of the amendment. Not only that, but
the amendment purposely leaves un-
touched that part of the food-fm-peace
program which permits us to gi% e fond
supplies as an outright gift. This, the
amendment's utter ineffectiveness be-
came embarrassingly obvious. Mo -cover,
there remained the distinct pus: ability
that certain aspects of our overall for-
eign policy would be jeopardized ha such
a patently pointless proviso.
Take for example the ill-nourish is. ill-
starred democracy of India. If she comes
even close to meeting her near-f amine
conditions it is only because of our food-
for-peace program. Speaking of the
amendment's possible effect on Ind a, my
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 13, 1966 Approved F4iKiNfORMSNIN51.04/31EGMRDPEMAA46R000400070006-5 10599
distinguished colleague from New York
Mr. BmoxAm I warned:
We cannot expect a nonalined coun-
try such as India to take action in sup-
port of our military efforts in the Viet-
nam conflict. Yet this proviso repre-
sents a kind of blackmail in an effort to
force all countries receiving our agricul-
tural commodities to do just that. It
may be that India is shipping nothing
to North Vietnam, or only an insignifi-
cant amount. In that case, the proviso
would only cause embarrassment to the
government of Mrs. Gandhi, which might
well find it impossible to answer a ques-
tion in Parliament whether it was going
to "knuckle under to American pressure"
by legislating against any shipment of
Indian goods to North Vietnam.
Another country which might well
have fallen under the Illinois gentle-
man's amendment was Greece, our
NATO ally and a recipient of our sur-
plus food supplies. Although a few
privately owned vessels, operating under
long-term Greek charters, are trading
non-military goods at North Vietnamese
ports, it is very significant that the Greek
Government has issued regulations mak-
ing it unlawful for their ships to carry
cargo to or from North Vietnam.
I emphasize that this restrictive ac-
tion was taken by the Government of
Greece before?not after, but before?
the House took up the agriculture bill
and its ill-advised amendment. It is no
coincidence that the governmental de-
cree and American diplomatic efforts
took place at the same time. Fortu-
nately, we used the power of diplomatic
persuasion and not the bludgeon of leg-
islative coercion which my Republican
colleague had in mind. Assume, how-
ever, only for the sake of discussion, that
Greece had not cracked down on trade
with North Vietnam.
As chairman of the House Republican
Committee on NATO, this situation would
have presented the gentleman from Illi-
nois with a particularly embarrassing
dilemma. His views on NATO countries
are quite well publicized and widely
known. The following excerpt from a
speech about France gives some idea of
his overall view:
NATO is not a government and never has
been. It is an Alliance of independent na-
tions, with each of them?Prance included?
able to pursue its own independent policies.
In my judgment, it would not be too
much to expect the gentleman from
Illinois to treat all NATO countries alike
when advocating autonomy in decision-
making. Still assuming that Greece had
not outlawed traffic with Hanoi, would
the gentleman agree that what is good
for France should certainly hold for
Greece? His amendment clearly states
that among NATO nations some are
more equal than others.
My colleague's overweening concern
for France is surely an irony of impres-
sive proportions. It is an established
fact that France does her fair share of
trading with North Vietnam. It is also
a fact that France does not now receive
U.S. aid in the form of surplus food-
stuffs, and, therefore, is not affected by
the gentleman's amendment. It would
seem reasonable to me that if one is to
practice what one preaches, he would
wish to initiate action to prevent our
very important and allegedly friendly
ally, France, from shipping goods to our
very important- and unfriendly enemy,
North Vietnam.
But the deed has been done, at least
on the House side. I can only hope that
the Senate will quietly remove this ab-
surd amendment from the agriculture
appropriation bill and avoid another cir-
cus comedy. After all, the ringmaster
and his entourage are only supposed to
come to town once a year. The sooner
we legislators can begin to argue the real
merits and demerits of the agriculture
program, the more appreciation we will
deserve from the American people.
I am sure my 22 dissenting colleagues
are content in the knowledge that they
refused to be driven down the path of
political expediency by the shrill soph-
istry of a circus mahout.
"STABLE MONEY: A CONSERVATIVE
ANSWER TO BUSINESS CYCLES"
(Mr. PATMAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD, and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to call attention to a new book
entitled "Stable Money: A Conservative
Answer to Business Cycles." This book
was written by W. E. Turner, a longtime
personal friend whom I admire and re-
spect. An additional source of gratifica-
tion comes, of course, from the discovery
that this book is dedicated to the late
Senator Robert L. Owen and to me, and
that much of it is devoted to a historical
retracing of steps made in part by us.
It has long been my belief that one of
the most fundamental and urgent needs
is improved public interest in and under-
standing of our Nation's monetary and
fiscal policies. So I would naturally find
special significance in a work by one who
is seeking primarily, as he says, to bridge
the gap between the typical business-
man's interest in workaday financial
considerations and his comprehension
of broader national economic policy.
No less pleasing to me is that the au-
thor finds essential accord with those of
us who have so long waged the fight for
monetary reforms, and a money system
which prevents both deflation and infla-
tion. In his own way, Mr. Turner dis-
poses quite effectively of certain thread-
bare foundations of the "sound money"
school?like the sanctity of balanced
budgets, "gold backing" for our money,
the "panacea" of high-interest rates,
"borrowing" at interest from the Federal
Reserve, the supposed safeguards of cre-
ating debt to correspond with our money,
the assumed "inflationary" character of
any Government-created money, the al-
leged virtues of an "independent" central
banking system, and so forth.
Here is a plea for a monetary-fiscal
system capable of preserving economic
stability with optimum growth?and it
comes to us free of partisan viewpoint.
The author credits the "new economics"
with its very real successes?its opening
the way to unprecedented prosperity, its
breakthrough against the pressures and
prejudices which would keep tax policy
subservient to balanced budgets. At the
same time, the unmet challenges are de-
tailed?how to sustain full employment
of resources without inflation, how to
measure tax changes to avoid both "in-
flation overkill" and "economic over-
heat," how to bring monetary policy into
meaningful accord with national eco-
nomic objectives, and how safely to "cre-
ate" money as needed for economic
growth without building ever-greater na-
tional debt.
In tracing the history of efforts to
bring about a safe-and-sane money pol-
icy for America, Mr. Turner pays de-
served tribute to Senator Owen, the true
giant of monetary theorists. It was my
great privilege to know and work along-
side Senator Owen for many years while
he, though no longer a Member of the
Senate, remained on the scene to make
largely unheralded but mighty contribu-
tions to monetary thinking until his
death. The venerable Senator from
Oklahoma was chairman of the Senate
Banking and Currency Committee when
the Federal Reserve Act was adopted in
1913, having authored an earlier version
of that act. Throughout the Great De-
pression and World War II, Senator
Owen tirelessly availed himself of every
opportunity to offer his wise counsel to
the President, the Congress, and the Na-
tion. That his advice on the more vital
issues went largely unheeded, Mr. Turn-
er believes, should not deny him a prom-
inent place in our Nation's history
books?especially since his towering con-
tribution may one day soon help light
the way to a -truly sound money system.
Naturally I hope for wide readership
of what Mr. Turner has to say. Although
I can hardly be regarded as an impartial
reviewer, I do nevertheless take this
means to express the belief that it will
be found significant and interesting to
students in many walks of life who are
seriously seeking answers to our Nation's
most fundamental economic problem.
Most of all, I share the hope that the
"conservative businessman," with whom
the author identifies and to whom he
primarily speaks, will take notice.
America cannot afford another serious
economic setback. As President Johnson
has properly observed, recesSions are not
inevitable. In these pages can be found
a rich reservoir of information and opin-
ion which, hopefully, can open new doors
to monetary-fiscal measures capable of
sustaining our high level of prosperity
without inflation.
WHAT THE BOOK IS ABOUT
In this book, Mr. Turner contends
that "we have reached the age of poten-
tial plenty but have yet to release our-
selves from the bondage of an inadequate
and inappropriate money system." Let
me quote some excerpts:
American history is an unhappy series of
booms and busts. President Johnson calcu-
lates in his 1966 Economic Report that Ameri-
cans spent over 40 percent of the last cen-
tury in recession or worse, and nearly 20
percent of the prosperous postwar years
undergoing four major recessions. Except
for brief intervals when by chance some rea-
sonable balance occurred between Gross
National Product and effective purchasing
power?and this never actually a full pro-
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10600 Approved For Regerammergmac cotFtwaopitompo4000moo6-5
. Ma y 2, !9
duct-ion level?Americans have been need-
lessly denied the security of full employment
and the material wealth they stood ready to
iwovide themselves.
Mr. 717urner rentlily acknowledges that
he is iv.*oposing a form of "fiat money.''
Put he quite properly notes that mean-
ingful distinctions exist between his pro-
to-sod "stable money" and the many
crackpot nations for monetary refoem
which have abounded throughout Ameri-
can history. The labels "paper money,"
"tnaiund eureetley," and "mi.nting press
nioney" no more characterize the pro-
aasal here than the existing so-called
eound. money.
"Stable money" offers a means for
neutralizing money so that it may per-
form efficiently the sole function for
whieh it exists. As Mr. Turner states it:
We are proposing a system for regulating
tilt,IE,y El order to avoid hav.ng, to regulate
taamornic enterprise,
Tile author contends that the "new
geononnes" has shown us the way to
achieve prosperity at very high levels;
vet to be demonstrated is the capacity to
maintain prosperity.. Economic stabili-
aation at full growth potential, he con-
tends, is the most urgent necessity facing
our Nation.
Three basic questions which this work
-':-.reats ate:
_Hirst. How can peak prosperity be per-
petuated without yielding steadily to the
pressures of inflation.?
Second. How can we maintain pros-
perity at home without developing un-
balance in our international payment;?
Third. How can we safely "create"
money?to finance the necessary budg-
etary deficits--without building an even-
tually unmanageable national debt?
Economic stabilization, he says, i-c-
ci that we achieve mai:Munn pros-
perity with overall price stability and
with international payments equilibrium
and with debt-free money. Excerpts:
lif peak prosperity is within our grasp, and
the tools exial. tor perpetuating, it, why does
the g.xil of economic stability still elude us?
Fir,,t, we have not adapted or refined our
monetary and. fiscal tools to the role of en-
suring stabilimtion. 130th are oriented to
ohjentires. .
.':econd, domestic economic noNey. uncle r
.c pres-ent syst rm. remains essentially sub-
i;!rvie itt external (international) pr,7s-
Third, except through Government debt,
we presently have no means of creating
-- tough money to facilitate the orderly Ent-
change of goods and services on the market.
t is these is ups with which the hook
deals. Additionally, there is offered here
a great deal of the history of efforts to
iwing a sensible money system to Amen-
lea, together with a detailing of the im-
mense costs in all areas of our lives
which result from. our failure at having
done SO.
oNETAII V-FI-SCAT, PCILICTE CONE/. !CT
(In the subject of adapting our mone-
tary and fiscal tools to the role of sta-
bility, Mr. Turner notes conflict between
a fiscal?tax?policy which is under ad-
ministration control while monetary pol-
icy remains under a so-called independ-
eet agency. As a result, he says:
contradictory directions are more nearly
tIn' rule than the exception.
Though cooperation is regularly declared,
coordination between Ii seal and monetary
policy is highly limited; moreover, the very
theory of Federal Reserve P.oard independ-
ence implies that contradictory directions
are intended and desiraede. In reality, the
only objective served by this arrat gement is
an. 'unfortunate one: the Executlee Branch
and the Federal Reserve ten each :dame the
other for the all-too-regular le:esms and
bus La.
nAd.I,ltceo li:CDGETS A NCED ONOWETES
In dealing with the problem of pro-
viding stable-value money without neces-
sarily tyi -ea it to debt, Mr. Turner notes
that balaneed budgets are out of the
question m the future because, we have
learned, they are a certain route to re-
cession or worse. He believes the im-
balance in both our Federal budget and
our international accounts are sympto-
matic of the deeper money issue.
The tint' is at hand when in our national
interest we must unlearn :tome of the funda-
mentals of yesteryear foremoet among
which is the supposed :keystone al sound
government: that nations must hal. nee their
budgets. The pill which conservatives will
find hardest to swallow is that governments,
unlike families, can safely run defit:its with-
out ackline to the nation el debt. Any time
families live beyond their income they are
living beyond their means. Not so with na-
tions. The only time a nation is living be-
yond .its means is when it is experiencing
inflation.
Mr. Turner holds that fear over the
constant building of debt, though sound
for the most, part? has confused our goals
and denied us a sensible governmental
program aimed at economic stability,
saying:
If wg earl find the safe istea.ns to ::nonetize
a nation's unused capacity to proeuce real
good:3 and services, and in that way increase
the national wealth, then we cal forget
about debt. The purpose if money being to
stand-in, as it were, foe real go?.icis and
services. there can be no inflation end need
be no added debt if only that money is
created which is needed to balance off real
wealth. When the quantity of money is
gauged to the function of money, we can
stop worrying about whether the govern-
ment is spending money it did not get
through taxes or debt, or even whether the
money is backed by gold or silver jr other
so-called hard currency. Then we can move
ahead to an era of uninterrupted prosperity
d growth.
It being the acknowledged respoasibility
of a government to create its medium of ex-
change in the first place, there no longer
exists any sound reason that the money it
creates must be based on debt. A govern-
ment can and should create whatever money
is required for efficient inttrchange of goods
and services. It is creating too mu--h only
when the raeult of it is inflation???:Ind not
necesearily when it it g. leg further into
debt by (siting to balance the budget. It
is creating too little when over there is na-
tional oateition--regardless of whether or
not the budget is in hatmepe
EREE ENTERPRISE AND 5-'513011 mother
l'o.cestore the precarious balance between
production and purchasing power today we
are compelled to sabotage our pr eductive
potential. to engage in wasteful wars, ad build
impossible debts, to suffer depressions. With
disheartening regularity we undermine the
very security in the name of which we under-
go such grave suffering.
All efforts so far toward formuttting a
policy permitting purchasing power to equal
production at whatever level possible have
been rejected in favor of a ya-iliey of restrict-
ing production to effective demand. Though
the mythical man from Mars mi-ht think
so, this is not a diabolical plot on the par
of secret enemies high in government fo -
destroying peace, prosperity and plc lily. 011
the contrary, it is heatedly defend ?,a as toe
only way to leave intact the free nterprise
system which can be superior in turui Fig
out goods. . . . The crying need is I i provide
a money supply measured to strike t ltalance
between effective purchasing pow, and :IF
wanted goods and services on a kl thin pr
base. .
Time is running out for the fr,w-enter-
prise capitalistic system under tilt present
unfortunate money arrangement. Its sur-
vival may depend upon whether conservatives
are willing to acknowledge our prol.lem and
open their minds to new imaginatve sole-
tions at long last. . . .
A nation can afford anything it ain pro-
duce. It is not necessary to permit pericelle
breakdowns in. the productive forts simply
because there are more goods on the market
than consumers can purchase tn. stable
prices.
Yet, paradoxically, our nation shows it;
greatest strength only when heav defiadt
financing distributes purchasing power in ex-
cess of real goods and services on the market,
usually in wartime. Hence we fc ar that,
curbing inflation will bring on sluggish
growth or even depression.
? However sound the objections to fiat
money of yesteryear, all have been 3 endered
invalid by time and circumstance. Today
we have no alternative to some form of hitt
money. The only question is whet!. en it be
of a quantity arid quality as to serve well the
national interest.
It is the purpose of this book to provide
one means by which, through prooer and
safe government control of money. we can
halt the trend toward government control
of our economic and political lives.
Mr. Speaker, no one would a,giaT with
every word written in this book, Lot it is
a volume which should be on eve cyone's
required reading course.
CREDIT UNION BLOOMS IN.
CALIFORNIA DESERT
(Mr. PATMAN asked and wao given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD, and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, last year
the Twentynine Palms, Calif., Marine
Corps Base decided to liquidate its credit
union. However, before the liquidation
was completed, the base commander,
Brig. Gen. V. W. Banning, took an in-
terest in the credit union and docided,
rather than liquidating the sal-help
project, he would charter a new course
for the credit union.
In previous years the credit unif 11 had
operated from a noncentral locatioo, had
received little publicity, and did not have
the necessary command support. Gen-
eral Banning felt that given the neces-
sary ingredients for a successful oFera,-
tion, the credit union could go a. lone
way toward solving the financial 3f.ob-
lems of Marine Corps personnel sta-
tioned at Twentynine Palms, an is.lated
desert community some 125 miles ..;outh
of Los Angeles.
Under General Banning's gui; anet',
the credit union was reformed wiUl.
new board of directors and officers, quar-
ters were obtained in a central location,
the base newspaper engaged in an .1ctive
information program on the work of the
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, 1966 Approved FO-jurviinfttSgR91107-412ftEalik6DP-efIBOLOSilit6R000400070006-5 ( 10695
I suggest that a "Patriot's Parade" be
held here in Washington on the Fourth
of July. I believe the President of the
United States should himself proclaim
this parade so that civic groups, both
local and national, the armed services,
and others dedicated to our country and
its ideals can get busy organizing it. The
President should direct the Defense De-
partment to include marching units and
bands from all branches of the service in
the "Patriot's Parade" and related cere-
monies.
This event should be a good, old-fash-
ioned American traditional observance
of the Fourth?with bands, marching
units, patriotic displays, and patriotic
speeches. I hope the President would
take part as leader of the speakers. I
feel such an event would attract con-
siderable attention and would serve as an
opportunity to reiterate our Nation's
principles and recall its heritage.
The suggested Presidential proclama-
tion and initiative Would be most wel-
come to millions of our citizens in
launching what I believe is a needed re-
venture in basic faith.
Such a "Patriot's Parade" held here
In Washington, at the heart of the Gov-
ernment, would let Americans in Viet-
nam know that the people of our land are
behind them. It would reaffirm to our-
selves and to the world that America still
stands determined and united on the
proposition that we shall have a more
perfect Union which does establish jus-
tice, insures domestic tranquillity, pro-
vides for the common defense, promotes
the general welfare and secures the bless-
ing of liberty to ourselves and our pos-
terity.
We have heard too much of dissent
and not enough of service and patri-
otism.
A parade in support of America's na-
tional goals, ideals, faith, dedication, and
patriotism is signally important this year
and the significance of the Fourth of July
makes it a most desirable occasion to
have this rally.
CONGRESSMAN HORTON WEL-
COMES DELEGATION FROM WURZ-
BURG, GERMANY, SISTER CITY TO
ROCHESTER
(Mr. HORTON asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, my home
community of Rochester, N.Y., through
its public and private agencies, is mak-
ing a mighty contribution to interna-
tional understanding. Evidence of that
fact surrounds us here today in the
presence of a 20-member delegation
from Rochester's sister city, Wurzburg,
Germany.
It has been my pleasure to be the host
for Dr. Helmuth Zimmer, mayor of
Wurzburg, and the members of his visit-
ing party. They are here in Washington
today on the last leg of their visit to the
United States.
Last week, the Wurzburg delegation
were guests in Rochester. There they
Partook of many events and activities
which were intended to give them the
flavor of life in their American sister
city. The week's program also gave
many of my fellow citizens in Rochester
the opportunity to repay the kindness
and generosity of those who had enter-
tained them in Wurzburg when a dele-
gation of Rochesterians were guests in
the German city.
During their stay in Rochester re-
cently, Dr. Zimmer and his party were
hosted by our mayor, the Honorable
Frank T. Lamb, entertained at a dinner
in their honor, attended civil functions,
were given tours of the city, and even at-
tended a Red Wing baseball game at
which they were saluted. I know the
week was particularly enjoyable and I
am pleased that I had the occasion to
join with our Wurzburg visitors for some
of the activities.
This morning I welcomed the delega-
tion at National Airport on their arrival
in Washington and then escorted them
to our State Department. Mr. Alfred
Puhan, Director of the Department's Of-
fice of German Affairs, welcomed the
delegation and discussed with them the
importance our Nation attaches to its
relation with the Bonn Republic.
After the State Department visit, our
guests came up to Capitol Hill and toured
this historic building. We then met for
lunch and I had the opportunity to talk
about our form of government and the
role of Congress in making the laws that
guide our course as a democracy.
The Wurzburg delegation then left for
a sightseeing tour of Washington that
will conclude with their being welcomed
at the German Embassy.
It is obvious to me that we in the
United States have many friends in Ger-
many and that the strength of our ties,
nation to nation, city to city, and people
to people, are made more meaningful by
these mutual visits. Rochester's sister
city program has helped a great deal to
foster an appreciation and friendly feel-
ing between the people and the institu-
tions of an American and a German city.
I am proud of this link and look for-
ward to creating even closer bonds in the
days ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowl-
edge to our colleagues that one of the
greatest treats received by our German
visitors was your kindness, Mr. Speaker,
In dropping in at our luncheon in order
to welcome the Wurzburg delegation. I
can assure every Member of this House
that our distinguished Speaker was wel-
comed warmly and many of those in the
delegation told me later that to meet
such a distinguished American was more
than they had ever expected would occur
during their visit to the United States.
The Speaker's fame obviously is far flung
and the respect which his dedication and
devotion to the cause of freedom have
brought him is not lii ed by our na-
tional boundaries.
CLOSING THE MEKONG ROUTE TO
CAMBODIA
(Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute, to revise and extend his
remarks and include the text of a let-
ter to the President and his reply.)
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker,
recent press reports indicate there is no
reason to doubt that Cambodia is a sanc-
tuary, a training ground, and a source
of supply for the Vietcong. Last month
when I was in South Vietnam, in fact.
I was told of the existence of three air-
fields in nearby Cambodia which receive
daily flights of supplies for the Vietcong.
I was shocked to learn as well from an
informed naval officer that while 410
free world ships sailed through South
Vietnam during 1965 on the Mekong
River into Cambodia that we have no
effective control over this traffic to pre-
vent the flow of contraband. The Me-
kong has long been suspected as a back-
door source of supply to the Vietcong.
In view of the overwhelming evidence
of Prince Sihanouk's open economic and
political support of the Vietcong I be-
lieve that South Vietnam should be
urged in the strongest manner possible
to close the Mekong River to all Cam-
bodian-bound ocean traffic, and I have
urged the President in a letter to do just
this.
Mr. Speaker, I received an answer
from the State Department to my letter
to the President. Its argument is in the
same similiar vein as the one I cited in
my remarks on last May 4 in this cham-
ber. First, the Department does its best
to assure me that there really is not any
problem and then in the next paragraph
I am told everything is being done that
is necessary to put an end to this so-
called non-problem.
While I certainly do hope that some-
thing is going to be done about it, be-
cause as I said, as of last month not
enough was being done about it.
Just what does the Department say
about this nonproblem? They say:
While it is probable that some items from
these cargoes do reach the Viet Cong we
have no evidence that a substantial amount
of material valuable to the Viet Cong war
as yet reaches them through ocean shipping
on the Mekong.
Thus it is admitted that it is "prob-
able" that the Mekong does constitute
a supply route to the Vietcong but, in the
Department's eyes not in "substantial"
amounts.
Now first of all, we do not presently
have certain knowledge of just what is
being shipped up the Mekong, and if
we do not know this, we do not know
just how much direct aid the Vietcong
is getting from this source. Second, the
point is after all, as the Department ad-
mits, the Vietcong have been getting aid
through this source, in whatever
amounts. Our air strikes into North
Vietnam and Laos have been for one
principle purpose, to interdict the ene-
mies supply lines and yet we have failed
to take effective action against a supply
line running right through South Viet-
nam. I say that wherever we find a
source of supply to the enemy, in what-
ever amounts, it must not be tolerated
but must be eliminated.
It is striking as well that the State De-
partment makes no comment as to the
desirability or undesirability of closing
the Mekong River as a means of eco-
nomic pressure to encourage Cambodia
to live up to its professed policy of neu-
tralism. It is often said that the Cam-
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10606 Approved For RommoR9 ? C1A-RIQP$71300446R000400070006-5
? HOUSE May 2;1. / 9 6
bodian Chief of State, Prince Sihanouk:,
has turned an accommodating eye to-
ward the Communists in the belief that
the Vietcong will triumph in South Viet-
nam. While this is probably in part
wishful thinking due to Sihanouk's own
dislike for his Eastern neighbor it would
appear possible that the growing U.S.
military commitment in South Vietnam
might raise doubts in his mind as to the
ultimate success of the Vietcong. Never--
Useless, unless we shut off the enemies'
;;ource of supply we face a longer, costlier,
bloodier war ;is South Vietnam. In such
a protracted struggle it is less likely that
Cambodia would soon reverse its policy
of aid and comfort to the Vietcong. A
forthright, stand on the question of this
Mekong River back-door aid to the Viet-
cong might well indicate the determina-
tion of the Saigon government to win
this struggle and thereby produce a salu-
tary effect upon Cambodia's position. In
any event, the conditions presupposed by
the treaty making the Mekong an inter-
national waterway have been radically
altered by the growing hostility of the.
Cambodian Government. It is time that
pressure be brought to bear upon Cam-
bodia to live up to its alleged foreign
policy of strict neutrality in the hope
that the war itself will not spread into
that country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to insert in the RECORD the text of my
letter to the President of May 3, the
text of the response to it from the White
1:louse dated May 4 by Henry H. Wilson,
Jr., administrative assistant to the Pres-
ident and a copy of a letter from Douglas
MacArthur II, Assistant Secretary of
State for Congressional Relations dated
May H.
y 19(ifl.
MEL. J'YE EONit. JOHNSON,
Th.e President of the United States,
The W hite House,
Washington, .
DEAR MR, PEESIDENT : Recent reports in our
own press as well as the monitored state-
ments of the Cambodian Chief of State,
Praline Sihanouk, give every indication that
Cambodia is providing substantial assistance
to the Viet Cong, despite its alleged foreign
policy of "strict neutrality". I have been
particularly disturbed by reports that ship-
ping up the Mekong River to the Cambodian
port of .Phnoin Penh carry goods which ulti-
maioly benefit; the enemies of South Vietnam.
According to Information provided me by
the Department of Defense during the first
three months of this year, 102 Free World
vessels have entered Cambodia via the Me-
kong River. Consequently, I was shocked to
learn just a few days ago while in South
Vietnam as a member of a special mission
of the House Armed Services Committee that,
aa one of our high-ranking Naval officers told
me, "We have no effective control over this
sin ppingei
The Treaty signed. in 1954 by Cambodia,
fans, and South Vietnam clearly points out
that navigation on this international water-
way must not jeopardize the maintenance
of general security of any of the riparian
Mates In view of the increasing hostility of
the Cambodian Government and the present
ineffectiveness of the surveillance of river
traffic, I 'Would respectfully recommend that
the Government of South Vietnam be urged
in close the Mekong River to all Cambodian-
bmind ocean traffic. The intent of such ac-
tion would be to limit rather than expand
I ist war by seeking to reduce Cambodia's
oarthepation in it, and to do so by economic
and not military means. I am satisfied that
unless more effective measures are taken to
close the Viet Cong's "back-door" source of
supply from Cambodia that this struggle will
be made much longer, costlier, and bloodier,
and with little prospect that time enemy
would feel compelled to imme to le at confer-
ence table.
Respectfully yours,
Cud% ftiLE; E. C HA M. , RLAIN
THE Wfirrk Ho .NE,
WC/3/2 ingtaii, Mak 4. 1966.
Hon CHARLLS E. CHAmeski.AIN,
House of Ikepr.,:sentairives,
Washingii 7., 1?,c
DEAR Cosmanssmnei : May I acknowledge
your letter of May 3 to the Presideot calling
to luLl attention information you obtained
in the course of your recent visit to South
Vietnam regarding free world shipping to
Cambodia via the Mekong River.
Your interest is very much appreciated
and the reromemndations contained in your
letter will have the careful consideration of
the President and his advisors.
Sincerely,
ITENav 11 Witsou.
A.C1711.11ri ii tative Assistant to 10, Presi-
de-nt.
- ? ---
DEPARTMI:NT OF ST,', fie
W ash.in,c 'on, May 114 1966.
Hon. CHAFE. Es E. CHAMBERLAIN,
House of Representatives.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN CHAMEERLAIN . We have
been requested by Mr. Wilson of the White
House stall to reply to your letter of May 3
to the President concerning alleged diver-
sion of cargoes shipped up the Mek,iing River
to Cambodia to the ultimate benefit of
enemies of South Viet-Nam. Your letter
recommended that the Governmeti t of the
Republic of Viet-Nam be urged to "lose the
Mekong El or to all Canathdia-bound ocean
traffic.
The Department his continuously under
review the question of shipping on the
Mekong River and the danger that goods
carried up the river to Cambodia may be
transshipped Irons there to the Viet Cong.
The evidence available at this time does not
confirm that significant diversions am taking
place. Approximately 70% of the total
cargo shipped in 1965 to Phnom Penh on
Lille Mekong consisted of petroleum and
petroleum products imported for sale through
Western-owned facilities. in C,imbodia.
Much of the remainder------ hout 25' of the
total shipping into Phnom Penh during
1965?consisted of identifiable general cargo
and of miscellaneous cargoes such as metals,
asphalt, cement, and sot All quancities of
foodstuffs.
While it is probable that some items from
these cargoes do reach the Viet Cong, we
have no evidence indicating that a eubstan-
tial amount of material valuable to the Viet-
Cong war effort reaches them through ocean
shipping on the Mekong. Improved security
measures now being developed to control
Viet-Natal riverine traffic will, however, be
applied to international shipping as well,
consistent with South Viet-Nam's interna-
tional treaty obligations.
I hope that this information Wit be of
assistance to you.
Sincerely yours,
Douot.Ae MO, ARTHUR 11,
Assistant Secretary fok Congreskional
Relations.
PERMIT SALE OF NUCLEAR ARMS
TO NATO
(Mr. FINDLEY asked and was given
permission to address the House for
1 minute, to revise and extend his re-
marks, and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speake:. I am
glad that the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. KELLY] is placing in today's
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the full text of
the statement made to the Comniittee or
Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on
Europe, by former President Eisenhower.
I read in the Sunday Star the wire serv-
ice's analysis of this statement al id com-
ments appropriate on it made by several
Members of this body and other eiovern-
nient officials.
To me this is one of the most signifi-
cant and hopeful statements made in re-
gard to the future of the Atlantic alli-
ance in many years. Coming from the
first Supreme Commander of NATO, a
former President of the United States,
one who undoubtedly occupies a :iosition
of prestige throughout the Atlantic com-
munity, unmatched by anyone else, it is
especially significant. In it the former
President proposes that under certain
NATO arrangements we sell atomic
weapons to such NATO nations tI:a t may
desire them.
The Atomic Energy Act has been used
as the excuse in the past for der ying to
the French Government nuclear infor-
mation which we have known is available
to the Soviets. The exact language of
the act in my view is broad enough to
have permitted our Government te supply
the French Government with this in-
formation. In any event, I feel it is
most timely to have a thorough, detailed
review of the Atomic Energy Act hope-
fully leading to amendments in the light
of present-day realities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that at this point I may include the text
of the Associated Press analysis of the
former President's statement.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman fruits Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
The statement is as follows:
PERMIT SALE OF NUCLEAR ARMS ti NATO
EISENHOWER URGES
Former President Dwight D. Fist nliower
proposes a drastic overhaul of the Atomic
Energy Act to provide for the posit de sale
of nuclear weapons and submarines to North
Atlantic defense nations.
As a former supreme commander of NATO.
Eisenhower said he had felt "we should seek
authority to sell appropriate nuclear weapons
to other governments ? * ? under special
conditions and arrangements?to be approved
by the NATO organization?that cool.: oper-
ate effectively in the defense of Europe"
He found it strange, he said, "that even
though the Soviets long ago succeeded in
developing a nuclear capability 01 great
strength and efficiency we have been forced,
by law, to keep any useful knowledge about
the science from most of our partners in
NATO."
Eisenhower also indicated the preeent level
of American troops kept in Europe stows fn
part from failure of the allies to raise
expected ground forces.
SPUR TO ALLIES
And he said that while nothing should be
done to antagonize the French people, "to
make up the deficit" from France's pullout
from NATO's system, the other allies?espe-
cially Germany--"should be encouraged to
develop more military power."
Johnson administration policy cot tames
to be committed to a maintenance el hneri-
can troop strength in Europe. U.S. fficials
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
16612
Approved For Reck3arganelgALCatati9mes9p040oo7o06-5May 23, 1966
the student is the more critical of the two
questions. Chronologically, a selection of
students by colleges is possible only after the
students have applied for admission or have
expressed an interest in the college. Too
many excellent small colleges are not oper-
ating with a full complement of students
simply because more high school students
are not even aware of their existence. Thus,
the first step toward admission is a gathering
of information?about the student and his
abilities and goals, about the college and
their requirements, atmosphere and quali-
fications. This information-gathering proc-
ess may lead to a program for exceptional
students, an application for admission to an
Ivy League or a small midwestern college,
or a trial period in a junior college system.
Regardless which college the student at-
tends, parents should be aware that it is not
which college the individual gets into but
how much he has grown academically, social-
ly and emotionally between admission and
graduation.
(Mr. ANNUNZIO was granted permis-
sion to extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. ANNUNZIO'S remarks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]
MOON TREATY
(Mr. BOLAND (at the request of Mr.
ANNUNZIO) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, to regard
the moon as a potential base for aggres-
sion would have shaken the imagination
only a few years ago. But man's accom-
plishments in space leave little to the
realm of implausibility today.
The Springfield, Mass., Daily News of
May 9 points up this fact in supporting
President Johnson's appeal for a treaty
to make sure that the moon and other
celestial bodies are open to all nations.
No time should be lost in writing a
space treaty, the News says in an edi-
torial which adds this cautionary note:
The moon could conceivably offer a good
base for nonpeaceful space operations should
any nation seek to use it as the stepping
stone for a pattern of space sovereignty.
The News editorial adds to the mass of
favorable comment already stirred by the
President's proposal, and I include it in
the RECORD at this point with my re-
marks:
MOON TREATY
Not too many years ago, the moon was
regarded as remote despite the fact that it
has, for centuries, been the subject of long
distance scientific curiosity and exploration.
More imaginatively, it has been the home
of the "man in the moon" and a subject
for the unrelenting persistence of popular
ballad writers who have turned out "Shine
on Harvest Moon," "Moonglow," and a host
of others. Moon, a natural rhymer with
June, presented a field day for the song
writers.
Today, of course, the moon is the prime
target in the manned space program as the
U.S. Apollo program pushes forward with its
goal of landing an astronaut there by 1970.
President Join-won has focused new atten-
tion on the moon with his announcement
that the United States will seek a treaty
through the United Nations to prevent any
country from claiming sovereignty over the
moon and other celestial bodies.
The President said in part: "We want to
be sure that our astronauts and those of
other nations can freely conduct scientific
investigations of the moon. We want the
results of these activities to be available for
all mankind." Space explorations, the Presi-
dent emphasized, should be "for peaceful
purposes only."
Thus, the President declared, "Astronauts
of one country should give any necessary help
to astronauts of another country." He
added: "No country should be permitted to
station weapons of mass destruction on a
celestial body. Weapons tests and military
maneuvers should be forbidden."
While it may seem that there is plenty of
time to work out a program of this type, this
is not the case. The moon could conceivably
offer a good base for nonpeaceful space opera-
tions should any nation seek to use it as the
stepping stone for a pattern of space
sovereignty.
The President's message took this into ac-
count when he said: "I believe that the time
is ripe for action. We should not lose time."
The moon, the earth's only natural satel-
lite, will be more and more in the news in the
days ahead, climaxed by?a few years from
now?the word that man has landed on this
space target. The Outer Space Committee
of the United Nations, which is the logical
group to consider President Johnson's space
treaty proposal, should not lose time in
acting on this plan for a peaceful conquest
of space.
(Mr. HANSEN of Iowa (at the request
of Mr. ANNUNZIO) was granted permis-
sion to extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. HANSEN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker,
all Members of this great body are un-
derstandably concerned with the situa-
tion in southeast Asia. Everyone of us
are being buffeted by the charges and
countercharges that are so prevalent.
As a result most of us have difficulty in
maintaining the broad viewpoint that
each of us must keep on this serious for-
eign affairs problem.
Repeated opportunities to review the
attitudes of those who have had long
and close experience in the Asian area
has been extremely helpful to me in
keeping my viewpoint in what I believe
to be proper total perspective.
In the belief that it will be helpful to
my colleagues, I am offering foi? the REC-
ORD one of such items?an article which
is the text of an address by Geoffrey
Fairbairn. The editor's note that pref-
aces the article is of particular value
in helping the reader appraise Mr. Fair-
bairn's more detailed comments. The
article follows:
WHERE I STAND?A PERSONAL STATEMENT ON
VIETNAM
(Address to the "Unco Good," by Geoffrey
Fairbairn, Canberra, Australia)
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Geoffrey Fairbairn, who is
a gentle scholar and teacher and political
writer today, as he was a quiet but tough
commando officer and early expert on the new
and old guerrilla warfare developed both dur-
ing and after World War II, is as aware as
anyone of the odd, illogical, off again-on
again but highly opinionated role of indi-
vidual and organized churchmen, particularly
in strongly Protestant countries during the
rise and fall of Hitler and, even more notably,
his (Hitler's) affectionate admirer, Joe Stalin
and successors. Fairbairn has won a hear-
ing and won support of students for his "pro-
freedom" and "face the world's reality" ap-
peal of the informed anti-Communist 'forces
of the world. His appeal to Australian
churchmen, so tardy on Hitler and worse
than tardy on Mao and Ho Chi-minh, stands
on its merits and the rather tragic facts of
past history.)
(This article is the text of Geoffrey Fair-
bairn.'s address * * * to a Sydney conferernce
of the Australian Council of Churches. (The
Bulletin, 9/11/65) .)
Mr. Chairman, Reverened Sirs: I believe
that the Americans and Australians in
South Vietnam are fighting for world peace,
and I propose to explain why I believe that.
I do not stand here as some tame apologist
for the present Government. I have again
and again attacked what I believed to be
its insouciance about the great issues in Asia.
I have many times criticised its attitudes
towards Asians.
I have a kind of foster-son?for years
while he grew to manhood I was in effect his
foster-father--who lives in Burma near the
Chinese border and I am conscious all the
time of the dangers that he and his Aus-
tralian wife and their children face today.
When I speak about guerrilla warfare I do
not speak as an academic. At every local
discussion such as this one, a large part of
my mind i.e in other places: the road between
Kutkai and Namkham where that great
medical missionary Segrave worked until he
died in the hospital that he and his wife and
his sister built with their own hands out
of stone laboriously moved from the Shwe-Li
River, the border between Burma and China.
It was on that road that the Shan Burmese
family, of whom I am an honorary member,
learned that guerrillas had the same day
inadvertently killed their small niece. They
were not Communist guerrillas.
I keep remembering the faces of my
Ara.kanese friends in Western Burma the
day the Burmese Army?an army represent-
ing a very Left-wing government?had bom-
barded a village, killing some innocent peo-
ple, in order to attack local Communist
guerrillas. I remember the frightened faces
of rubber tappers in Malaya during the
height of the Communist insurrection in
Johore in 1951?and remember my own fears
as the very brave Welsh plantation man-
ager drove me through the shadowy lines of
the rubber plantation, where his assistant
had been killed not very long before. I
remember the gentle face of a Vietnamese
Army officer, seconded to civilian duties in
the Central Highlands of Vietnam in 1962,
and the frightened young?oh, so very
young?faces of his militia boys as they
awaited attach from Vietnamese Commu-
nist guerrillas. Indeed, I even keep remem-
bering a day 20 years ago when I went up-
river behind the Japanese lines in Borneo:
remembering the fear on the villagers' faces
lest our operation be unsuccessful and bring
Japanese reprisals upon them. I also re-
member a little boy on a beach in the Phil-
ippines a little earlier: his right arm a ban-
daged stump, the result of our bombardment
earlier in the morning . . . oh, no, I loathe
both guerrilla war and the methods involved
in its putting down.
I simply see no alternative to the Ameri-
can commitment in South Vietnam and our
support of it. For this is not an attempt
by the West to put down an indigenous
peasant rising, "a response to economic and
political conditions" as some intellectuals
believe. What is happening in South Viet-
nam is not only an invasion through meth-
ods of revolutionary guerrilla warfare: it is
part of a grand design by China to alter
catastrophically the balance of world power.
And should it succeed then world war is
virtually inevitable.
Contained by the wills of free men in
Western Europe, the Soviet Union has been
forced to take stock of its position and of
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, Approved REM5t,lesffany2RERFOIDP6M:19H6R000400070006-5
two, three or four ream:its where the student
sLands a good chance of getting admitted.
College should be a mutual choice---not
eiffely the choice (il the parents nor of the
cOil U. It is not vase to force: him into a
eollege he has no ,Ir sire toettesid because he
the one who L tnak,2a 1ic of it." This
is a difficult, yauth where he
;meets paeente' sae) tit es lunch as possible.
"She more capable eireient cas end should
attend a large Jinni:to-Lion. Pintail's large
universities ha-, -e .v ti be imper-
nand and many or olit lined their
reputation beceu I tiver "mint or perish"
motto. A mature : ruined. will be able to
mcceed in this tvoo ci eo,:ir-mmcnt whereas
en immeture ideclied wO c il'n't; quite the
scholar needs- ry,srptal guidance and
would do better to choose a sinaPer college
-where a more perssecii retitle/Jinni is main-
tained.
Vag, ti 0 eainpus
If possible, it a. a to visit the cantons
of tile college tile student ratans to attend.
several in-cits rale ois are 'Wider consid-
eration where the etude:it will reside at
hume, several iises should certainly be
seated daring the time scitool is in progress
icc eee classes ill session. how classes are con-
ducted, the types of students in attendance,
how well the cot Ii' is organized, and the
ohysical facilities ; rich as the library and
laboratories. If several out-of-city campuses
are ander considention, a visit to each one
:may be more difficult. In this case parents
in a Nturtent at the specific college
can be visited to ascertain their opinions as
eo the condition::: on campus. It es common
eourtesy to arrange for an appointment for
au interview with an admissions officer (or
Littler interviewer) in advance of the visit
to Die campus Lind aiso to have in mind
epecific things to be discussed. The appear-
ance which the strident presents icc impor-
tant - both in style of hair and dress.
Don't be afraid to ash for advice
eModents should work closely with the
nigh school counselor and seek his opinion
when in doubt about important items con-
:gaming college. Parents can also talk to
conege student or recent college graduate
lit the .iranirrunitv or church group and
.;everal of the student's high school teachers
with regard to proficiency and choice of
innier. if the Stimlent is considering a pro-
res'-ion he should talk to members of the
enecilic profession (such as pre--medical, pre-
dental or law) as to rating of schools in
the Mild. It is :Important to talk positively.
;eree advice is available from teachers and
guidance counselors so it is not compulsory
that a trip be made away from home to ob-
tain :information; Instead it is possible to
get her better inn,rmation front people in
I he field.
A new entrant to the scene with the surge
of students toward the campuses are the
-tollege admissions counseling agencies.
;loth parents and prospective student should
Oe aware of the professional background of
those staffing the agency. Frequently the
agencies charge exorbitant fees sad "wind
1111" giving the same advice that the high
echool counselor originally gave---that their
'It lid is not, Ivy League material but ordinary
gnia-Weet College calibre.
-tic alternate for he college of his ehoice
it the senior year is coming to a close
and the student has not been officially ac-
eepted by any of the universities to which
he has applied, there are several agencies
which maintain a current file of universities
Mill accepting applications. They will send
tile student's credentials (academic record)
,0 admissions offices at colleges that have
vacancies. They are the following:
1. College Admissions Center, 610 Church
Street, Evanston, Illinois.
No. 114
2. College Admissions Assistance Ci nter,
41 E. 65th St., New York 21, New York.
3. American Association of junior Col-
leges, 177 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Wash-
in.gton 32, D.C.
4. The American College Admissions Ad-
visory Center, Junto School Building, 12th
and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Penr.
5. Catholic College Admissions and Isfors
Illation Center. 3805 MeKiricy St.
Washington 15, ii C.
Self-help for the student in high sch >01
!Ugh echool students rhemeelvss, vein a
little direction from the counselor Cal'. be-
come acquainted with meant:10'in research
about occupational choices to help him set
a future logical go 1. Exctellsen source naa-
terial Le available such EIS the "Occupational
Otaidance" units that provide indirsdual
guides with dendled informatiean about vari-
ous occupatior s. These gullies clearlv and
interestingly dencribe the work, working con-
ditions, ability and temperament reqoired,
advantage:3 and disadvantages of the job,
education and training requirements, sug-
gested courses to take in high school, end a
listing of free and inexpe.nsive inforneitive
material about the job. A feature of each
guide is a section on "Testing Your Inter-
ests" in which the student is directed th ask
himself questions to determine whether or
net he is suited to the specific occupation.
Here is tangible evidence of efforts of high
school counselors to provide students with
vocational guidance to help the :individual
in making a wise occupational choice arid to
aid directly in educational :ind vocational
p tanning.
Don't forger the junior colleges
Attending a junior college (or "dot rstep
college") can be justified on the bac is of
ability and economic status. It is culled
"doorstep'' because it proviens the et-mar-
tini:1V for two years of higher educati ;11. in.
the same place where many students live.
The junior college offers this two-year col-
lege training and is the least expensiyi- col-
lege education beyond high school. The
college, however, is "junior" in name only
ELS the courses offered parallel those of hour-
year colleges. It is also for those who are
not sure they want to invest in a full lour-
year school, i.e , purchasing materials, pay-
ing for tuition, 01 e., or for those wh:i are
not sure they ean make the grade in a reg-
ular college. If uncertain, a student can
attend junior college for a year with the
idea that if he successfully completes iS the
parent will enroll him in a regular college.
Studies show that transfer students ui eially
do as well or better than their four-year
classmates.
The courses are transferable to a four -year
college and off or full credit providins th.e
courses meet the requireinents of the receiv-
ing school. For example, a person who has
taken a curs-ey-type business mathematics
course and then enrolls in a regular mithe-
twenties curriculum could :not expect it to be
ci msidered. as a transferable course.
If a student has not satisfied all the pre-
requisites to a university or remedial ve irk is
necessary before he can be accepted, a j-mior
college is an ideal way to satisfy the, e re-
quirem.ents prior to admission to a univer-
sity and it gives an opportunity to inc move
study skills within the confines of a -mall
group.
Trends in college education
Shock waves from the "knowledge explo-
sion" have caused college administrators to
re-evaluate their curriculum. Formerly: col-
leges could afford the luxury of four sears'
time to educate a student :fully. Today, with
the necessity for specialization clue to the
technological complex of vast amounts of
knowledge within a career field, colleges are
faced with the challenge of either stream-
1061l.
lining the required course of study, mo-
viding some means for capable student; to
shorten their time spent in college, or en-
riching the curriculum for a full four- scar
term.
To meet this challenge seine COlill[rli
designed programs which can save years in
college time and thousands of dollars in tui-
tion and living costs for the able atm mt.
Among those plans receiving national cit en-
Lion are the "Comprehensive College 'I eels
Program" and the "Advanced Placerisiit
Program," both sponsored by the Educal
Testing Service of Princeton, New Senses.
Advanced Placement Examinations. Some
high schools today are able to offer college-
level courses to bright students by enriching
their curriculum in tenth and elev;mtli
grades. Recognizing that this test takes ad-
vantage of advanced placement, over ,ine-
third of the colleges participate in the Ad-
vanced Placement Program which allows the
student to continue enriching his curriculum
in college. Criteria, for advanced placement
in college work consists mainly of a s -ries
of examinations offered each May tarried on
college-level courses in history, science, lan-
guages, and mathematics. Results of these.
examinations are forwarded to the collet e of
the student's choice. College policies on
awarding of credit vary; some award misfit
for grades, others grant placement, and still
others give neither placement or credit. As
to the acceptance of this program, consiltit-
tion with the admissions ollicer or the state-
ment of policy in the college catalog will
reveal whether this is done.
The student should consult with the ad-
missions officer of the college of his clioice
to learn what plans they use or if they have
their own specially designed plans of ad-
vanced placement for the same purpose.
This should be done, however, only if the
parents believe their child is capable of ex-
ceptional work and has completed college-
level courses in his high school.
Comprehensive College Tests Prop
Within the past few years a new prosram
was introduced intended to assist the slat:tent
toward obtaining credits in basic couria s in
a field of study to students who are able to
demonstrate proficiency in that field. A
series of examinations with results comp and
against standards set by college freshmen
completing the same courses measure this
proficiency. Tests are offered in literature,
chemistry, calculus, economics, tests and
measurements, and western civilize: ion.
Those who are interested can consult the
college admissions officer or college catalog.
The Comprehensive College Tests Program
testing department advises each candidate
for the examinations to carefully oval -tate
his academic preparation before attempting
any of the examinations.
An example of this trend in education on
a local level is the "Honors Program in Medi-
cal Education" recently instituted at North-
western University. In this program a
dent who wishes to enter the field of ni sat-
eine can reduce the period of college trebl-
ing by two years. He must, however, ni tin-
tam n "satisfactory academic grades and de-
velop normally in intelligence and emoti neal
maturity." This program concentratee on
science and mathematics for the .first 'tier,
humanities and behavioral sciences far the
second year, and begins Medical School
courses during the third year. A strident who
is able to pursue this curriculum wit be
awarded a Doctor of Medicine degree ii iiix
years instead of the normal eight.
61;11,11,1AM(
The "who selects whom" questions p ;sed
at the beginning of this section have em-
phasized many points in preparing for a
smooth transition from high school to col-
lege. Currently, the selection of a college by
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May :41:1, 1966
the realities of the thermo-nuclear balance
of terror. It turned it,s energies towards
social betterment, towards a hitherto un-
dreamed-of humanism, towards a real ef-
fort to cooperate in keeping world peace.
China acted differently. China is biologi-
cally unafraid of a nuclear holocaust.
China talked, and talks today, in terms of
war "as the highest form of struggle"?"war
will become a bridge over which mankind
will pass into a new era of history." A
"beautiful new future," according to this
viewpoint, will be built upon "the debris
of a dead imperialism." I do ask you, most
humbly, if we have not in such a viewpoint
a truly terrible threat to world peace?
Have the Americans ever talked in those
terms? I ask you at this point to remem-
ber that American airpower could tomorrow,
in a matter of hours, reduce the Red River
Delta of Tonkin to a raging flood, against
which the energies of the Vietnamese people
have been bent for over 2000 years. Instead
of doing this, young Americans are dying in
and around Maquis D, around Chu Lai Da
Nang, Dak Sut, Kontum, Pleiku?dying in-
dividually near places whose names are prob-
ably unfamiliar to you. The Americans
could end the war tomorrow by bombing the
river control system of North Vietnam. They
do not do so. Do you really believe the
Chinese would not do so if the positions were
reversed?
I must confess to finding the present situ-
ation here rather eerie, rather unreal. When
the campaign against South Vietnam was
launched through means of revolutionary
guerrilla warfare, there were very few Amer-
icans indeed in Vietnam. The number of
village officials, and their wives and their
children, assassinated or kidnapped each year
by the Vietcong vastly exceeded the number
of American advisers. I hope that the
churchmen protesters against American-
Australian involvement today protested
against those murders and kidnappings.
(Ed: they did not either individually or
collectively, even once.) Otherwise quite
clearly a double standard of morality is be-
ing insinuated upon the Australian public.
When over 50,000 North Vietnamese were ex-
ecuted after atrocious public humiliations
I hope the protesters of today publicly pro-
tested (Ed: they did not and don't even
know it yet) ?since this was the inevitable
consequence of Communist victory in the
North, as it will be in the South. I hope
protesters are aware of what will happen to
supporters of the South Vietnamese Govern-
ment should the Communists win. I hope
that when the state power of the North
Vietnamese Communist society trained artil-
lery upon the protesting peasants of Nghe-
An, Ho Chi-minh's home province, the cleri-
cal protesters of today protested then; and
when Hanoi University was closed down in
order to prevent some kind of teach-ins.
Otherwise a double standard of morality is
being imposed upon Australian citizens.
Now today I refuse to get side-tracked into
technicalities. I would rather put this to
you: South-East Asia is composed of new na-
tions that might well be supposed to favor
Communist ideas. They all have, in varying
degrees, memories of humiliations imposed
by Westerners. They have all discovered
disabilities in themselves, since independence,
so far as modernising techniques are con-
cerned. They are all disappointed by their
own political and economic achievements,
and so they are all only too apt to talk in
terms of an economically dominating neo-
colonialism (and there is truth, economically,
in this talk). They are chiefly Left-wing in
point of social policy. But no where have
the presumably "higher ideas" of Commu-
nism issued in a Communist government by
popular acclaim, through elections.
The chief reason for this is that they are
peasant countries and they know by now
that Communism Is a vast confidence tricked
Approved Eaqt&AYsetafiVeaktRis-,3PMPRF46R000400070006-5
10613
perpetrated against peasants. They know?
that where Communism successfully grows
out of the barrel of a gun, the peasants are
herded on to collective farms as State slaves.
The result is economically appalling. For
example, the per capita production of grain
in the Soviet Union was higher in 1913 than
in 1961 (Mr. Khrushchev's figures, not
mine). The same thing happened in North
Vietnam after the Communist conquest of
1954. Production in the South grew by 20
percent, it dropped by 10 per cent in the
North.
I look forward to a day when China, when
the great energies of Chinese civilization
are forced back by the wills of free men to
the task of bettering its own people. I look
forward to the day when the nations of
South-East Asia?Left-wing and Right-
wing?are united in tho common purpose of
harnessing the Mekong River. I look for-
ward to the day when an Australian Peace
Corps will be active in the villages of South-
East Asia.
But first the Chinese "line," the Chinese
attempt to extend violence of a brilliantly
systematized kind throughout South-East
Asia, Latin America, and Africa, must be
repulsed. Peace depends upon this repul-
sion. Hope depends upon this repulsion.
This repulsion simply must not be stayed
on its way by the neuroses and double
standards of morality and political gormless-
ness. I am not prepared to stand in some
apologetic stance, even before such an angust
'audience as this. It is we who represent the
open future for the hearts and minds of men
and women?we, not the totalitarians. By
"we," I do not have to add that I mean
those South-East Asians who are fighting
and bleeding and dying?the South Viet-
namese armed forces have suffered casualties
equivalent to those of Australia during
World War II, fighting for the freedom to
choose their future. I want to quote a man
who once symbolized the dour, enduring
decency of free men, Winston Churchill:
"Never give in. Never, never, never, never.
Never yield to force and the apparently over-
whelming might of the enemy. Never yield
in any way, great or small, large or petty,
except to convictions of honor and good
sense."
After all, we are back in 1938 no
THE WAR WITHIN A WAR IN SOUTH
VIETNAM
(Mr. JOELSON asked and was granted
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, if the
war within a war in South Vietnam does
not soon subside, the U.S. Government
should tell the non-Communist forces to
stop fighting among themselves if they
want U.S. military aid and involvement
to continue.
It is imperative that all non-Commu-
nist elements in South Vietnam get to-
gether if they are to wage an effective
battle against the Vietcong. The United
States cannot and should not be ex-
pected to bear the terrible burden alone.
We must also make it abundantly clear
to the dissident factions that we cannot
tolerate attacks on American soldiers by
our so-called allies. They should be
made to know that either they shape up
or we ship out.
As one who has consistently supported
our involvement in South Vietnam, I am
sick at heart over the current struggle
for power which diverts our attention
and dilutes our efforts.
URGES SETTLEMENT OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS STRIKE
The SPEAKER. Under previous or-
der of the House, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. MeCLoRy] is recognized for
30 minutes.
Mr. MeCLORY. Mr. Speaker, a strike
of the Operating Engineers Local 150 in
the northern area of Illinois is wreaking
havoc in the construction of needed pub-
lic works and in the building of com-
mercial, industrial and residential struc-
tures in this area.
My attention has been called to var-
ious highway and sewage treatment
construction projects which have been
stalled as a result of this prolonged
strike which began on April 10, 1966.
The Members of this union operate
earthmoving machines. The operating
engineers play a major role in modern-
day construction of public works as well
as in the building of private structures.
Other work performed by members of
this union includes excavating of under-
ground tunnels and shafts.
The various issues involving wages and
fringe benefits as well as work rules are
numerous and complicated. There have
been some attempts at negotiation and
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service has attempted to bring the par-
ties together. However, there appears to
be inadequate concern on the part of
agencies of the State and Federal gov-
ernments to the disastrous effects result-
ing from this prolonged strike.
Unlike the strikes of the Longshore-
men and the Transit Workers as well as
the threatened strike in 1964 of the Rail-
way Engineers and Firemen, the Federal
Government has taken relatively little
Interest in this work stoppage.
It is my understanding that the mem-
bership of many of the trade unions is
now being affected by the Operating En-
gineers' strike. Without the services of
these men, carpenters, bricklayers, and
other construction workers are suffering
from lack of work. The loss in wages is
bound to be felt shortly in retail estab-
lishments throughout the areas affected.
Other direct and indirect damage is
bound to ensue.
I am not able to judge the merits of
the positions expressed by either side,
but I can state flatly that some decisive
action is needed to halt this tragic loss
to the entire community, including pri-
marily the equipment operators them-
selves who have already lost substantial
wages by reason of the strike.
The subject of such strikes was referred
to by the President in his state of the
Union message last January when he de-
clared that he would "ask the Congress
to consider measures which, without
invading state and local authority, will
enable us effectively to deal with strikes
which threaten irreparable damage with
the national interest." So far no legis-
lative measures have been recommended
to the Congress.
In order to enable the Congress itself
to develop appropriate legislation, I am
introducing today a joint resolution pat-
terned after those introdueed some
months ago by my colleagues, the gentle-
man from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS], the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN],
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10614 Approved For Relet,m2a5M91\i/RAiRP06iTg004M5Regp00070006-5
May
now serving in the other body, and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY] .
The resolution would create a joint con-
Tessional committee to recommend
ways and means of improving the collec-
tive bargaining process and of developing
aseful and effective methods of media-
tioa.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I recommend
(fiat the parties adjust through collective
bargaining as many issues as Possible
and refer the remaining issues to arbi-
tration in order that the members may
return promptly to their jobs and the
important work which they are capable
of performing can be resumed without
delay. Certainly, these issues can be re-
solved without the individual and public
losses which will continue to mount as
long as the strike continues. I urge the
parties to follow this course at once.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am hope-
nil that the Committee on Rules will give
ear.!y and favorable consideration to the
joint resolution which my colleagues
and I have introduced and also that the
members of the Committee on Education
and Labor will consider improved meth-
ods for averting such crippling strikes
and for drawing together the respective
parties in a labor dispute such as is in-
volved in northern Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, I also urge the Secretary
of Labor to convene a meeting in Illinois
at the earliest possible date and to use
all the influence of his office as well as
the services of the Mediation and Con-
ciliation Service to bring about a settle-
ment of this controversy.
EENEDAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to revise and extend my own remarks,
and I ask unanimous consent that all
Members in the area affected, Members
whom I shall designate here for the
RECORD, be authorized to extend their re-
marks, following my remarks, if they so
desire.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
(Mr. ANNUNZIO (at the request of
Mr. MCCLORY ) was given permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
Uncoil]) and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
I Mr. ANNUNZIO'S remarks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. COLLIER (at the request of Mr.
McCronY was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
Racona and to include extraneous mat-
or.)
I Mr. COLLIER'S remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
( Mr. DAWSON (at the request of Mr.
)J[cCrony ) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
Recone and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
!Me. DAWSON'S remarks will appear
hereaf Ler in the Appendix.]
(Mr. DERWINSKI (at the request of
Mr. MCCLORY ) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the REcoaa and to include extra:neous
matter.)
[Mr. DERWINS]:;I'S remarks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. ERLENBORN (at the request of
Mr. McCroaY) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at thia point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
[Mr. ERLENBOEN'S remarks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. KLUCZYNSKI (at the request of
Mr. MeCnorea) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
ra atter. )
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, I
want to join my good friend and col-
league. Congressman BOB 'McCroay, in
directing attention to this critical situa-
tion and urging that appropriate Fed-
eral action be taken to bring this strike
of the Operating Engineers in Northern
Illinois to an end.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on
Roads, I am acutely aware of the many
problems that inevitably flow from an
extended delay in scheduled highway
construction. We ncrease costs?which
are already climbing; we further
aggravate the already heavy demands on
the labor supply to get the job done;
and because we delay actual completion
of construction, we also contribute, how-
ever unwillingly, to an increase in the
highway death. toil.
I take no position on who is right or
wrong here, or on what the solution
should be, but I roost certainly do urge
that every possible avenue of assistance
in getting the strike settled be used.
In addition to the harm that is being
done to the highway consl.ruction pro-
gram, this strike is also creating sub-
stantial increases in housing costs, and
our need for additional housing within
price limits people can pay is also critical.
The public good demands that action
be taken to get this dispute strainghtened
out and the excavating and roadbuild-
ing forces back to work. I hope that
action will be forthcoming, and promptly.
(M r. MURPHY of Illinois (at the re-
quest of Mr. MeCrony) was granted
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the REcona and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. MURPHY of Illinois' remarks will
appear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. O'HARA of (at the re-
quest of Mr. McCrany) was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECOR D and to include extra-
neous matter.)
[ Mr. O'HARA al Illinois remarks will
appear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. PUCINSKII (at the request of Mr.
McCaotry) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. PUCINSKI 'S remaras will appear
nereafter in the Appendix. I
(Mrs. REID of :Illinois (at the request
of Mr. McCLoay) was granted permission
to extend her remarks at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mrs. REID of Illinois' remarks adlq ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. RONAN (at the request of Mr. Me-
CLORY ) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
[Mr. RONAN'S remarks will aenear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI at the re-
quest of Mr. McCLony) was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
[Mr. :ROSTENKOWSKI'S remarks
will appear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. RUMSFELD (at the request of
Mr. McCroaY) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. RUMSFELD'S rema,ks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. YATES (at the request of Mr.
MeCroay) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this mint in the
REcona and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. YATES' remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of ab-
sence was granted to:
Mr. Wariams (at the reauest of Mr.
ALBERT) , from April 15, indefinitely, on
account of illness.
Mr. DYAL, for an indefinite period, on
account of official business.
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to
address the House, following the legisla-
tive program and any special orders
heretofore entered, was granted to Mr.
MCCLORY (at the request of Mr. HOR1ON ) ,
for 30 minutes, today; and to revise and
extend his remarks and faaaude extra-
neous matter.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
By unanimous consent, permission to
extend remarks in the Appendix of the
RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks
was granted to:
Mr. SAYLOR and to include extrar eous
matter.
(The following Members ( at the re-
quest of Mr. HORTON ) and to include
extraneous matter:)
Mr. QUILLEN.
Mr. PELLY.
Mr. HosmEn in two instances.
Mr. CLARENCE J. BROWN, die
Mr. KUPFERMAN in two instances.
(The following Members cat the re-
quest of Mr. ANNUNZIO ) and to include
extraneous matter:)
Mr. CALLAN.
Mr. BOLAND in three insta aces.
Mrs. HANSEN Of Washington in two
instances.
Mr. DORN in six instances.
Mr. EVINS of Tennessee in four in-
stances.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Fce(MmhSf9y2liaMD116AER91414pRO00400070006-5
May 23, 1966 Approved 10627
"We don't have a school dropout problem.
We do have a problem, but it's with the
f orced -outs.
"Teachers are not in communication with
their (Mexican-American) communities.
They can't cope with the kids and the kids
can't understand what's expected of them.
Guzman urged the group to get acitve on
school boards and in civic organizations.
"Collectively you have power," he said.
"You have the vote. With the vote you can
change things."
Civil rights means more than the vote and
the right to speak up, declared Al Jimenez
of the Migrant Opportunity Program in
Cashion. "It's also the right to earn a
decent wage."
He criticized Gov. Goddard for not doing
much for the farm worker despite his
pledges.
"I think he's playing footsy with Lee Wong
(a Valley farmer)," he said, adding:
"I'm for demonstrations. I'm not for
Molotov cocktails. Not yet."
The need for unity was woven through all
the discussions.
This was stressed by Robert Reveles, direc-
tor of the National Organization for Mexican-
American Services in Washington.
Once political unity has been achieved, he
said, a solution to high unemployment and
low educational levels among the Mexican-
American community can be found.
trit?.....
THE WRONG WAR
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, an
editorial in the New York Times this
morning brings out the fact that the dis-
sension and actual fighting is growing
among the various political and religious
factions in South Vietnam.
Specifically, the editorial states that
these factions?
are not fighting in a vacuum. Although they
are close to a point of no return, there is still
time to call a halt, hold elections and get on
with the business of fighting the Vietcong?
not each other.
That statement is true and this is a
thoughtful editorial. I would hope that
all those involved have an opportunity
to read the editorial. I ask unanimous
consent that the editorial be inserted in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the New York Times, May 23, 1966]
WRONG WAR IN VIETNAM
President Johnson has taken the only
possible line toward the political civil war
in South Vietnam. In his weekend news
conference he called on the rival factions
to set tie their differences at the polls and
not in the streets. So long as there is hope
of a peaceful settlement, that must be
sought.
At the same time, realism demands that
the alternatives be faced. The conflict be-
tween the Ky Government and the opposi-
tion Buddhists steadily worsens. Premier
KY told a Times correspondent that he con-
siders his chief Buddhist rival, Thich Tri
Quang, a Communist and that he will have
nothing to do with him. Marshal Ky pos-
sesses the tanks, machine guns and planes?
all furnished to him for other purposes by
the United States?that could enable him to
crush a Buddhist rebellion. But he cannot
win a purely military victory against Bud-
dhism any more than the United States can
win a purely military victory against
Communism.
The vital conflict everywhere in Vietnam
is in the political sphere. So long as there
No. 84---6
are disaffected Buddhists in South Vietnam,
no Government in Saigon can be safe from
an internal conflict that, in turn, will in-
crease the country's vulnerability when it
comes to the Vietcong.
This internal struggle has already had the
effect of pushing the war against the Viet-
cong and the North Vietnamese into the
background. Yet, the American military
force is in Vietnam to fight against the Com-
munists and on behalf of freedom, democ-
racy and self-determination, according to in-
numerable statements by United States
leaders. In this situation, a continuation of
the civil strife would inevitably force the
United States into an anguished reappraisal
of its role in Vietnam.
* * *
It is paradoxical that as the situation in
South Vietnam deteriorates, the American
commitment in troops and every other re-
spect escalates. This policy in itself, will
call for a reappraisal if the contending fac-
tions do not, as President Johnson pleads,
stop fighting each other and hold the
promised elections.
Each element in the struggle?the Saigon
Government, the Buddhists, the Catholics,
the Communists and the Americans?has to
decide what is best for itself and act accord-
ingly. Premier Ky, Thich Tri Quang and
the various bickering forces should stop to
think what it could mean to them and to
South Vietnam to compel the United States
to reconsider its policies. They are not fight-
ing in a vacuum. Although they are close
to a point of no return, there is still time to
call a halt, hold elections and get on with
the business of fighting the Vietcong?not
each other.
CAMBODIA?SA CTUARY
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
during a trip to Vietnam I visited the
site of the battle of the Ia Drang valley,
which had occurred several weeks be-
fore, with the heaviest American casual-
ties of the war.
In this battle United States and South
Vietnamese forces finally pushed an esti-
mated North Vietnamese division out of
South Vietnam and across the Cam-
bodian border in the vicinity of Chu
Pong Mountain.
During the bombing pause the enemy
engaged in a large-scale buildup in the
south, and that buildup continues.
Now that the monsoons are returning
to South Vietnam, a major attack may
soon come, again from North Vietnam
and Vietcong troops, which I have on
good authority are now assembling in
Cambodia, across from the South Viet-
namese II Corps zone.
This brings up again what responsible
military leaders emphasized to us
months ago?that Cambodia continues
to function as a personnel and equip-
ment sanctuary for these Communist
forces.
CORNELIUS J. HAGGERTY?RESO-
LUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SENATE
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, earlier
this month the Senate of the State of
California passed a resolution extending
sincere sympathy and best wishes for a
speedy recovery to a distinguished Cali-
fornian, Mr. Cornelius J. Haggerty.
Mr. Haggerty is the president of the
AFL-CIO Building and Construction
Trades Department.
I am glad to count him as a friend,
and a friend for the last quarter of a
century and more. I am confident that
those of us who know him in this Cham-
ber?and that is nearly all Senators?
feel exactly as I do.
Mr. Haggerty brings to American la-
bor a great force and a great skill, en-
hanced in a large part, I suppose, be-
cause of his Gaelic background, coming
from Boston, Mass.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of the California Sen-
ate resolution be incorporated in the
RECORD, and in doing so, extend to Neal
Haggerty best wishes of all of us for a
speedy and permanent recovery.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[From the Senate Journal, May 3, 1966]
RusorarrioNs
The following resolutions were offered:
By Senator Burns:
SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 140
(Relating to Cornelius J. Haggerty)
"Whereas, It has come to the attention of
the Senate that Cornelius J. Haggerty is tem-
porarily unable to perform his customary
services due to illness; and
"Whereas, Cornelius J. Haggerty ('Neal' to
most of us) is a native of Boston, Massachu-
setts, where he was born January 10, 1894,
and came to California in 1921, made his
residence in Los Angeles, and has been a citi-
zen of the State of California since that
time; and
"Whereas, He began his business life as a
laboring man and was a lather by trade and
a member of the Lather's Union of which
he became Business Manager of Lather's
Local 42 in Los Angeles in 1928, following
which he was elected Second Vice President
of the International Union of Wood, Wire,
and Metal Lathers in 1929, and in 1933, was
elected to the Los Angeles Building and
Construction Trades Council; in 1936, was
elected Vice President of California State
Federation of Labor, AFL, of which he be-
came President in 1937; has held offices of
responsibility with labor organizations ever
since; was appointed President of the AFL-
CIO Building and Construction Trades De-
partment in Washington, D.C. in 1960; and
"Whereas, Cornelius J. Haggerty has held
important public offices, notably having been
a Member of the Federal Advisory Council
on Employment Security, Department of
Labor; a member of the Farm Placement
Committee, Bureau of Employment Security,
Department of Labor; a Member of the Re-
gional Labor-Management Committee of De-
fense Manpower Administration; a Member
of the Board of Directors, National Housing
Conference; a Member of the National Coun-
cil of National Planning Association and
Vice President of the International Labor
Press Association, AFL-CIO; a Member of
the Joint United States-Mexican Trade
Union Committee and AFL Member of the
Latin American unit of International Con-
federation of Free Trade Unions; a Member
of the Board of Regents of the University
of California; a Member of the Governor's
Advisory Council on California Department
of Employment; a Member of the Board of
Trustees of the San Francisco Maritime
Museum; Sponsor of the United Negro Col-
lege Fund, Incorporated; a Member of the
Archdiocesan Committee for Catholic
Charities; a Member of the Advisory Com-
mittee on Rehabilitation of Industrially In-
jured of the Senate Department of Educa-
tion; and numerous other offices reflecting
the trust and confidence imposed in him by
all who knew him; and
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10628 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE May 1
-Whereas, Cornelius J. Haggerty is well-
known to the Members of the Senate due to
his many years as a representative of labor
at the Legislature of the Sttae of California:
Now, therefore, be it
"Resolved. by the Senate of the State of
California? That the Members of the Senate
regret the physical impairment of the activ-
ities of this highly respected representative
of labor and desire by this resolution to con-
vey to him our most sincere sympathy and
to express the hope that his recovery will
be speedy and permanent; and be it further
ttesolveft, That the Secretary of the Senate
is directed to transmit a suitably prepared
copy or this resolution to Mr. Cornelius J.
Haggerty.-
Resolution. read, and unanimously adopted
on motion of Senator McCarthy.
WARNING LABELS NEEDED ON CIG-
ARETTES FOR EXPORT
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, earlier this
session two of our distinguished col-
leagues, the senior Senator from the
State of Washington and the junior Sen-
ator from the State of Oregon, called at-
tention to the clandestine activities of
he U.S. Department of Agriculture with
regard to the promotion of cigarette
smoking around the globe. I am speak-
ing, of course, of the movie, "The World
of Pleasure," depicting the so-called joys
of cigarette smoking and the television
commercials for various cigarettes which
have been subsidized by the Department
of Agriculture. May I say for the record
that I shared the amazement and sense
of outrage of these Senators when I first
learned of these activities, and my dis-
pleasure has not faded during the sub-
aeouent weeks and months. I considered
it, then, and I consider it now, highly im-
proper for any agency of the U.S. Gov-
ernment to be engaged in promoting cig-
arette smoking either here or abroad in
.light of the findings of the Surgeon Gen-
eral's Advisory Committee on Smoking
and Health in 1964 and the action of
this Congress in 1965 with respect to cig-
arette labeling.
in an editorial on this subject entitled
"A Shameful Campaign," the Christian
,Sceence Monitor stated: ?
In a government as vast as America's, it
is perhaps not surprising that the right hand
may not always know what the left hand is
doing.
This is what I call bending over back-
wards to be charitable. I myself find it
impossible to believe that the Depart-
ment of Agriculture was unaware of the
other activities of the Government aimed
at discouraging the harmful practice of
smoking and the declaration of policy of
this Congress found in the Federal Cig-
arette Labeling and Advertising Act ap-
proved last July. Furthermore, I find it
meat disturbing that an agency of the
Federal Government is engaging in prop-
aganda efforts of this tame and attempt-
ing to hide its sponsorship role from the
people who are viewing the movie and
television commercials in question.
There are still other considerations in-
volved here. One of these is that the
movie, "The World of Pleasure," was
originally scheduled for distribution in
15 countries, including England, Belgium,
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, all of
which have policies restricting cigarette
advertising and discouraging the con-
sumption of cigarettes. I am sure the
governments of those countries would
be somewhat less than grateful to us for
our part in producing "The World of
Pleasure" and showing it to VI keir people
under the guise of a travelog.
We must also remember Cat if cig-
arettes are harmful to Americans and
medical research shows that they are in-
deed harmful, they are likewise injurious
to the health of our :neighbors in other
countries. U.S. counterpart fends which
have been used to subsidize this movie
and cigarette commercials in Europe and
Asia were intended to be used to raise
the standard of living, improve educa-
tion, and contribute to the general wel-
fare of the people of those nations. It is
a travesty, it seems to me, to spend the
funds instead for the pronation of a
product which will bring disease and pre-
mature death to thousands upon thou-
sands of men and women who use it.
There is an old proverb whieh some of
you may know, It
He buys honey too dear who licks it from
thorns.
I have often thought of it in connec-
tion with cigarette smoking, far if there
is in fact any pleasure in smoking, it is
pleasure that is bought at great cost. Ac-
cording to the findings of the Surgeon
General's Advisory Cemmittc e on Smok-
and Health, cigarette smoking is asso-
ciated with a 70-percent increase in the
age-specific death rates of males, and to
a lesser extent with the increased death
rates of females. I am speaking now of
deaths from all causes, not just lung
cancer. In other words, smokers run a
substantial risk of earl.y death :trom heart
disease, ulcers, various respire tory con-
ditions, and other diseases f s well as
from cancer. Every smoker thinks,
"Well, it won't happen tc ire," but it
often does happen to him and he pays a
fearful price for his earlier "pleasure."
Mr. President, I urge that action be
taken to insure that the Department of
Agriculture and any other Government
agency which might. be in volved in
similar activities never again engage in
promoting cigarette smoking tither here
or abroad. I would also go a step
further, Mr. President. and ask for an
amendment to the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Ace As my
colleagues will recall, cigarettes manu-
factured or packaged in this country for
export were specifically exemoted from
the warning label requirement. The
more I think about this, the more con-
vinced I become that we owe to foreign
purchasers of our cigarettes the same
protection and warning we provide to
U.S. citiaens. Such a warning label may
be completely ineffective in reducing
cigarette consumption, but we will have
done our duty in making the risk known.
John Lavater, a well Swiss
theologian, ,once wrote :
He who freely praises what he means to
purchase, and he who enumerate., the faults
of what he means to se1.1, may set up a part-
nership with honesty.
If we, as a nation, want "to set up a
partnership with honesty," I think we
might well begin by requiring a warning
label on all cigarettes for expert as well
as on those for domestic use. Let us be
forthright about the dangers inherent in
smoking whether we are dealim: with our
own people or with our neighbors in
other countries.
As the Members of this body know, I
have long been disturbed about the
hazards in cigarette smoking old here
been particularly concerned about tl e
use of cigarettes by young people. Dur-
ing the 86th and 87th Congresses I intre-
duced legislation to assist the States in
informing schoolchildren regarding ta e
harmful effects of tobacco. During He
88th Congress I introduced a bill to place
tobacco products under the juiisdietion
of the Food and Drug Adminstration.
At that time I also appealed formally to
the major networks to impose restraints
on cigarette advertising. Then last yeer
I was proud to be a cosponsor of S. 519
which was enacted as the Federal Ciga-
rette Labeling and Advertising Act.
While the act was not quite as strong vs
some of us might have wished, I think
It was an important step forward. I feel
very strongly, however, that it was a
mistake to exempt cigarettes intended
for export from the labeling require-
ments, and I hope the Congress will cor-
rect this situation without delay.
I know that some of my colleagues
were reluctant to impose warning labels
at all because of the economic implica-
tions for the tobacco industry. When
S. 559 was under consideration, I re-
minded the Senate of our duty to act in
the interest of the welfare of tele entire
Nation. And I think the action taken
that day was indeed motivated by a
desire to protect the public welfare. Te-
day I am not speaking of our constitu-
tional duty to the people of this country
but of our moral duty to those who buy
our products. Edmund Burae once
said:
What morality requires, true s tlesrant- -
ship should accept.
I maintain that morality requires us
to place warning on all cigarettes pro-
duced or packaged in this country, and
I hope that as true statesmen we will
accept this necessity.
SCHOOL MILK ADMINIS'MATOR
ADMITS THAT CHILD NUTRI-
TION ACT WOULD NOT REACH
A MAJORITY OF NEEDY CHIL-
DREN WITH FREE MILE
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, last
week I referred to testimony by Depart-
ment of Agriculture officials before the
Agriculture Subcommittee of the Senate
Appropriations Committee in statin
that if the special milk prof, rani for
schoolchildren was to be cut by 80 per-
cent needy children might well receive
no assistance under the program Ad
milk supplied under the program might
well go to schoolchildren attending
schools without a lunch program.
However, even if the Department's as-
sumptions are correct, and On million
were to be set aside for the needy, this
would not begin to take care of the al-
most 5 million children from families
with incomes of under $2,000 per year.
In fact it would take care of only 1 mil-
lion needy children.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10644 Approved For Relegeds2SIRSAMINAPRIVONIgoogfpgRopro070006-5
and Dr. Elmer Kiehl, dean of the Uni-
versity of Missouri College of Agriculture.
The Commission will have some most in-
teresting information to report, and we
hope some constructive suggestions.
The work of this Commission has been
followed with great interest by many
Members of the Congress, by economists
and farm reporters.
One of the most able economist-report-
ers in America, who presents with clarity
and appreciation many of the complex
problems in our society, Sylvia Porter, de-
voted a column this last week to the
questions being studied by the National
Commission on Food Marketing.
As one who has long believed that the
American farmer, by his productive ge-
nius, has made a most significant contri-
bution to our high standard of living, I
was glad to note that Miss Porter states
in her column:
Since 1950, the cost of marketing of food
has climbed 25 percent while the farm value
of food actually has declined.
For the readers of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD who might have missed Miss Por-
ter's comments, I ask unanimous con-
sent that her column, "Prices Between
Farm, Store," as it appeared in the Wash-
ington Evening Star on May 17 be in-
serted at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Evening Star, May 17, 1966]
YOUR MONEY'S WORTH?PRICES BETWEEN
FARM, STORE
(By Sylvia Porter)
The U.S. farmer will be getting an average
of 4 cents for a pound of lettuce in the final
quarter of 1966, according to authoritative
projections. But the U.S. consumer will be
paying an average retail price of 26-28 cents
for the Caine lettuce. Lettuce doesn't go
through a transformation between farm and
store?comparable to, say, the change from
a pound of hog on the hoof to a pound of
pork on the counter. A head of lettuce is a
head of lettuce is a head of lettuce.
The farmer will be getting about 33 cents
for a dozen eggs at year end, according to the
same projections. But you'll be paying an
average of 52-54 cents for these eggs. Eggs
don't go through a transformation either.
An egg is an egg is an egg.
A pound of potatoes should be bringing the
farmer 1.7 cents in the last quarter while
you'll probably be paying 51/2-61/2 cents. The
above observations apply to potatoes, too.
Where does the money go between farm
and store? It goes into all the operations
lumped under "food marketing": Transpor-
tation, processing, packaging, displaying, ad-
vertising, promoting, selling. It goes into
an ever-widening number of store services:
Big parking lots, check-cashing, baby-sitting.
The farmer's share of the $1 you spend for
food rose from a postwar annual low of 37
cents in 1964 to 41 cents in the first quarter
of this year, reflecting generally higher farm
prices and bringing net realized income per
farm to an estimated $4,600 in 1966, an in-
crease of 55 percent since 1960.
Nevertheless, a full 59 cents of your dollar
still is going to the "intermediaries." Since
1950, the cost of marketing of food has
climbed 25 percent while the farm value of
food actually has declined.
The food price spread has risen so relent-
lessly?in times of falling as well as rising
farm prices?that Congress in 1964 estab-
lished a National Commission on Food Mar-
keting and ordered it to make an exhaustive
probe into every aspect of the spread. After
more than a year of investigation, the com-
mission is slated to release its findings on
June 30.
Its recommendations to Congress well may
carry some explosive Implications. While
the commission's findings are a secret, an in-
formed report is that it will make "critical
observations" about the parts played in re-
tail food prices by advertising, trading
stamps and such marginal services as baby-
sitting.
Of course, much of the rise in the spread
between farm prices and retail food prices
is easy to explain.
On our side, we're demanding and getting
an enormous array of services ranging from
elaborate parking lots to dazzling display
cases for perishables. We're trading up to
more and more convenience foods, pre-cut,
pre-cleaned, pre-frozen, all processes which
cost money. We're generally buying more
expensive meats, fruits, vegetables.
On the marketer's side, there's no doubt
that costs of most processing and marketing
services have been increased steadily. In food
marketing firms, average hourly wages are 86
percent above 1950. Also on the retailer's
side, there are the inevitable hidden expenses
of spoilage and trimming.
Relatively speaking, food remains a bar-
gain, taking an average of only 18.2 cents of
each of our after-tax dollars.
But the warning to the food industry,
largest in our nation, is clear: With the
Marketing Commission's report on the price
spread coming up and with consumer re-
sentment over food prices so widespread, it
will be in a hot spotlight in coming months.
What's more, if a substantial percentage
of the projected slide in farm prices is not
reflected in declining food prices, the indus-
try also could be on the hot spot.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
were it not for the productivity of Amer-
ican agriculture, food prices would be
far higher than they are today; and
American families would be spending
much more than the 18.2 cents of each
after-tax dollar of personal income for
food.
PHASING OUT OF CERTAIN DE-
FENSE INSTALLATIONS?SPRING-
FIELD ARMORY
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
on November 19, 1964, the Secretary of
Defense announced that a number of
defense installations, including Spring-
field Armory, were to be phased out.
Shortly thereafter a group of Armory
employees joined with civic and Govern-
ment leaders to form the Springfield
Armory Technical Committee, and
Henry T. Downey, a certified public ac-
countant in Springfield, offered his serv-
ices to draw up their arguments against
the proposed closing.
Since then Mr. Downey and the Com-
mittee have worked diligently without
pay to preserve Springfield Armory for
the defense of our Nation and to assist
the Springfield community and its
people. A presentation of their argu-
ments was made to Secretary McNamara
in his office in the Pentagon and later he
visited the Armory itself. This presenta-
tion was so thorough, so meticulous, and
so convincing that the Secretary ordered
an entirely new study of the Armory by
an independent firm of management
consultants. Last fall this firm rendered
its report, basing its advice that the
Armory should be closed not so much on
the competitive position of the Armory,
May 23, 1966
as on the stated policy of the Defense
Department that an effort should be
made to have all possible manufacturing
contracts carried out by private industry.
The Springfield Armory Technical
Committee and Mr. Downey again an-
alyzed their figures, collecting new ones,
and made a report to the Senate Pre-
paredness Investigating Subcommittee.
This too was a most thorough presenta-
tion and covered all aspects of the
Armory. While it differed in some re-
spects from the approach taken by the
Defense Department, the Technical
Committee's and Mr. Downey's presenta-
tion gained the admiration of the sub-
committee.
Mr. President, this kind of a discus-
sion is a much more useful discussion
than ones we have seen in some cases
where highly emotional appeals well
founded in concern for the individuals
involved have been made for the restora-
tion of defense establishments. The
overall concern of our national defense
and our national economy deserve a
thorough discussion in terms of cold
facts as well as the facts of human un-
derstanding. The Springfield Armory
Technical Committee made such a pres-
entation.
When the President and Secretary of
Defense eventually determined the Ar-
mory should be closed, they based this
decision on how the Armory fitted into
oveyall policy. The Defense Department
through its independent management
consultants indicated that the Armory
was competitive in many areas due to
the skills and energies of its employees.
One of the Springfield Armory's older
buildings has the date 1796 over its door.
Its newer buildings have the most mod-
ern machinery available anywhere for
the production of small arms. From the
Flintlock Brown Bess musket to the M-
14, from the handcranked Gatling gun to
the terrible, modern Vulcan machine
cannon, and from the battles of the War
of 1814 to those in the rice paddies of
Vietnam, Springfield Armory and its peo-
ple have made a contribution to the de-
fense of the United States. These men
and women deserve our respect and our
gratitude.
MOJLMITY OF U.S. COMMITMENT IN
VIETNAM
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in the in-
terest of peace and freedom, men of all
religions joined together during World
War II to eradicate the threat of the
Nazi philosophy of tyranny, racism, and
the degradation of the individual.
Religious leaders at that time saw no
conflict between Judeo-Christian prin-
ciples and the need to defend such prin-
ciples by the use of force.
They remembered the philosophy
enunciated by St. Augustine who said
that "just wars are usually defined as
those which avenge injuries."
They recalled that St. Thomas had
pointed out that for a just war to exist,
three things are necessary:
First, the authority of the sovereign by
whose command the war is to be waged.
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely
that those who are attacked should be at-
tacked because they deserve it on account
of some fault. Thirdly, it is essential that
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP6791446R000400070006-5
May 23, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SEN A
Firtnciseo 2, California, phone Ktondike
2, 2.633, Ext. 6461-6463.
harry Trainor, Assistant Commissioner
( orspectionl, internal Revenue Service,
lloom 3033, 12th Street and Constitution
Avenue, Washington 2e, D.C., phone: STer-
ling 3-8400, Ext. 656 -6o7.
The identity of a reporting employee and
1, to iii formation or fuels reported shall, when
r emiested, be maintained in confidence. It
all not be required that an employee ad-
ills supervisor coticerning a complaint
er allegation which the employee makes
reetty to inspection this office, or the Na-
tial Office. privilege, however, is to
o carefully dirtinguiened trim the obliga-
i ion of every employee to follow established
repervisory lines of authority in presenting
,g)b-cooneeind grievinices involving internal
,timmistrative probiems, as defined in RC-
;II Memorandum No. 04-21, "Procedures for
criewinees, Hearings and Appeals" (see par-
ticularly part E therein and my office memo-
otodum on the same subject addressed to all
et) pleyees on April 23, 1954).
3. Documentahon of Employee Report. A
written or verbal report of misconduct or
1r:regularity should contain all of the known
? te Ls and informatiM1, and the reporting em-
ieyee should also Identify himself. False
triplaints or allegations, made for malicious
:ions, win not be tolerated.
it. communication of Employee Report
rough Supervisory Channels. Employees
may, if they desire, submit complaints of
elisconduct or irregularity through their mu-
dsors. in such en ;es, the supervisors will
emmptly transmit tin ough appropriate
ehannels such complaints or allegations to
inspection for neceseary action. It is the
ponsibility of the District Director in the
;I:ri.et. office and the Regional Commission-
iii the Regional Office to insure that this
polity is promptly and effectively carried out
,.v4en the employee chooses this course of
:Action.
5. PoNlina 0 Lir:teliOns,. A copy of this
guimoranourn and. its attachment shall be
iionspicuously posted at each space ?cell-
eincy (noncoutigi(inis building) in which
employees are stationed within this region,
together with copy of .11-1, -Mimeograph No.
? 124 and its attachments.
E. C. WEUGIVI ,
44(.4 nal Commtssurner.
Attachment: List of Types of Cases.
Distribu.tion All Employees..
451 TACLIBIEN't Ittr-SP'-.LAPINIORAT11/U51 110.
4 14/
For refieienee purjoses only, there is at-
'hod a list indicating types of cases which
ion Id be referred to the Offices 01- Regional
impectors for in veet tgation. This list is fur-
Cited ass guide inil is not to be considered
re:II inciusive.
.. Alleged solicitation and/or aeeepeince of
e bribe.
LI. Alleged sifii c ta Lion and/or acceptance of
e'er; and graeuities for preparation of tax
gilt.; roe.
a Aliened solicitation and/or acceptance of
ea's dud gratuities fin' legal work.
4. Alleged use as official position to gain
Aileeed extortion.
8 Alleged onbezmement.
Is. oh shoe tiiii;es anta/or irregularities
Li accounts.
I!. Alleged miseppropriaLion of we/eminent
gindS.
(). Alleged improper handling ol Lax mat-
le, Alleged improoer conduct during a Lax
ie(minettion.
collusion with taxpayer and/or
accoun tin 1.
1, All '_,I.;?Cd. outside bookkeeping and/or ac-
remit:lig service.
I . Alleged outside employment without
;age:lesion.
tie. 114- 8
14. Alleged improper financial traitsactioira
with taxpayers.
15. Alleged Hatch Act violations.
16. Alleged association with gamblers,
racketeers, and other persons of ill repute.
17. Conspiracy to defraud the United States
government.
18. Recommendetion of accountant and 'or
lawyer to taxpayer.
19. Alleged criticism of taxpayer's a.ccoun
ant and/or lawyer.
20. Alleged collusion With law violators.
21. Alleged solicitation and/or acceptanee
of gifts and favors from taxpayers who have
or have had me tters pending before tee
Bureau.
22. Alleged living, beyond means.
23. Issuance of worthless cheeks.
24. Financial interest in manufacture 1,1
tobacco or production, rectification or dis-
tillation of distilled spirits.
25. Participation in presenting taxpaycr's
claim against government.
26. Alleged. improper conduct during offi-
cial investigation
27. Recognizing and holding conferernies
with persons known 1,0 be dismuilified.
28. Failure to report in 'writing violation
of any revenue law, or of fraud ciiimmitted by
any person agaired the United States under
any revenue law.
29. Alleged misappropriation of govern-
ment property.
30. Abandonment of post iof duty.
31. Destruction or altering of government
records.
32. Excessive use of intoxicants and/or )n-
toxleation while on duty.
33. Excessive use of intoxicants and/or ..n-
toxication while not on duty.
34. Arrest for misdemeanor a,M,lor felony
(not connected with official duties, govern-
ment funds or property).
35. Alleged falsification of daily report
36. Making or presenting false, fictitiour. or
fraudulent claims with the intent of cheat-
or defrauding the government.
37. False statements while under oath,
38. Excessive gambling or betting.
39. Filing of false personal income tax
returns.
40. Failure to pay personal Income taxes
and to pay other personal and family de LAS.
41. Use of narcotics.
43. Failure to report in writing any derelic-
tion or malfeasance on the part of any in-
ternal revenue employee.
43. Divulging information on return:. or
of a confidential nature.
44. False execution of jurat.
45. Acting as attorney or agent for taxpayer
in the prosecution af any claim against the
United States.
46. Use of outside influence to obtain
office or promotion.
47. Speculating in stocks, bends, or com-
modities.
48. Soliciting contributions from govern-
ment employees for gifts to offieial superiors;
acceptance of gifts by official superiors.
49. Purchase of surplus seized, etc. property
offered for sale by authority of the United
States.
50. Deviation from complete loyalty to the
United States; membership in affili, Lion
with, or sympathetic association with erga-
nizations designated by the Attorney Ges 'err:a
as totalitarian, fascist, communist or subver-
sive.
51. Unnecessary exposure or display of fire-
arms by employees authorized to carry fire-
arms.
Mr. LONG of Missouri. Questions 5
through 8 involve a very unusual .itu-
ation surrounding attempts by District
Director Cullen and Regional Commis-
sioner Hawkins to force Audit Chief
Salter to retire involuntarily.
Despite Commissioner Cohen's dis-
claimer, there may be a very strong con ?
nection between the Sherar situation and
the attempt to get rid of Salter. In any
event, it is curious indeed that, despite
requests from the subcommittee, IRS'
Inspection Service doggedly refuses to in.
terview Sherar and Salter.
And why, when IRS was trying to fore
Salter to resign did Regional Commis -
sioner Hawkins write a letter to the Pub -
lie Health Service about Salter? An I
why will they not make a copy available
to him to use in his own defense?
answer to this last question we know:
Because it would show that Regiom?I
Commissioner Hawkins committed an in-
excusable breach of ethics when he dis-
patched the letter. It is a "privileged ex-
ecutive communication" for one reason
and one reason alone: it would blow
IRS's case against Salter sky high arid
indicate to the world the tactics thrt
IRS uses against its own employees.
In time, this letter about Salter will be
made public, either in court or in 0 e
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or both.
As of this moment, I am entirely di.;-
satisfied with the record in the Sherar
situation. IRS has not and apparent :y
will not investigate thoroughly and im-
partially to see if there was improper
tampering in the series of cases leading
to Sherar's firing. If there was dis-
honesty there, are there other simil ir
cases?
And why is IRS so hog-wild-bent on
getting chief of audit Salter out of the
way?
I am writing to the Secretary of t' me
Treasury to see if he will not order a ti
investigation by Treasury personnel en-
tirely removed from IRS.
IRS wonders out loud why we investi-
gate them so long. If their attitude dees
not become more cooperative, this in-
vestigation may go on for a long, lo II
time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
THE RELATIVE DECLINE IN
FARM PRICES
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, ..or
many years there has been great and
growing interest, not only here in the
Senate, but also in every home in Ainr-
ica as to what happens to the cost of our
food and fiber between the time it leaves
the farm and is sold at retail to the Am
lean housewife.
All too often, as prices to the farm-
ers have gone down, retail prices hive
gone down, retail prices have stayed up
or risen, seldom have they dropped. Be-
cause of this interest, some 2 years ago,
the senior Senator of Wyoming [Senator
McGEE] introduced a resolution calling
for the appointment of a National C( m-
mission on Food Marketing, authorizing
this Commission to make an exhatislive
analysis of every aspect of food maftet-
ing. That Commission will be report mg
by June 30.
As one of the cosponsors of the resolu-
tion calling for this Commission, I
of course, pleased when two able Mem-
bers were appointed from Missouri, con-
gresswoman LEONOR SULLIVAN, of St.
Louis, known nationally for her inte..-est
in all policies affecting consumer prices,
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May Om, 1966 Approved Fi:6Rniszqp3NRIREE&BIDI:16RER414fR000400070006-5
Mit' belligerents should have a rightful in-
tention so that they intend the advancement
of good, or the avoidance of evil.
Our religious doctrine almost from
Biblical times has never believed war in
itself to be either wrong or immoral. It
has, instead, judged the morality of war
upon the basis of the cause it serves.
The current conflict in Vietnam has
stimulated much criticism by church
groups and religious leaders. Often it
appears that the bulk of religious senti-
ment opposes the use of force in all cir-
cumstances. This, however, is not the
case, for critics represent only a vocifer-
ous minority. The majority of religious
leaders, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish,
recognize that in Vietnam we serve the
cause of freedom, independence, and
self-determination. They understand
that this commitment is consistent with
our religious philosophy which has
always stressed the dignity of man. Any
tyranny which degrades the individual
Is one which as Christians and Jews we
cannot help but oppose.
A recent article by Albert Vorspan,
published in "American Judaism," the
publication of the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, stated:
Immorality of American actions in Viet-
nam arises from our "peculiarly American
brand of obsessive anti-Communism."
This article went on to say that "Viet-
nam is not comparable to Munich and
Hitler."
The position taken by Mr. Vorspan
has since been criticized by many Jewish
leaders who are interested in making it
clear that this statement does not repre-
sent their view.
Mr. Monroe R. Sheinberg, national
executive director of the Jewish War
Veterans of America, refutes Mr. Vor-
span's analysis in an article in the cur-
rent issue of the "Jewish Veteran." He
states:
In World War II, all Jews resolved their
basic conflict between love of country and
love of peace in favor of love of country.
Why, in Vietnam, do some suddenly prefer
peace, even if it means Communist take-
over? And why do some, like Mr. Vorspan,
when it comes to trust and faith in their
country, reverse the age-old American pre-
sumption of innocence until proven guilty!
Mr. Sheinberg's article is a perceptive
discussion of many of the issues involved
in the morality of our current commit-
ment.
I wish to share it with my colleagues,
and ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MEMO FROM NATIONAL
(By Monroe R. Sheinberg, National ExecuLive
Director)
(The following is not to be interpreted as
an attack on Reform Judaism, In fact, I
write this as a lay member of a Reform Tem-
ple affiliated with the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations. It and this month's
editorial are designated to raise specific ques-
tions regarding the personal views of staff
members of the organisation. The position
of President and Director of the Programs
represent the top leadership in the UAHC.
With their views, we sharply disagree.)
"VIETNAM AND THE JEWISH CONSCIENCE"
That is the title of a featured article by
Albert Vorspan in the Passover 1966 issue of
American Judaism, the publication of Re-
form Judaism in America. Mr. Vorspan is a
high-ranking member of the staff of the
parent body, the Union of American Hebrew
Congregations; a preface to the article de-
scribes it as "an expression of personal opin-
ion." In spite of such a disclaimer, it is
obvious from all the background circum-
stances that the article purports to be official
and authoritative.
Mr. Vorspan's thesis may be briefly sum-
marized as follows:
"We Jews should be concerned with the
Vietnam crisis because
"We must help maintain a healthy climate
of civil liberties,
"Escalation of the war threatens support
for the Great Society,
"Jews are traditionally fighters for peace,
"Immorality of American actions in Viet-
nam arises from our 'peculiarly American
brand of obsessive anti-communism,' causing
us to mislead our own people about so-called
'aggression,' etc.
"Vietnam is not comparable to Munich and
Hitler."
Having stated the foregoing, as well as a
viciously hostile interpretation of Americans
actions in Vietnam, Mr. Vorspan than in-
dulges in tired platitudes for "instant peace."
His proposed solutions: Discontinue the
bombings, once more. Renew diplomatic at-
tempts to negotiate for peace. Keep remind-
ing the world of the ancient Jewish belief
that he who saves one life saves a world.
Two burning, basic questions still remain:
I) If the United States again discontinues
bombings (for how long and what happens to
our soldiers meanwhile?) and we do every-
thing possible to bring about negotiations
towards peace, but Hanoi still refuses, what
then?
2) What makes this war more immoral
than World War II? Mr. Vorspan, no pacifist,
fought in that one; Rabbis served bravely as
chaplains, all without audible protest then
about the role of Jewish peace-mongering.
In World War II, all Jews resolved their
basic conflict between love of country and
love of peace, in favor of love of country.
Why, in Vietnam, do some suddenly prefer
peace, even if it means Communist takeover?
And why do some, like Mr. Vorspan, when it
comes to trust and faith in their country,
reverse the age-old American presumption of
innocence until proven guilty! Mr. Vorspan's
distorted version of "history," training to
disprove the American position that it is in
Vietnam to help repel Communist aggression,,
should delight Hanoi.
The Senior Jewish Chaplain in Vietnam,
Major Richard Dryer, wrote:
"I certainly share the desire of all well-
meaning people that this war be brought to
an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
But we cannot bring this about unilaterally
when we are not the aggressors, when the
other side refuse even to consider a peaceful
solution. For a time, we stopped the bomb-
ings of North Vietnam. This brought no
cessation of Viet Cong aggression in the
South. It only brought the response that no
cease-fire would result from the cessation of
the bombings unless this action was accom-
panied by a complete American withdrawal
from Vietnam and a complete Communist
takeover. I hate war as much as anyone,
but this kind of submission is not an ac-
ceptable alternative."
A few words are in order about some of
the other arguments and charges put for-
ward. It is deliberate nonsense to state, as
our author does, that there are dangerous
indications of rising McCarthyism, threat-
ening to repress and deter dissent over Viet-
nam.
Quite the contrary is true. Never has
10645
there been so much dissent over a crisis or a
war. Never has there been more uninhib-
ited discussion with less repression on a vital
issue of world concern. Of course, there
have been a few examples of ill-advised
counteraction (such as Hershey's early
statements on re-classifying dissenters, and
the overly-harsh penalty for draft card
burning).
But what many dissenters seem to be de-
manding is more than freedom from repres-
sion, they expect to be immune from criti-
cism.
If a Vietnam dissenter cannot stand the
heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. I
say to him that I affirm his right to dissent,
and to object to our Vietnam policy, and to
state what he considers to be the facts and
their implications in any way, he wishes.
But, having said that, I also aver strong-
ly that our dissenter's version of the 'truth'
of the history and background of the Viet-
nam crisis is distorted, inaccurate and un-
worthy of Jewish respect for truth.
Much is made of the undemocratic re-
gimes we support in Vietnam, and elsewhere.
We don't try to impose American type de-
mocracy on countries unsuited or unwilling.
We do try to urge more democracy where
we help. At all events, the worst that could
befall such country is communism, and that
we try to help them prevent.
,Another example of the author's lack of
perception is his snide and critical thrust
at 'U.S. action in Santo Domingo. Today's
newspaper, as I write this, cites the state-
ments of two top members of Santo Domin-
go's Communist Party, exactly what our
Government and many Americans feared,
that the Reds were about to attempt to take
over that country, but were forestalled by
American intervention. This was published
in World Marxist Review, the authoritative
worldwide Communist publication, for the
benefit and edification of Party members.
The author, and his many well-motivated
fellow myopics are pitifully unable to see
the grim fact that peace is as bilateral as
war; as long as one side wishes to continue
fighting, peace is impossible. Our Govern-
ment's resolve, publicly stated clearly and
sincerely, is to offer, negotiate for peace, but
to continue to resist aggression until peace
is won, or the aggression ceases.
We support that position. I believe most
Jews, most Americans, most free men do.
FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN INDIA
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a news report
carried in the Sunday, May 15, issue of
the Washington Post, "Breakthrough
Seen for Foreign Investors" be printed
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
BREAHTHROUGH SEEN FOR
FOREIGN INVESTORS
NEW DELHI, May 14.?A breakthrough for
foreign private investors shaped up today as
India agreed to form a partnership with the
American International Oil Co. to build and
operate a $60-million farm-fertilizer plant
in Madras.
The agreement is unique because it gives
the private firm managerial control of the
plant?a concession denied to many other
prospective foreign investors which then
have gone elsewhere.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, India
has no graver problem than the responsi-
bility of providing food to sustain the
lives of its inhabitants. In this respon-
sibility, it has failed indefensibly and in-
humanely. Its officials have insisted
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Releqse_2005/06/29 : CIA:111067130044
SEN6119p0400070006-5
10646 ow-4 Cif ELSS IONAL .KLLORD -- A May
upon a socialistic governmentally oper-
ated economy as the solution of the
problems of its hungry people.
The American international Oil Co.
for several years has been prepared to
build a $60 million farm-fertilizer plant,
being one of the primary steps that must
be taken in India to provide food for its
inhabitants. The officials of the Indian
Government. however, adhering to their
concept that socialism will provide the
cure for the problems confronting the
ti.dian people insisted that if the Amer-
ican International Oil Co. did build a
fertilizer plant in India, the management
of it would have to be vested in the
.tulian Government. The American In-
ternational Oil Co., of course, refused to
hazard a huge investment of its dollars
while it was denied the right to man-
age and that right was placed in the
socialist government of India.
Todia adhered to its socialistic philos-
ophy; the American International Oil
Co. prudently refused to invest its money
ii it farm-fertilizer plant in India unless
the management of the plant was placed
In the hands of the investors and not in
those of the Indian socialist government.
The aforementioned news report
pointing that the officials of India have
finally recognized that it will be in the
best interest of the hungry inhabitants
of this nation of 500 million people to
allow investors of the United States to
build it fertilizer plant and to operate it
under the management of skilled U.S.
peosonnel.
No more important forward step has
been made by the officials of the Indian
Government than the decision to allow
foreign investors to build a $60 million
farm-fertilizer plant in partnership with
the Government of India but allowing its
management to be in the hands of the
foreign investors skilled and learned in
the management of such plants.
-N- -.P.?VM
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Mr. BAYTE. Mr. President, many col-
leges and universities have been troubled
by the question of whether speakers who
espouse the Communist cause should be
allowed to address student groups at
their schools. Recently the president
and board of trustees of Indiana Univer-
sity were urged by some persons to for-
bid a speaker, who admittedly was a
member of the Communist Party USA, to
appear on the Bloomington campus of
that institution.
In refusing to cancel this scheduled
engagement, both Elvis J. Stahr, presi-
dent of the university, and Frank E. Mc-
Kinney, nre,-;ident of the board of trus-
tees, asserted the importance of preserv-
ing and defending the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of speech. Despite
their firm opposition to communism as a
philosophy and way of life, these admin-
istrators pointed out that the enemies of
freedom would be pleased if we took ac-
tions of this type which undermine the
very foundations of the Bill of Rights by
adopting the tactics of a totalitarian re-
gime. As President Stahr wrote, it does
not appear that "a closed campus is a
sound way to engender belief in an open
society."
In an article which appeared in the
Indianapolis Star on May 6, Mr. Mc-
Kinney stated that he had "strong faith
in the intelligence of our students to
separate fact from faisehocxl." Because
of the universal significance of the points
which he makes, I ask unanimous con-
sent that this article by Mr. McKinney,
along with an editorial which appeared
in the Indianapolis News on May 9, be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Indianapolis Star, Mir,/ 6, 1966]
LU. EXPRESS FAITH IN INTELLIE , DICE OF
STUDENTS HEARING "OTHER IDE"
(By Frank E. McKinney, president, board of
trustees, Indiana Universiiy)
The Trustees of Inditna University have
been asked by numerous, serious-minded
Hoosiers order the ca.:iicellation of the en-
gagement of. Herbert Aptheker to speak on
the ca nip at the invitation of a small group
or students.
They have emphasized the contradiction
and the frustration of permitting an Ameri-
can citizen who is a member of tlie Commu-
nist Party USA, to speak on public property
of the university before an audience of stu-
dents and faculty and the press at a time
when our United States is engaged in armed
conflict in Viet Nam to contain tlommunist
military aggression.
They would unwittingly have vs deny the
constitutional guarantee of freedoia of speech
in the anger and :frustration of the world
situation at this point in history.
We loathe and despise Communist totali-
tarianism and so does the president of our
universitii. But we are aware that the
enemies of our freedom would like nothing
better Hum to destroy it by undermining our
belief in our Constitution and Bill of Rights
and our free institutions. We wit ? not assist
tile Communist conspirncy by denying free-
dom of speech and thereby martyring its
mouthpiece. To martyr this man or to flatter
him as a dangerous man to let open his
mouth, is to grant him victory, :iecause he
vfill then have forced us to abandon our own
Ville have strong faith .in the intelligence of
our students to separate fact from falsehood,
to differentiate indoctrination ft ?an educa-
tion and to expose the hypocrisy of a Com-
munist whose system, wherever it is in con-
trol, has lnought violence and suppression to
millions.
As it. Gen.. Lewis B. Hershey Aid on the
it. campus the other right:
"This country is too big to bi: afraid of
anybody's talking about it. Cominunism has
no Bill of Rights. We do have Banning
-this talk would advance this man and his
cause more than any favor you could bestow
upon him."
We agree with Gen. Hershey. With regard
to the DuBois Club, we have suit ported the
position that the Subversive Actiiiities Con-
trol Board should have time to determine its
ststus, We have done this in the interest
of the American principles of fandamental
fairness and due procesa.
However, if the Subversive Act, cities Con-
trol Board has not acted upon the attorney
general's petition by the time of cur board
meeting at commencement, we propose to
review the entire policy of the university
with regard to the reg:stration of student
organizations in a thorough and aggressive
manner.
[From the Indianapolis News, M y 9? 1966]
IU., WE'RE SORRY
In this column last Friday we andulged In
comment about the officials of Indiana Uni-
versity in connection with the visit to the
LU. campus of Herbert Aptheker, a rer7g-
nized spokesman for the CommuniaL party.
The News was ill-advised regarding the
circumstances surrounding Apthelter's visit
to Bloomington?our comment and criticism
was harsh and unjustified. We are sorry.
Teaching Communism in our schools as an
economical and political way of il'e is im
entirely different matter than listening Lo
what some Communist leader has to say.
The right of free expression is the funda-
mental right of all liberty. We try to prac-
tice what we preach and that means even if
we don't agree with anything you say we
will defend to the death your right to say di.
If the American system of free speech and
free enterprise cannot survive exoosure to
communistic propaganda and ,exploitatio:i
then indeed the American system is weak a nil
vulnerable.
But we believe it is the best in /be will
and can withstand attack from anybody is
the world. Let the Communists and the
Socialists and the neutrals have iheir say.
The .American performance and record ii
contrast to theirs will always win indi
Remember America is great onll because
America is free?in this case free without
fear to hear both sides.
DEATH OF FORMER GOV. DAN
MOODY, OF TEXAS
Mr. TOWER, Mr. Presid(rnt, the
State of Texas and the Nation yesterday
lost one of their most distinguished eiti-
zens?former Gov. Dan Moody.
Governor Moody retired from politics
at an age before many even give thought
to entering the field. At 37 he had com-
pleted two terms as Governor. He said
at that time that he wished only to con-
tinue his law practice and become a
better lawyer, and he subsequently went
on to become one of Texas' foremost
attorneys, though his influence in State
and national politics and government
continued until his death.
Governor Moody began his career
State District Attorney at age 27, and
subsequently, as the State's yothigest At-
torney General, became known for strict
enforcement of the law, particularly
against illegal Ku Klux Klan practices.
While Attorney General, he personally
handled much of the State's litigation.
After serving one term as attorney gen-
eral he was elected Governer and served
two terms. Most noteworthy dating his
terms were undoubtedly the tremendous
strides which were made in the fields of
education and highway construction.
T. extend to the family, as I know do my
colleagues, the deepest of syrn -.)iithy at
this time.
LIBRARY SERVICES UNDER 71. E
ELEMENTARY AND SEC( iNDARY
EDUCATION ACT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, during
its deliberations on Federal assistance
to education in 1965, many press tTlg prat. -
lems of our public and privat schoos
were brought to the attention of the Con-
gress. Among these urgent pro )1ems,
became aware that nearly 30 percent of
our public schools had no school library
services. Title II of the comptehensive
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act corrected this situation and has put
millions of new books and teaching aids
into the hands of young Americans.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, /966Approved For avntsRigwA2p iakiy&67?i}.94tAy1000400070006-5 10667
August 24, 1965
Rev. Dexter L Hanley, S.J., Washington,
D.C., director, institute of Law, Human
Rights and Social Values, Georgetown Uni-
versity Law Center.
Mrs. Birgitta Linner, Uppsala, Sweden,
author, family counselor, and teacher/
Mrs. Gabrielle Edgcomb, Washington, D.C.,
Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom.
Mr. William B. Ball, Harrisburg, Pa., gen-
eral counsel, Pennsylvania Catholic Welfare
Committee.
August 31, 1965
Senator MILVVARD L. SIMPSON, Cody, Wyo.,
U.S. Senator from Wyoming.
Dr. Mary Calderone, New York City, execu-
tive director, Sex Information and Education
Council of the United States (SIECUS).
Henry Caulfield, Washington, D.C., direc-
tor, Department of the Interior's resources
program staff.
James V. Bennett, Kenwood Park, Md.,
former director, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. De-
partment of Justice.
Dr. Virgil M. Rogers, Washington, D.C., di-
rector, automation project, National Educa-
tion Association; former dean of education,
Syracuse University.
September 8, 1965
Clifford C. Nelson, New York City, presi-
dent, the American Assembly, Columbia
University.
September 15, 1965
Rep. Joinv BRADEMAS, South Bend, Ind.,
U.S. Representative from Third District of
the State of Indiana.
Harold W. Swank, Springfield, Ill., direc-
tor, Illinois Public Aid Commission.
George Wyman, Albany, N.Y., commis-
sioner, New York State Department of So-
cial Welfare; chairman, American Public
Welfare Association Committee on Public
Welfare Policy; former director, California
State Department of Social Welfare.
September 22, 1965
Oscar Harkavy, Ph. D., New York City, di-
rector, population program, the Ford Foun-
dation.
Bernard Berelson, Ph. D., New York City,
vice president, the Population Council.
Irene Taeuber, Ph. D., Washington, D.C.,
senior research demographer, office of popu-
lation research, Princeton University.
Dr. Jack Lippes, M.D., Buffalo (Kenmore) ,
N.Y., inventor of Lippes Loop, an Intrauterine
device.
LIST OF WITNESSES-1966
January 19, 1966
Dr. E. L. Tatum?New York City, biologist,
1958 Nobel Prize winner for medicine and
physiology.
Dr. Dickinson W. Richards, Jr.?New York
City, physician, 1956 Nobel Prize winner in
medicine and physiology.
Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi?Woods Hole
Massad v
husetts; physici, 1937 Nobel Prize
winner in medicine.
Dr. Polykarp Kusch?New York City, phy-
sicist, 1955 Nobel Prize winner in physics.
' January 26, 1966
Mrs. E. T. Chanlett?Chapel Hill, N.C., U.S.
delegate to the Inter-American Commission
of Women.
Dr. Philip M. Hauser?Chicago, Illinois,
director Population Research and Training
Center and Chicago Community Inventory,
University of Chicago.
Dr. Luigi Mastrolanni Jr.?Philadelphia,
Pa., primate research with intra-uterine de-
vices.
Dr. Roger Lincoln Shinn?New York City,
professor of applied Christianity and clean
of instruction, Union Theological Seminary;
adjunct professor of religion, Columbia Uni-
versity.
No. 84-11
February 6, 1966
Mrs. Theodore F. Wallace Shawnee Mis-
sion, Kansas, former national president,
United Church Women, National Council of
Churches.
Mr. James MacCracken?New York City,
executive director, Church World Service De-
partment, Division of Overseas Ministries,
National Council of the Churches of Christ
In the United States.
Dr. Raymond Ewell?Buffalo, New York,
vice president for research, State University
of New York, professor of chemistry and
chemical engineering, consultant on research
to AID, consultant on fertilizer industry for
Government of India and for the United
Nations.
Dean William E. Moran, Jr--Washington,
D.C., Georgetown University School of For-
eign Service; president, Catholic Association
for International Peace.
February 16, 1966
Mr. Richard W. Reuter?Washington, D.C.,
Assistant Secretary of State for Food for
Peace, former executive director of CARE.
Mr. Edwin Harper?Fairfax, Virginia, guest
scholar, The Brookings Institution Center for
Advanced Study.
March 2, 1966
Dr. Donald M. Barrett?Professor of So-
ciology, University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, Indiana. Director of the Notre Dame
Institute for Latin American Population Re-
search, and a member of the Papal Commis-
sion on Population and Birth Control.
Prof. Albert P. Blaustein?Professor of Law
and Law Librarian, Rutgers University, Cam-
den, New Jersey.
Dr. Andre J. deBethune and Mrs. de-
Bethune?Author and professor of Chemistry
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Dr. Joseph D. Beasley?Obstetrician and
Gynecologist, Department of Child Health
and Pediatrics, Tulane University School of
Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
March 3, 1966
Hon. Orville L. Freeman?Secretary of Agri-
culture.
March 9, 1966
Mr. Ernst Michanek?Director General of
the Swedish International Development Au-
thority, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dr. Ulf Borell?Professor of Gynecology and
Obstetrics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Mr. Carl Wahren?Deputy head of the
planning division of the Swedish Interna-
tional Development Authority, Stockholm,
Sweden.
March 31, 1966
Dr. Kermit E. Krantz?Kansas City, Kan-
sas; professor and chairman of the Univer-
sity of Kansas School of Medicine's Depart-
ment of Gynecology and Obstetrics; special-
ist in anatomy and genetics.
Mr. Arthur Watkins?Piermont, New York,
a writer and engineer who has written ex-
tensively on various aspects of housing and
building construction.
Dr. Leonard J. Duhl?consultant on urban
affairs for Secretary Robert C. Weaver, De-
partment of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment.
Dr. Donald N. Michael?social psychologist,
resident fellow at the Institute for Policy
Studies in Washington, D. C.
April 6, 1966
State Senator John Bermingham?Denver,
Colorado, author of birth control bill which
was approved by Colorado State Legislature.
Dr. Joseph Martin?Cleveland, Ohio, Med-
ical Associates, who with other medical doc-
tors is working to make birth control in-
formation available to the poor who wish to
have it; participant in the 1965 White House
Conference on Health.
Dr. William Vogt?New York City, ecolo-
gist, author, secretary of The Conservation
Fund.
Mr. Arnold Maremont,?Chicago, indus-
trialist, lawyer, president of the Maremont
Corporation, former chairman of the Illi-
nois Public Aid Commission.
OUR FOLLY IN VIETNAM BECOMES
CLEARER DAY BY DAY
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, it is
evident that the administration feels the
need of a further effort to justify its ille-
gal, immoral, and completely unjustified
military invasion of South Vietnam and
its steadily escalating war.
The Department of State has issued a
new publication entitled: "The Legality
of U.S. Participation in the Defense of
Vietnam." It is notable chiefly for the
pertinent facts it omits.
I ask unanimous consent that this legal
memorandum, prepared by Leoriard C.
Meeker, legal adviser of the State De-
partment, which was recently submitted
to the Committee on Foreign Relations
and is now available in reprint form, be
printed in full at the conclusion of my
remarks and other insertions.
There being no objection, the legal
memorandum was ordered to be printed
in the RECORD.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President,
among the striking omissions will be
found one from the report of the Inter-
national Control Commission in respect
to the violations by the South Viet-
namese under the guidance of the United
States. The State Department's publi-
cation quotes the report as follows:
There is evidence to show that arms,
armed and unarmed personnel, munitions
and other supplies have been sent from the
Zone in the North to the Zone in the South
with the objective of supporting, organiz-
ing and carrying out hostile activities, in-
cluding armed attacks, directed against the
Armed Forces and Administration of the
Zone in the South.
* * there is evidence that the PAVN
(People's Army of Viet Nam) has allowed the
Zone in the North to be used for inciting,
encouraging and supporting hostile activi-
ties in the Zane in the South, aimed at the
overthrow of the Administration in the
South.
What the State Department's legal
memorandum fails to include is what
the International Control Commission
reported concerning the far greater vio-
lations by the South Vietnamese under
the guidance and with the approval of
the United States, which appear in the
very same report of the International
Control Commission, as follows:
12. Since Deceniber 1961 the Commission's
Teams in South Viet Nam have been persist-
ently denied the right to control and in-
spect, which are part of their mandatory
tasks. Thus, these Teams, though they were
able to observe the steady and continuous
arrival of war material, including aircraft
carriers with helicopters on board, were un-
able, in view of the denial of controls, to de-
termine precisely the quantum and nature of
war material unloaded and introduced into
South Viet Nam.
17. As the Commission has been denied
mandatory controls, as pointed out earlier
in paragraph 12 above, it has not been able
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10668 Approved For Ftitikamkg.10A/A/gp :19661:1357_,W1A6M004000700061/ay
to make a precise assessment 01 the number
of military personnel and the quantum of
war material brought in. However, from
3rd December. 1961, up to 5th May, 1962, the
Commission's Teams have controlled the
entry of '72 military personnel, and observed
but not controlled 173 military personnel,
62 helicopters, 6 reconnaissance aircraft,
5 jet aircraft, fighters/fighter bombers,
tta transport aircraft., 26 unspecified types of
threraft, 102 jeeps, 8 tractors. 8 105-mm.
howitzers, :3 armoured carriers (tracked),
339 armoured lighting vehicle trailers, 404
iither trailers, and radar equipment and
tes, warships, 9 LSTs (including 4 visit_
Lug liSTs), 3 LeTs, 5 visiting aircraft car_
riers and spares if various kinds. In respect
of some ot the instances of import of war
materials between 3Ird December, 1961, and
1.61 h January, 1962, violations under Arti-
cle 17(e) as well as violation of Article 25,
have been recorded against the Republic of
Viet-Nam for its failure to notify arrivals
and. imparts aa required by the Geneva
Agreement, and for not affording all possible
assistance to the Commission's Teams in the
performance of their tasks..
The State Department brief, under the
heading "IV. B.?The Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Treaty Authorizes the
President's Actions," proceeds to refer to
article IV, paragraph 1 of that SEATO
Treaty in justification of the U.S. mili-
tary invasion of Vietnam. However, here
is the full text of article IV:
I Each Party recognizes that aggression
by means of armed attack in the treaty area
against any of the Parties or against any
State or territory which the Parties by unani-
mous agreement may hereafter designate,
would endanger its own peace and safety,
and agrees that it will in that event act to
meet the common danger in accordance with
constisutional processes. Measures taken
wider this paragraph shall be immediately
reported to the Security Cmumil of the
United Nations.
F. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties,
the inviolability or the integrity of the ter_
ritory or the sovereignty or political inde-
pendence of any Party in the treaty area or
of any other State or territory to which the
provisions of paragraph I of this Article from
time to time apply is threatened in any way
other than by armed attack or is affected or
threatened by any fact or situation which
might endanger the peace of the area, the
Parties shall consult immediately in order
to agree on the measures which should be
taken for the common defense.
3. It is understood that no action on the
territory of any State designated by unani-
mous agreement under paragraph I of this
Article or on any territory so designated shall
be taken except at the invitation or with the
consent of the government concerned.
It will be noted that this article IV
provides that if there is aggression there
shall be unanimous agreement by the
signatories; that they "shall consult im-
mediately"; and that in any event, any
action taken by them should be "in ac-
cordance with its constitutional proces-
ses."
There was no consultation. The
United States never asked for it. Had
there been consultation, it is clear that
there would not have been unanimous
agreement, which the article in question
requires, since neither France nor Paki-
stan are in accord with our policy.
Third, the war which we have waged in
Vietnam would have had to be "in ac-
cordance, with its constitutional proc-
esses," which would mean a declaration
of war by the Congress under article I,
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. So
justifying our military involvement by
reference to the SEATO treaty is refuted
by a reading of it.
Those are only a few of the dis;,ortions,
omissions, and evasions in this State De-
partment document. IN it really does
reveal, to anyone who will analyze it
knowledgeably, is how utterly weak and
inexcusable the case of the United States
is for its actions in southeast Asia. The
fact of the matter is that the United
States is the aggressor in South Vietnam.
We were not asked, 115 allege I, by a
friendly government to help d lend it
against age-ression. We asked ourselves
in and we violated several treaties in the
process, including the Charter of the
United Nations and the very SEATO
treaty which in article I pledges us to
the pacific means authorized by the
United Nations Charter.
Day by day inexorable evens more
and more clearly demonstrate the utter
folly of our course in southeaA Asia.
While preaching peace, we are steadily
intensifying war. Our so-callet peace
offensives are meaningless because they
have evaded the only steps whir h could
possibly elicit a response from tile other
side. These steps are: First, to 1,gree to
negotiate with the adversaries who are
doing the lighting, namely, the National
Liberation Front; and second, to agree
unqualifiedly to the basc premise of the
Geneva accords, which we supported uni-
laterally, that there would be nation-
wide elections in both North and South
Vietnam to determine who would be the
officials elected to govern the entire
country. Now apparently we cannot
even get our boy, Nguyen Ky, to agree
to elections even in South Vietnam, al-
though Secretary Rusk has been ;it pains
to explain that what Ky said Ky did not
mean.
A number ,of interesting publications
bearing on our folly, have been pi itblished
in the newspapers recently. I aSi,,z unan-
imous consent that the followthg be
printed at this point in the RECORD:
First, an article from the Ne .N. York
Times of May 22 by Hanson W. Haldwin,
entitled "Pentagon Is Worried by Dis-
sidence in Vietnam"; second, the latest
Gallup poll, headed "U.S. Pullout
Favored in Viet Civil War"; third, an
advertisement from the New York Times
of Sunday, May 22 entitled "On Viet-
nam," sponsored by the Ad Hoc Univer-
sities Committee for the Statement on
Vietnam and the Committee of the Pro-
fessions; fourth, a column by Arthur
Hoppe from the Washington Star of May
22, entitled "Fable of the Or Big
Bull"; fifth, an editorial from the Wash-
ington Star of Friday, May 20, entitled
"Nervous Nellies" ; and sixth, an adver-
tisement from the New York Times of
Sunday, May 22, entitled "You,' Taxes
Pay For War--Will "You Pay For Peace?"
There being no objection, the publi-
cations were ordered to be printed in
the REcoaa, as follows:
(From the New York Times, May IY2. 1966]
PENTAGON IS WORRIED RV DISSIDEI:',ICE 1/4
VIETNAM
(By Hanson W. Baldwin)
Pentagon officials are seriously worried
about the effects of the Vietnamese politi-
cal turbulence on public opinion in the
United States.
"It's going to be damned hard tu justify
to American mothers the sending of their
boys to Vietnam unless those peeple Out
there get together," a United States officer
said last week.
The military were as frankly puzzled about,
what to do and how to do it, and as gloomy
about the latest Saigon develop-II 'tits, :is
the rest of official Washington.
Indeed, the gloom in the Pentagon was
perhaps even thicker than elsewhere since
as one officer expressed it?"it limbed like
we were doing all right" in combat -until
South Vietnamese factionalism an I dissi-
dence interfered with military oriel ations.
Casualty statistics reflect the sit tuition.
Pentagon figures indicate that during 1965
the United States lost 1,365 armed :forces
personnel killed in action in Vietnam The
South Vietnamese lost 11,200. The Vietcong
and North Vietnamese Army lost an esti-
mated total of 35,000.
In the first quarter of this year before
the effect of the current political distur-
bances was severely felt--United Sta Les cas-
ualties had mounted sharply to 1.221 killed
in action, the South Vietnamese 10.,1, 2,700
and the enemy death toll was estin ,tted at
13,000. In April the United States :oat 3311
men, the South Vietnamese 570 tind
enemy 2,800?a clear reflection of reduced
South Vietnamese participation in combat
operations.
The increased American casualt_e3 which
are already considerably heavier in 1960
than in all of last year, are a result i ot Only
of the build-up of United States forces,
which now number about 260,000, but of
more intensive and continuous Uniteil Status:
participation in active combat operations,
including penetrations deep into sinaituanes
and base areas.
These operations are regarded as i.,sential
if there is to be any hope of defeating the
Vietcong. The Pentagon believes they have
paid off, not only in terms of heavy enemy
casualties but in terms of bases over on and
destroyed, and supplies, food and equipment
captured.
The statistics have been eneouraNing, at
least until recently. In 1965 thtsie were
1.0,000 to 11,000 defectors, while in I he first
quarter of this year there were aboi t 5,300.
about 3,700 of them military persennel.
In 1965 a total of 430 crew-served weapons,
such as mortars or recoilless rifles otanne0
by more than one man, and 11,200 individual
weapons were captured. In the first quarter
of this year 200 crew-served weape as and
3,600 individual weapons were captured.
The discouraging statistics is the growth
in Vietcong and North Vietnamesei rength
despite heavy casualties. Current it timates
are that the basic units of the letcomt
and of the North Vietnamese ,number
least 130 to 150 battalions-55,000 to 90,000
men?for an actual or apparent. il,;:resaie
since last year of 15,000 to 20,000.
Included are at least 50 to 60 Nor 11 Viol -
namese battalions, either in South \ ictmon
or astride or near the Laotian and Cambodian
frontiers. Elements of four North V, e t na itl-
ese divisions are believed to be along the
frontier opposite South Vietnam's Central
Highlands, and elements of two more di-
visions are thought to be in Cambodia.
Intensive impressment and recruitment in
South Vietnam and heavily increaied re-
inforcements from North Vietnam have
strengthened numbers but not quali: y.
The Pentagon believes that the Mad-core
units, which have been generally avoiding
action when possible this year, will seek it.
when the monsoon season is in full rpate.
The Pentagon would not be too concerned
about the prospects if the political situation
did not presage a marked deterioration in
the military picture. That deterioration is
already occurring.
The 700,000 men in the military and para-
military forces of South Vietnam are essen-
tial to the defeat of the Vietcong. Much of
the first South Vietnamese Division in flue
is in open revolt against the Saigon inavern-
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, 1964Pproved For Qeetcydaminfa: CIA7KE671300446R000400070006-5
ichuonu ? SENATE 10669
ment, and the status of the Second Division,
around Danang, is considered doubtful. Oth-
er units, including a sizable part of the
strategic reserve, have been diverted to po-
litical functions.
Another threatening development is a work
stoppage by Vietnamese laborers in the area
of Danang, which is a transshipment point
for supplies to Marine Corps bases at Chulai
and Phubal. There appears to be concerted
absenteeism by Vietnamese laborers.
The military concede that if work stop-
pages or ab,sentions become prolonged or gen-
eral, United States combat troops will prob-
ably have to be diverted to supply and con-
structions jobs.
THE GALLUP POLL: U.S. PULLOUT FAVORED LN
VIET CIVIL WAR
(By George Gallup)
Secretary of State Dean Rusk's recent
statement that the inability of the South
Vietnamese to solve their internal problems
is causing restiveness among the American
people is fully evidenced by survey findings.
The findings show that the willingness of
the American people to carry on the war in
South Vietnam is very much dependent upon
the developing political situation in that
country.
If the South Vietnamese start fighting on a
big scale among themselves, a majority of
Americans, 54 per cent, say they would like
to see us withdraw our troops. Only 28 per
cent think we should continue to help that
country in this event.
When asked what should be done in the
event the South Vietnamese decide to dis-
continue their participation in the war, 72
per cent of the public say we should with-
draw. Only 16 percent think we should con-
tinue the war by ourselves. In fact, senti-
ment favoring withdrawing under such cir-
cumstances has risen since last August, when
63 per cent took this position.
Forty eight per cent of all persons inter-
viewed think the South Vietnamese will be
unable to establish a stable government.
Considerably fewer, 32 per cent, think they
will be able to do so.
Over the last two years the views of the
citizens have been recorded on many phases
of the conflict in Vietnam. Attitudes can
be summarized as follows:
1. In general, the public has supported
President Johnson's policies in Vietnam, al-
though the approval figure is now below the
50 per cent line for the first time since last
July.
2. A majority of the people have never
counted on an all-out victory.
3. A majority of those questioned tend to
regard the war as a necessary evil.
4. Administration efforts to bring about a
peace settlement through the United Na-
tions or the good offices of other countries
have met with overwhelming approval of the
public.
5. The public would like to find an hon-
orable way out of the Vietnamese conflict.
The question, and findings:
"Suppose the South Vietnamese start
fighting on a big scale among themselves.
Do you think we should continue to help
them, or should we withdraw our troops?"
Percent
Continue
to help
Withdraw
No
opinion
National .
Republicans
1)emocrats
Independents
28
28
26
31
54
55
55
52
18
17
16
17
"If the South Vietnam government decides
to stop fighting (discontinue the war), what
should the U.S. do?continue the war by it-
self, or should we withdraw?"
Percent
Continuo
Withdraw
NO opinion
National
16
72
12
Republicans
16
72
12
Deinoerat8
16
73
1
lndepenthaits
15
71
14
"Do you think the South Vietnamese will
be able to establish a stable government, or
not?"
Percent
Yes
No
No
opinion
National
32
48
20
Republicans
26
46
28
Democrats
31
38
31
independents
28
47
25
Comparison (January 1965)
25
42
33
ON VIETNAM:
Events of the past few months have fur-
ther undermined the administration's stated
rationale for involvement in Vietnam?that
American armed force is there to defend the
Vietnamese. March and April demonstra-
tions in Hue, Danang and Saigon, with their
anti-Hy and anti-American slogans, have
made it clearer than ever that the Saigon
regime has virtually no popular support.
Military activities have been steadily esca-
lated, and American military power has been
forced to assume the brunt of the fighting
from the South Vietnamese army. An esti-
mated 100,000 soldiers deserted this army in
1965 alone (N.Y. Times 2/24/66).
The successive regimes in Saigon which
our government has been supporting were
never popularly elected, and since shortly
after the inception of the civil war have not
governed more than a portion of South. Viet-
nam. Nonetheless, the administration has
attempted justification for American military
intervention by claiming that these regimes
have had popular support and could there-
fore be considered legitimate governments
for all of South Vietnam.
The dramatic exposure of these false prem-
ises and of the fragile basis for our policies
has led many prominent Americans, includ-
ing some former supporters of the war, to
declare that our forces must be prepared to
leave Vietnam if a new government there
asks us to do so.
But our administration's previous response
to reverses in Vietnam has been escalation,
bringing with it increasing death and de-
struction, and we are particularly alarmed
at the extension of 13-52 bombings to the
North and new air raids in the Hanoi-Hai-
phong area. To escalate militarily while our
position disintegrates politically is immoral,
futile and perilous.
Furthermore, while increasing numbers of
political leaders and commentators question
the entire policy of the United States in Viet-
nam, the American force, approximately a
quarter of a million men, is conducting
"search-and-kill" operations and continues
massive daily bombings in the .course of
which thousands of Vietnamese and Ameri-
cans are being killed and wounded.
The interests of our 'country and the
strength of our belief in the right of self-
determination demand that ways be imme-
diately found to disengage ourselves front
this intolerable situation. We are convinced
that such a course is in accord with the mood
of increasing numbers of Americans.
We call upon our government:
To cease all bombing, North and South,
and all other offensive military operations
immediately;
. To indicate that it will negotiate with the
National Liberation Front and all other in-
terested parties for a peaceful settlement;
To encourage in every way, and in no way
to interfere with, the free exercise of popular
sovereignty in Vietnam;
To evaluate seriously whether self-deter-
mination for the Vietnamese as well as our
own national interests would not be best
served by termination of our military pres-
ence in Vietnam.
Act Hoc Universities Committee For The
Statement on Vietnam: P.O. Box 435, Rye,
N.Y., Professor Harry Lustig, CHAIRMAN; Pro-
fessor Martin Davis, TREASURER.
Committee Of The Professions: P.O. Box
397, Cathedral Post Office, N.Y., N.Y. 10025,
Oscar Sachs, M.D., CHAIRMAN; Ruth Lassoff,
TREASURER.
On Vietnam: This statement was originally
scheduled to be published together with en-
dorsing signatures from the academic, crea-
tive and professional communities, in this
issue of the New York Times.
Because of the unprecedented national
response, the statement and the names of
endorsers will appear instead in multi-page
format in the New York Times on Sunday,
June 5.
Publication of this statement is being paid
for by the individual endorsers.
FABLE OF THE GREAT Bro BULL
(By Arthur Hoppe)
Once upon a time there was a Great Big
Bull who led his herd into a quagmire. It
could happen to anybody. But in his mighty
struggles to get them out he managed only
to sink them all in deeper.
Naturally, a few members of the herd?
mostly rebellious young calves?questioned
the Great Big Bull's judgment. Some
thought they ought to go back the way they'd
come and some were for charging off to the
right or to the left or whichever.
At first, the Great Big Bull smiled tolerant-
ly at tins small minority. "It is a tribute to
the democratic way I run this herd," he said,
"that I allow these well-intentioned but mis-
guided critics to speak out at a time like this.
Now let us struggle on."
So the herd struggled on, floundering.ariel
thrashing about. And pretty soon they were
all in up to their knees.
"Maybe we ought to stop for a minute to
get our bearings," a bespectacled bull named
Nellbright suggested somewhat hesitantly.
For all members of the herd were under-
standably afraid of the Great Big Bull.
"You have the inalienable right in this
herd to suggest anything you want," said the
Great Big Bull testily. "Even though you
,are obviously blind to experience, deaf to
hope and are perhaps giving aid and comfort
to the quagmire. Now let us struggle on!"
So the herd struggled on, floundering and
thrashing about. And pretty soon they were
all in up to their bellies.
"I know we are the mightiest and most
powerful herd in the world," said the be-
spectacled bull named Nellbright, with a wor-
ried frown. "But it seems to me our strug-
gles are merely getting us in deeper."
This made the herd a little uneasy. "No-
body," snorted the Great Big Bull, "wants to
get out of this quagmire more than I. Now
let us struggle on!"
So the herd struggled on, floundering and
thrashing about. And pretty soon they were
all in up to here.
"We must tie a rope around our necks and
all pull together," ordered the Great Big Bull.
"Straight ahead, now. One . . . two . ."
"But if we go that way," protested the be-
spectacled bull named Nellbright, "we'll all
go right over the . . ."
"Listen, you Nervous Nellie," bellowed the
Great Big Bull, frustrated beyond endurance,
"you're trying to pull us apart to promote
yourself. Anybody who turns on his own
leader, his own herd, is a Nervous Nellie.
Now, to preserve our democratic way of life,
everybody shut up, pull together and follow
me."
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 23,
And it, worked! The herd, not wishing to
be thought Nervous Nellies by the Great Big
lain, shut up, pulled together and blindly
followed their leader----out of the quagmire,
up a small rise, arid right over an 8,000-foot
eliff.
Moral: Silencing criticism in a democracy
requires a lot of bull.
- -
1Prom the Washington (Der.) Star.
May 20, 19661
eNteivouti NELLIES"
President Johnson, never a man to suffer
criticism cheerfully, has suddenly turned on
those who oppose his policies in Viet Nam
with, it seems to us, 'more vigor than wisdom.
liii has, cif course, been subjected to forms
of criticism which would be hard for any
man to take. These range from the mindless
demands that we get out of Viet Nam to
:nen savage accusations as those from Sena-
tor MORSE, which barely stop short of indict-
ing Mr. Johnson as a murderer. It does not
necessarily follow, however, that the Presi-
dent will improve his case in the court of
public opinion by abandoning the responsible
position to which he had been adhering in
order to denounce the critics and put some
of them to a political trial by lire.
Three months ago Mr. Johnson was saying
that "the strength of America can never
be sapped by discussion . . . we are united
in our commitment to free discussion." But
not, now. In ilie past week the President has
publicly assailed Senator FULBRIGHT without
actually naming him. He has denounced
the "Nervous Nellies" who break ranks "and
Will on their own leaders, their country and
their own fighting men." And he has pro-
posed a test for the voters to apply this fall
to each ea/Anita re, Democrat and Republican
alike: "Is he helping the cause of his coun-
try or is he advancing the cause of himself?"
This can be translated as follows: Is the
candidate supporting the President on Viet
Nam or is he not?
hyndon Johnson is a veteran of the politi-
cal wars There is little in his record to
suggest ehat he is given to misreading the
public mood. So it may be that he has taken
his soundings and has embarked on this
cowl terattack in the firm belief that he can
carry the voters with him and overwhelm his
critics, or it least those who must run for
?Ince in November.
Still, even it this is the case, he is a,ssmn-
ing a very grave risk. The people may begin
risking what has happened to the President
who, for so many trying months, invited free
discussion ;did who clung to the doctrine
Cleft the best way to handle these divisive
problems is to sit down and reason together.
'lam people may ask themselves why the
I:eiesident has done this abrupt about-face.
They may even begin to wonder whether the
:drain is telling on him.
YOUR TAXES PAY FOR WAR? Wii,m. YOU PAY
frOR PEACE?
The Vietnam War Now Threatens Every
American Family!
Will our sons go to war or to school?
:e Will our tax dollars be used to wipe out
Miens at home or villages in Vietnam?
The killing of Americana and Vietnamese
will not stop unless the opponents of this
war, and of the bankrupt foreign policy
which it reilects, can turn their dissent into
rig], political power. Fortunately, across the
ion local alliances of issues-oriented
liberals, student activists, peace and civil
rights workers, and grass-roots movements
of the poor are being formed for the tangible
ieeis of winning elections.
in Oregon, Howard Morgan, former Federal
Power Commissioner, is running for the
nernocratie nomination for the U.S. Senate
against a supporter of Administration policy
in Vietnam. Morgan is supported by Senator
WAYNE MORSE. Simultaneously, former Con-
gressman Charles Porter, who has dis-
tinguished record of peace activity, iii run-
ning for Congress in the 4th district.
In California, there are 30 anti-war eandi-
dates, ranging from incumbent Congressmen
GEORGE BROWN, PHIL BURTON, and DON ED-
WARDS to newcomers Ed Keating, Bob Scheer,
and Stanley Sheinbaum of Ramparts Maga-
zine and, from the Watts area of Los Angeles,
David Scott, candidate for the Stale As-
sembly, who says, "There well be no welfare
as long as there is warfare."
BOLD SMITS NEE:.: finer
In Mississippi, Alabama., Georgi I and
North Carolina, Negro candidates for local
office, ranging from sheriff to state assembly-
man to Congressman, are awakening the
energies of people long denied any snare in
shaping their own futare, and are now re-
constructing the whole of Southern tuilitics.
In New York State, many vigorous oppo-
nents of the war in Vietnam?among them
Ted Weiss, reform City Councilman, and Mel
Dubin, recent candidate for Controller on
Congressman RYAN'S ticket?are challenging
incumbent Democrats on peace and poverty.
In Massachusetts, Thomas Boylston Adams
is leading a peace campaign for the IS. Sen-
ate with considerable support from within
the Democratic Party.
Other politically viable campaigns equally
important and promising, are building. The
National Conference for New Politics has
been created to assist in thaser developments.
The Conference is not an organization estab-
lished to compete with other groups. Rather
it is a cooperative effort solely to provide
financial, research, and human resources to
those candidates who will speak clearly for
peace and I or a domestic program commen-
surate with the great wealth of OM country
and the needs of its citizens.
reette CAMPAIGNS ROLLING
Political campaigns are staggeringly ex-
pensive; but we are persuaded that many
Americans care deeply enough about the is-
sue of war or peace that they lt ill make
great sacrifices to insure that in the next
Congress Senators MORSE and GRUENING,
FULBRIGHT and YOUNG, and the lew other
bold spirits no longer stand alone. More-
over, we believe that they unden Land the
great opportunity offered by the insurgent
politics in the South arid the griettos of
the urban North and that they will not
allow these to fail for lack of fun hr.
We have already helped significantly in
New York, Oregon, Alabama, and Mississippi,
where several thousand defiers in dirty funds
have provided the means to keep i ampaigns
rolling effectively.. However, muter more is
needed. Your money may be the one way
in which we can realistically ove:mom.e the
sense of hopelessness which the real war in
Vietnarn. and the "half-war" on poverty both
engender.
Since we have a clear obligation to make
certain that debate continues on Vietnam
policy, and because the nation is es one pre-
cinct on this issue, we would hope that in-
dividuals will contribute regardless of geo-
graphical areas. The allocation of funds
shall be determined by the signors cif this
appeal in consultation with Congressional
supporters and the NCNP Nation ii Council.
Please., how! Make ye in' check payable to
NCNP.
Benjamin Spock, M.D., Pediatrician.
The Reverend William Sloane Coffin, Jr.,
Chaplain, Yale University.
Julian Bond, Representative-elect, Georgia
House of Representatives.
Simon Casady, Past President California
Democratic Council.
NATIONAL COUNCIL (IN FORMATION)
Josiah Beeman III, National Committee-
man, California Federation of Young Demo-
crats.
Paul Booth, Secretary, Students for a Dem-
ocratic Society.
Samuel Bowles, Department of Economics,
Harvard University.
Robert Browne, Professor of Economics,
Fairleigh-Dickinson University.
Jane Buchenholz, Research Consultant
Stokely Carmichael, Chairman, SNCC
Mrs. Gardner Cox, Civic Leader, Cambridge,
Mars,
June Oppen Degnan, Publisher, San gran-
cisco Review.
W. H. Ferry, Vice-President, Center ler the
Study of Democratic Institutions.
Erich Fromm, Psychoanalyst.
Edward P. Gottlieb, American Feffieril of
Teachers.
Victoria Gray, Mississippi Freedom Demo-
cratic Party.
Jerome Grossman, Chairman, Masi:mho -
setts Political Action for Peace.
Alfred Hassler, Executive Secretary, ft el1ow-
ship of Reconciliation.
Nat Hentoff, Critic.
Warran Hinckle, Executive Editor If:im-
parts Magazine.
Halleck Hoffman, Secretary- Trie is ore r.
Center for the Study of Democratic I
scitu-
tions.
Irving Howe, Professor of English, lunter
College.
Mark De Wolf Howe, Professor of Law, Ha :r-
yard University.
H. Stuart Huges, Professor of History.
Harvard University,
Bron L. Johnson, Former Congressman.
Irving P. Laucks, Consultant, Cen ter for
the Study of Democratic Institution:.
Sidney Lens, Director Emeritus, Chicago
Local 329, Building Service Employee:: Inter-
national Union.
Herbert Marcuse, Professor of Poli rs, Uni-
versity of California.
Lenore Marshall, Poet.
Frances McAllister, National Board, Friends
Committee on Legislation.
Carey McWilliams, Journalist.
Stewart Meacham, Peace Education Secre-
tary, American Friends Service Col rErnittee
Everett Mendelsohn, Professor of he His-
tory of Science, Harvard University
Mrs. Kenneth Montgomery, Civil Leader.
Chicago, Illinois,
Barrington Moore, Jr., Russian 'Research
Center. Harvard University.
Paul O'Dwyer, Former New York Ci y Conti-
eilman.
Martin Peretz, Committee on Soeiirl
Studies, Harvard University.
Gifford Philips, State Finance Committ ee.
California Democratic Party.
Sumner Rosen, American Federatien. State
County and Municipal Employees.
Robert Schwartz, National Board, SANE
Robert B. Silvers, Editor, New York Review
of Books.
Pitirim Sorckin, Past President. American
Sociological Association.
William Strickland, Executive Director,
Northern Student Movement.
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, M.D., Nobel Laureate,
Harold Taylor, Past President, Serail Law-
rence College.
Arthur I. Waskow, Senior Fellow, Institute
for Policy Studies.
National Conference for New Pon tics, 1800
Wyoming Avenue NW., Washin gt on , D.0:
I enclose $__ to support the arnprages
of peace and civil rights candid:if in the
1966 elections.
I pledge $__
I wish to assist the Conference i I its I W1,1
raising efforts.
I wish to volunteer for campaign work.
Name
Address
City________ State Zip Code
Telephone
Organizations listed for Identification pur-
poses only.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
23, 1966 Approved For Rigreaggpaup .B8m67EftwooLl000moo6-5
,yrray
EXHIBIT 1
THE LEGALITY OF U.S. PARTICIPATION IN THE
DEFEFNSE OF VIET-NAM
(Reprint from the Department of State
Bulletin)
(This legal memorandum was prepared by
Leonard C. Meeker, Legal Adviser of the
Department, and was submitted to the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on
March 8.)
MARCH 4, 1066
I. THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH VIET-NAM
HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COLLECTIVE DEFENSE
OF SOUTH VIET-NAM AGAINST ARMED ATTACK
In response to requests from the Govern-
ment of South Viet-Nam, the United States
has been assisting that country in defending
itself against armed attack from the Com-
munist North. This attack has taken the
forms of externally supported subversion,
clandestine supply of arms, infiltration of
armed personnel, and most recently the
sending of regular units of the North Viet-
namese army into the South.
International law has long recognized the
right of individual and collective self-defense
against armed attack. South Viet-Nam and
the United States are engaging in such col-
lective defense consistently with interna-
tional law and with United States obliga-
tions under the United Nations Charter.
A. South Viet-Nam is Being Subjected to
Armed Attack by Communist North Viet-
Nam.
The Geneva accords of 1954 established a
demarcation line between North Viet-Nam
and South Viet-Nam., They provided for
withdrawals of military forces into the re-
spective zones north and south of this line.
The accords prohibited the use of either
zone for the resumption of hostilities or to
"further an aggressive policy."
During the 5 years following the Geneva
conference of 1954, the Hanoi regime devel-
oped a covert political-military organization
in South Viet-Nam based on Communist
cadres it had ordered to stay in the South,
contrary to the provisions of the Geneva
accords. The activities of this covert orga-
nization were directed toward the kidnaping
and assassination of civilian officials?acts
of terrorism that were perpetrated in in-
creasing numbers.
In the 3-year period from 1959 to 1961, the
North Viet-Nam regime infiltrated an esti-
mated 10,000 men into the South. It is esti-
mated that 13,000 additional personnel were
infiltrated in 1962, and, by the end of 1964,
North Viet-Nam may well have moved over
40,000 armed and unarmed guerrillas into
South Viet-Nam.
The International Control Commission re-
ported in 1962 the findings of its Legal Com-
mittee:
". . . there is evidence to show that arms,
armed and unarmed personnel, munitions
and other supplies have been sent from the
Zone in the North to the Zone in the South
with the objective of supporting, organizing
and carrying out hostile activities, including
armed attacks, directed against the Armed
Forces and Administration of the Zone in
the South.
". . . there is evidence that the PAVN
[People's Army of Viet Nam] has allowed the
Zone in the North to be used for inciting,
encouraging and supporting hostile activi-
ties in the Zone in the South, aimed at the
overthrow of the Administration in the
South."
Beginning in 1964, the Communists ap-
parently exhausted their reservoir of South-
erners who had gone North. Since then the
greater number of men infiltrated into the
South have been native-born North Vietna-
For texts, see American Foreign Policy,
1950-1955; Basic Documents, vol. I, Depart-
ment of State publication 6446, p. 750.
mese. Most recently, Hanoi has begun to
infiltrate elements of the North Vietnamese
army in increasingly larger numbers. Today,
there is evidence that nine regiments of reg-
ular North Vietnamese forces are fighting
in organized units in the South.
In the guerrilla war in Viet-Nam, the ex-
ternal aggression from the North is the crit-
ical military element of the insurgency, al-
though it is unacknowledged by North Viet-
Nam. In these circumstances, an "armed
attack" is not as easily fixed by date and
hour as in the case of traditional warfare.
However, the infiltration of thousands of
armed men clearly constitutes an "armed
attack" under any reasonable definition.
There may be some question as to the exact
date at which North Viet-Nam's aggression
grew into an "armed attack," but there can
be no doubt that it had occurred before
February 1965.
B. International Law Recognizes the Right
of Individual and Collective Self-Defense
Against Armed Attack.
International law has traditionally recog-
nized the right of self-defense against
armed attack. This proposition has been
asserted by writers on international law
through the several centuries in which the
modern law of nations has developed. The
proposition has been acted on numerous
times by governments throughout modern
history. Today the principle of self-defense
against armed attack is universally recog-
nized and accepted.2
The Charter of the United Nations, con-
cluded at the end of World War H, imposed
an important limitation on the use of force
by United Nations members. Article 2, para-
graph 4, provides:
"All Members shall refrain in their inter-
national relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes
of the United Nations."
In addition, the charter embodied a sys-
tem of international peacekeeping through
the organs of the United Nations. Article 24
summarizes these structural arrangements
in stating that the United Nations members:
". . . confer on the Security Council pri-
mary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security, and agree
that in carrying out its duties under this
responsibility the Security Council acts on
their behalf."
However, the charter expressly states in
article 51 that the remaining provisions of
the charter?including the limitation of ar-
ticle 2, paragraph 4, and the creation of
United Nations machinery to keep the peace?
in no way diminish the inherent right of self-
defense against armed attack. Article 51
provides:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall im-
pair the inherent right of individual or col-
lective self-defense if an armed attack oc-
curs against a Member of the United Nations.
until the Security Council has taken the
measures necessary to maintain international
peace and security. Measures taken by Mem-
bers in the exercise of this right of self
defense shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council and shall not in any way
affect the authority and responsibility of the
Security Council under the present Charter
to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore in-
ternational peace and security."
Thus, article 51 restates and preserves, for
member states in the situations covered by
the article, a long-recognized principle of
international law. The article is a "saving
See, e.g., Jessup, A Modern Law of Na-
tions, 163 If. (1948); Oppenheim, Interna-
tional Law, 297 ff. (8th ed., Lauterpacht,
1955). And see, generally, Bowett, Bell-De-
fense in International Law (1958). [Foot-
note in original.]
10671
clause" designed to make clear that no other
provision in the charter shall be interpreted
to impair the inherent right of self-defense
referred to in article 51.
Three principal objections have been raised
against the availability of the right of in-
dividual and collective self-defense in the
case of Viet-Nam: (1) that this right applies
only in the case of an armed attack on a
United Nations member; (2) that it does not
apply in the case of South Viet-Nam because
the latter is not an independent sovereign
state; and (3) that collective self-defense
may be undertaken only by a regional orga-
nization operating under chapter VIII of the
United Nations Charter. These objections
will now be considered in turn.
C. The Right of Individual and Collective
Self-Defense Applies in the Case of South
Viet-Nam Whether or Not That Country Is a
Member of the United Nations.
1. South Viet-Nam enjoys the right of self -
de f ense .
The argument that the right of self-de-
fense is available only to members of the
United Nations mistakes the nature of the
right of self-defense and the relationship of
the United Nations Charter to international
law in this respect. As already shown, the
right of self-defense against armed attack is
an inherent right under international law.
The right is not conferred by the charter,
and, indeed, article 51 expressly recognizes
that the right is inherent.
The charter nowhere contains any provi-
sion designed to deprive nonmembers of the
right of self-defense against armed attack.',
Article 2, paragraph 6, does charge the
United Nations with responsibility for insur-
ing that nonmember states act in accordance
with United Nations "Principles so far as
may be necessary for the maintenance of
international peace and security." Protec-
tion against aggression and self-defense
against armed attack are important elements
in the whole character scheme for the main-
tenance of international peace and security.
To deprive nonmembers of their inherent
right of self-defense would not accord with
the principles of the organization, but would
instead be prejudicial to the maintenance of
peace. Thus article 2, paragraph 6?and,
indeed, the rest of the charter?should cer-
tainly not be construed to nullify or dimin-
ish the inherent defensive rights of non-
members.
2. The United States has the right to assist
in the defense of South Viet-Nam although
the latter is not a United Nations member.
The cooperation of two or more interna-
tional entities in the defense of one or both
against armed attack is generally referred to
as collective self-defense. United States par-
ticipation in the defense of South Viet-Nam
at the latter's request is an example of col-
lective self-defense.
he United States is entitled to exercise
the right of individuals or collective self-de-
fense against armed attack, as that right
exists in international law, subject only to
treaty limitations and obligations undertaken
by this country.
While nonmembers, such as South Viet-
Nam have not formally undertaken the ob-
ligations of the United Nations Charter as
their own treaty obligations, it should be
recognized that much of the substantive law
of the charter has become part of the gen-
eral law of nations through a very wide ac-
ceptance by nations the world over. This
is particularly true of the charter provisions
bearing on the use of force. Moreover, in
the case of South Viet-Nam, the South Viet-
namese Government has expressed its ability
and willingness to abide by the charter, in
applying for United Nations membership.
Thus it seems entirely appropriate to ap-
praise the actions of South Viet-Nam in re-
lation to the legal standards set forth in the
United Nations Charter. [Footnote in origi-
nal.]
Approved For R0ease 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10672 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - - SENATE May 28,
It has been urged that the United States
Ion; no right to participate in the collective
defense of South Viet-Nam because article
51 of the United Nations Charter speaks
only of the situation "if an armed attack
occurs against a Member of the United Na-
tions.- This :argument is without substance.
In the first place, article 51 does not im-
p:ea restrictions or cut down the otherwise
available rights of United Nations members.
By its own terms, the article preserves an
inherent right. It is, therefore, necessary to
Ionic elsewhere in the charter for any obli-
fidon of members restricting their partici-
pation in collective defense of en entity that
is not a United Nations member.
Article 2, paragraph 4, is the principal
provision of the charter imposing limitations
on the use oi force by members. It states
that Lacy:
. . shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force
aghinst the tern i torts! integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other
inner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations."
Action taken in defense against armed at-
tack cannot lw characterized as falling within
his proscription. The record of the San
Nroncisco conference makes clear that article
le, paragraph 4, was not intended to restrict
the right of self-defense against armed
attack.'
one will search in vain for any other pro-
vision in the charter that would preclude
'hinted States participation in the collective
defense of a nonmember. The fact that ar-
ticle 51 refers only to armed attack "against
k/einber of the United Nations" implies
no intention to preclude members from par-
ticipating in the defense of nonmembers.
Any such result would have seriously detri-
mental consequences for international peace
eta) security and would be inconsistent with
II;: purposes 01 the United Nations as they
arc set forth in article 1 of the charter!' The
right of members to participate in the de-
Lea :0 of nonmembers is upheld by leading
t1 i:lorities on international law."
D. The Right of Individual and Collective
tielf-Defense Applies Whether or Not South
Viet-Nam Is Regarded as an Independent
ii ;vereign State.
I. South Viet-Nam enjoys the right of self-
ft lois teen asserted that the conflict in
Viet-Nam is "civil strife" in which foreign
intervention is forbidden. Those who make
this assertion have gone so far as to compare
flit Chi Minh's actions in Viet-Nam with the
sorts of Preeident Lincoln to preserve the
Union during the American Civil War. Any
cinch characterization is an entire fiction
iiisregarding the actual situation in Viet-
' n. The Hanoi regime is anything but the
See 6 UNCIO Documents 459. [Footnote
in original.]
" In particular, the statement of the first
purpose:
-To maintain international peace and se-
curity. and to that end: to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and
removal of threats to the peace and for the
soppression of acts of aggression or other
Preaches of the peace, and to bring about by
peaceful means, and in conformity with the
principles of justice and international law,
adjustment-, or settlement of international
nit:put:is or situations which might lead to a
hreach of the peace. . . ." [Footnotes in
organa .1
Powett, Self-Defense in international
Law. 193-195 (1958); Goodhart, "The North
Atlantic Treaty of 1949," 79 Reeueil Des
Ccurs, 183, 202- 204 (1951, vol. II), quoted in
S Whiteman's Digest of International Law.
i067-1088 (19(15)7 Kelsen, The Law of the
United Nations, 793 (1950); see Stone, Ag-
yression and World Order, 44 (1958). [Foot-
note in original.
legitimate government of a unified country
in which the South is rebelling against law-
ful national authority.
The Geneva accords :of 1:954 provided for a
division of Viet-Nam into two zone: at the
17th paralle]. Although this line of demar-
cation was intended to be -temporary. it was
established by international agreement,
which specifically forbade aggression by one
zone against the other.
The Repulalic of Viet-Nam in the South
has been reeognized as a .separate nterna-
tional entilet by approximately 60 govern-
ments the world over. It has been a imitted
as a member of a number of the spciaalized
agencies of the United Nations. -The United
Nations General Assembly in 1957 sited to
recommend South Viet-Nam for membership
in the organization, and its admiss:011 was
frustrated only by the veto of the Soviet
Union in the Security Council.
In any event there is no warrant for the
suggestion that one zone of a temjarrarily
divided state --whether it be GiJrana.ny,
Korea, or Viet-Nam?can 11,1 legally overrun
by armed forces from the other zone, cross-
ing the internationally recognized line of
demarcation between the two. Ary such
doctrine would subvert the international
agreement establishing the line of chimarca-
tion, and would pose grave dangers to inter-
national peace.
The action of the United Nations in the
Korean conilict of 1950 clearly estehlished
the principle that there, is :it() greatel license
for one zone of a temporarily divided state to
attack the other zone than there is for one
state to attack another state. South Viet-
Nam has the same right that South Korea
had to defend itself and to organize collec-
tive defense against an armed attack from
tbe North. A resolution of the Security
Council dated June 25, 1950, noteti "with
grave concern the armed attack upon the
Republic of Korea by forces from North
Korea." and determined "that this action
constitutes a breach of the peace."
2. The Unated States is evtitled to tmrtici-
pate its the collective defense of Son it Viet-
Nam wheth.e, or not the latter as regi rded as
an independent sovere4gn state.
As stated earlier, South Viet-Nam Pas been
recognized as a separate international entity
by tipproxim.ately 60 governments. It has
been admitted to membership in a aumber
of the United Nations. speeialized egencies
and has been excluded from the United Na-
tions Organization only by the Soviet veto.
There is nothing in the charter to suggest
that United Nations niemb.i-rs are pm 'eluded
from participating in the defense of a recog-
nized international entity against armed at-
tack merely because the entity ni y lack
some of the attributes of an independent
sovereign state. Any such result would have
a destructive effect on the stability 0( inter-
national engagements such as the Geneva
accords of 1054 and on internationally
agreed lines of demarcation. Such t: result.
far from being in accord with the charter
and the purposes of the United Nations,
would undermine them and would cre:ate new
dangers to international peace and security.
E. The United Nations Charter Dies Not
Limit the Right of Self-Defense to Regional
Organizations.
Some have argued that collective :elf-de-
fense may bai undertaken only by a iiigional
arrangement or agency operating under chap-
ter VIII of the, United Nations Charter. Such
an assertion ignores the .etructure of the
charter and the practice followed in the more
than 20 years since the founding of the
United Nations.
The basic proposition that rights if self-
defense are not impaired by the cParter?
as expressly stated in article 51--is not con-
ditioned by any charter provision limiting
the application of this proposition to collec-
tive defense by a regional arrangement or
agency. The structure of the charter rein-
forces this conclusion. Article 51 appears in
chapter VII of the charter, entitled "Action
With Respect to Threats to the Peace,
Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Ag-
gression," whereas chapter VIII, entitled
"Regional Arrangements," begins with ar-
ticle 52 and embraces the two following
articles. The records of the San Frencisco
conference show that article 51 was deliber-
ately placed in chapter VII rather tha r: chap-
ter VIII, "where it would only have i.. beer-
ing on the regional system."
Under article 51, the right of self-relienso
is available against any armed :attack,
whether or not the country attacked is a
member of a regional arrangement and re-
gardless of the source of the attack. Chap-
ter VIII, on the other hand, deat, with
relations among members of a regimial ar-
rangement or agency, and authorize;; re-
gional action as appropriate for dealing with
"local disputes." This distinction has been
recognized ever since the founding of the
United Nations in 1945.
For example, the North Atlantic Treaty
has operated as a collective security arrange-
ment, designed to take common measures in
preparation against the eventuality of Si;
armed attack for which collective cc:Cense
under article 51 would be required. Simi-
larly, the Southeast Asia Treaty Org aniza-
Hon was designed as a collective refense
arrangement under article 51. Secretary of
State Dulles emphasized this in his testimony
before the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee in 1954.
By contrast, article 1 of the Charter c.f
Bogota (1948), establishing the Organization
of American States, expressly declare; that
the organization is a regional agency within
the United Nations. Indeed, chapter VIII
the United Nations Charter was in.:nide:LI
primarily to take account of the functioning
of the inter-American system.
In sum, there is no basis in the United
Nations Charter for contending the I the
right of self-defense against armed ati. ick in
limited to collective defense by a regional
organization.
F. The United States Has Its
Obligations to the United Nations.
A further argument has been made that
the members of the United Nation;. have
conferred on United Nations organs-- :and.
in particular, on the Security Council?ex-
clusive power to act against aggression.
Again, the express language of article 51 con-
tradicts that assertion. A victim of armed
attack is not required to forgo individual or
collective defense of its territory until such
time as the United Nations organizt a col-
lective action and takes appropriate ni eas-
urea. To the contrary, article 51 "leanly
states that the right of self-defense may be
exercised "until the Security Council has
taken the measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security."
As indicated earlier, article 51 is nit lit-.
erally applicable to the Viet-Nam sititetion
since South Viet-Nam is not a member.
However, reesoning by analogy from :article
51 and adopting its provisions as an :11Tro-
priate guide for the conduct of meral-i-irs in
a case like Viet-Nam, one can only conclude
717 uNcro Documents 288. [Foot e in
original.)
An argument has been made by some that
the United States, by joining in the isillec-
tive defense of South Viet-Nam, has violated
the peaceful settlement obligation of article
33 in the charter. This argument overlooks,
the obvious proposition that a victim of
armed aggression is not required to stistain
the attack undefended while efforts are made
to find a political solution with the aggressor.
Article 51 of the charter illustrates this by
making perfectly clear that the inherent
right of self-defense is impaired by "Nothing
in the present Charter," including the pro-
visions of article 33. [Footnote in omit :anal.)
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, 1966Approved Foreelli1filEffatillbta9 1U1313GOOP6.71811M0111000400070006-5 10673
that United States actions are fully in ac-
cord with this country's obligations as a
member of the United Nations.
Article 51 requires that:
"Measures taken by Members in the exer-
cise of this right of self-defense shall be im-
mediately reported to the Security Council
and shall not in any way affect the authority
and responsibility of the Security Council
under the present Charter to take at any
time such action as it deems necessary in
order to maintain or restore international
peace and security."
The United States has reported to the Se-
curity Council on measures it has taken in
countering the Communist aggression in
Viet-Nam. In August 1964 the United States
asked the Council to consider the situation
created by North Vietnamese attacks on
United States destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf.?
The Council thereafter met to debate the
question, but adopted no resolutions. Twice
In February 1965 the United States sent ad-
ditional reports to the Security Council on
the conflict in Viet-Nam and on the addi-
tional measures taken by the United States
in the collective defense of South Viet-Nam.")
In January 1966 the United States formally
submitted the Viet-Nam question to the
Security Council for its consideration and
introduced a draft resolution calling for dis-
cussions looking toward a peaceful settle-
ment on the basis of the Geneva accords."
At no time has the Council taken any ac-
tion to restore peace and security in South-
east Asia. The Council has not expressed
criticism of United States actions. Indeed
since the United States submission of Jan-
uary 1966, members of the Council have been
notably reluctant to proceed with any con-
sideration of the Viet-Nam question.
The conclusion is clear that the United
States has in no way acted to interfere with
United Nations consideration of the conflict
in Viet-Nam. On the contrary, the United
States has requested United Nations consid-
eration, and the Council has not seen fit to
act.
G. International Law Does Not Require a
Declaration of War as a Condition Precedent
To Taking Measures of Self-Defense Against
Armed attack.
The existence or absence of a formal dec-
laration of war is not a factor in determin-
ing whether an international use of force is
lawful as a matter of international law. The
United Nations Charter's restrictions focus
on the manner and purpose of its use and
not on any formalities of announcement.
'It should also be noted that a formal dec-
laration of war would not place any obliga-
tions on either side in the conflict by which
that side would not be bound in any event.
The rules of international law concerning
the conduct of hostilities in an international
armed conflict apply regardless of any dec-
laration of war.
It Summary.
The analysis set forth above shows that
South Viet-Nam has the right in present
circumstances to defend itself against armed
attack from the North and to organize a col-
lective self-defense with the participation of
others. In response to requests from South
Viet-Nam, the United States has been par-
ticipating in that defense, both through mili-
tary action within South Viet-Nam and ac-
tions taken directly against the aggressor in
North Viet-Nam. This participation by the
United States is in conformity with intern-
tonal law and is consistent with our obliga-
tions under the Charter of the United Na-
tionS.
D For a statement made by U.S. Representa-
tive Adlai E. Stevenson in the Security Coun-
cil on Aug. 5, 1961, see BULLETIN of Aug. 24,
1964, p. 272.
10 For texts, see ibid., Feb. 22, 1965, p. 240,
and Mar. 22, 1965, p. 419.
"For background and text of draft reso-
lution, see ibid., Feb. 14, 1966, p. 231.
II. THE UNITED STATES HAS UNDERTAKEN COM-
MITMENTS TO ASSIST SOUTH VIET-NAM IN
DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST COMMUNIST AG-
GRESSION FROM THE NORTH
The United States has made commitments
and given assurances, in various forms and
at different times, to assist in the defense
of South Viet-Nam.
A. The United States Gave Undertakings
at the End of the Geneva Conference in 1954.
At the time of the signing of the Geneva
accord g in 1954, President Eisenhower warned
"that any renewal of Communist aggression
would be viewed by us as a matter of grave
concern," at the same time giving assur-
ance that the United States would "not use
force to disturb the settlement." '2 And the
formal declaration made by the United
States Government at the conclusion of the
Geneva conference stated that the United
States "would view any renewal of the ag-
gression in violation of the aforesaid agree-
ments with grave concern and as seriously
threatening international peace and secu-
rity),
B. The United States Undertook an Inter-
national Obligation To Defend South Viet-
Nam in the SEATO Treaty.
Later in 1954 the United States negotiated
with a number of other countries and signed
the Southeast Asia Collective Defense
Treaty." The treaty contains in the first
paragraph of article IV the following provi-
sion:
"Each Party recognizes that aggression by
means of armed attack in the treaty area
against any of the Parties or against any
State or territory which the Parties by
unanimous agreement may hereafter desig-
nate, would endanger its own peace and
safety, and agrees that it will in that event
act to meet the common danger in accord-
ance with its constitutional processes. Meas-
ures taken under this paragraph shall be
Immediately reported to the Security Council
of the United Nations."
Annexed to the treaty was a protocol stating
that:
"The Parties to the Southeast Asia Collec-
tive Defense Treaty unanimously designate
for the purposes of Article IV of the Treaty
the States of Cambodia and Laos and the
free territory under the jurisdiction of the
State of Vietnam."
Thus, the obligations of article IV, para-
graph 1, dealing with the eventuality of
armed attack, have from the outset covered
the territory of South Viet-Nam. The facts
as to the North Vietnamese armed attack
against the South have been summarized
earlier, in the discussion of the right of self-
defense under international law and the
Charter of the United Nations. The term
"armed attack" has the same meaning in the
SEATO treaty as in the United Nations
Charter.
Article IV, paragraph 1, places an obliga-
tion on each party to the SEATO treaty to
"act to meet the common danger in accord-
ance with its constitutional processes" in the
event of an armed attack. The treaty does
not require a collective determination that
an armed attack has occurred in order that
the obligation of article IV, paragraph 1, be-
come operative. Nor does the provision re-
quire collective decision on actions to be
taken to meet the common danger. As Sec-
retary Dulles pointed out when transmit-
ting the treaty to the President, the commit-
ment in article IV, paragraph 1, "leaves to
the judgement of each country the type of
action to be taken in the event an armed at-
tack occurs.""
" For a statement made by President Eisen-
hower on June 21, 1954, see ibid., Aug. 2, 1954,
p. 163.
" For text, see ibid., p. 162.
" For text, see ibid., Sept. 20, 1954, p. 393,
16 For text, see ibid., Nov. 29, 1954, p. 820.
The treaty was intended to deter armed
aggression in Southeast Asia. To that end
it created not only a multilateral alliance
but also a series of bilateral reationships.
The obligations are placed squarely on "each
Party" in the event of armed attack in the
treaty area-not upon "the Parties," a
wording that might have implied a neces-
sity for collective decision. The treaty was
intended to give the assurance of United
States assistance to any party or protocol
state that might suffer a Communist armed
attack, regardless of the views or actions of
other parties. The fact that the obligations
are individual, and may even to some ex-
tent differ among the parties to the treaty,
Is denionstrated by the United States under-
standing, expressed at the time of signature,
that its obligations under article IV, para-
graph 1, apply only in the event of Commu-
nist aggression, whereas the other parties to
the treaty were unwilling so to limit their
obligations to each Other.
Thus, the United States has a commitment
under article IV, paragraph 1, in the event
of armed attack, independent of the decision
or action of other treaty parties. A joint
statement issued by Secretary Rusk and
Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman. of Thai-
land on March 6, 1962,1? reflected this under-
standing:
"The Secretary of State assured the For-
eign Minister that in the event of such ag-
gression, the United States intends to give
full effect to its obligations under the Treaty
to act to meet the common danger in ac-
cordance with its constitutional processes.
The Secretary of State reaffirmed that this
obligation of the United States does not de-
pend upon the prior agreement of all other
parties to the Treaty, since this Treaty ob-
ligation is individual as well as collective."
Most of the SEATO countries have stated
that they agreed with this interpretation.
None has registered objection to it.
When the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations reported on the Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Treaty, it noted that the
treaty area was further defined so that the
"Free Territory of Vietnam" was an area
"which, if attacked, would fall under the pro-
tection of the instrument." In its conclu-
sion the committee stated:
"The committee is not impervious to the
risks which this treaty entails. It fully ap-
preciates that acceptance of these additional
obligations commits the United States to a
course of action over a vast expanse of the
Pacific. Yet these risks are consistent with
our own highest interests."
The Senate gave its advice and consent to
the treaty by a vote of 82 to 1.
C. The United States Has Given Additional
Assurances to the Government of South Viet-
Nam.
'The United States has also given a series
of additional assurances to the Government
of South Viet-Nam. As early as October 1954
President Eisenhower undertook to provide
direct assistance to help make South Viet-
Nam "capable of resisting attempted sub-
version or aggression through military
means."" On May 11, 1957, President Eisen-
hower and President Ngo Dinh Diem of the
Republic of Viet-Nam issued a joint state-
ment"' which Galled attention to "the large
build-up of Vietnamese Communist military
forces in North Viet-Nam" and stated:
"Noting that the Republic of Viet-Nam is
covered by Article IV of the Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Treaty, President Eisen-
hower and President Ngo Dinh Diem agreed
that aggression or subversion threatening the
political independence of the Republic of
Viet-Nam would be considered as endanger-
ing peace and stability."
"For text, see ibid., Mar. 26, 1962, p. 498.
"For text of a message from President Ei-
senhower to President Ngo Dinh Diem, see
ibid., Nov. 15, 1954, p. 735.
For text, see ibid.. May 27, 1957, p. 851.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
10674 Approved ForeolmeEN9W2439 itRAKT.7?pReArf?000400070006Ray 23, i9p6
On August '2, 1961, President Kennedy de-
clared that "the United States is determined
that the Republic of Viet-Nam shall not be
lost to the Communists for lack of any sup-
port which the United States Government
can render."" On December 7 of that year
President Diem appealed for additional sup-
port. In his reply of December 14, 1961
President Kennedy recalled the United States
declaration made at the end of the Geneva
conference in 1954, and reaffirmed that the
United States was "prepared to help the Re-
public of Viet-Nam to protect its people and
to preserve its independence." l=" This assur-
ance has been reaffirmed many times since.
en. ACTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH
VIET-NATA ARE .1USTIFIED UNDER THE GENEVA
ACCORDS OP 1954
A. Descript1on of the Accords.
The Geneva accords of 1954 " established
the date and hour for a cease-fire in Viet-
Nam, drew a "provisional military demarca-
tion line" with a demilitarized zone on both
sides, and required an exchange of prisoners
and the phased regroupment of Viet Minh
Forces from the south to the north and of
French Union forces from the north to the
south. The introduction into Viet-Nam of
troop reinforcements and new military
enuipmene (except for replacement and re-
pair) was prohibited. The armed forces of
each party were required to respect the de-
militarized zone and the territory of the other
zone. The adherence of either zone to any
military alliance, and the use of either zone
for the resumption of hostilities or to "fur-
ther an aggressive policy," were prohibited.
The International Control Commission was
estiiblished, composed of India. Canada and
Poland, with India as chairman. The task
of the Commission was to supervise the prop-
er execution of the provisions of the cease-
fire agreement. General elections that would
result in reunification were required to be
held in July 1956 under the supervision of
the ICC'.
11, North Viet-Nam Violated the Accords
From the Beginning.
Prom the very beginning, the North Viet-
namese violated the 1954 Geneva accords.
Coin tnimist 10 iliinry forces and supplies were
(eft in the Sella, in violation of the accords.
Other Cemmunist guerrillas were moved
fiorth for further training and then were in-
t! !rated into the South in violation of the
te:COrd.S.
c. he Introduction of United States Mili-
tery Personnel and Equipment Was Justified.
The Records prohibited the reinforcement
ia foreign military forces in Viet-Nam and
the introduction of new military equipment.
nut they allowed replacement of existing
military personnel and equipment. Prior to
1901 South Viet-Nam had received con-
:adorable military equipment and supplies
fisim the United States, and the United
" for text of a joint communique issued by
resident Kennedy and Vice President Chen
Fining of the Republic of China, see ibid..,
Anis. ail, 1961, P. ;172.
sl For text et" tin exchange of messages be-
lmeen President Kennedy and President Diem,
ihid.?Tan. 1. 1962, p. 13.
Toese accords were composed of a bilat-
end cease-lire agreement between the "Com-
mander-in-Chief of the People's Army of Viet
Nam" and the "Commander-in-Chief of the
al:viten. Union forces in Indo-China," together
with it Final Declaration of the Conference, to
which. France adhered. However, it is to be
noted that the South Vietnamese Govern-
ment was not a signatory of the cease-fire
agreemene and did not adhere to the Final
/0z;laration. South Viet-Nam entered a
series of reservations in a statement to the
conference. This statement was noted by
1, ic culifereAce, but by decision of the con-
ference chairman it was not included or re-
ferred to in the Final Declaration. [Foot-
note in original. I
States had gradually enlarged its Military
Assistance Advisory Group to slightly less
than 900 men. These actions were reported
to the ICC and were justified as replacements
for equipment in Viet-Nam in 1954 and for
French training and advisory personnel who
had been withdrawn after 1954.
As the Communist aggression intensified
during 1961, with increased infiltration and
a marked stepping up of Communist ter-
rorism in the South, the United States found
it necessary in late 1961 to increase substan-
tially the numbers of our military personnel
and the amounts and types of equipment in-
troduced by this country into South Viet-
Nam. These increases were justified by the
international law principle that a inaterial
breach of an agreement by one party entitles
the other at least to withhold compliance
with an equivalent, corresponding, or related
provision until the defaulting party is pre-
pared to honor its obligations.,2
In accordance with this principle, the sys-
tematic violation of the Geneva act ords by
North Viet-Nam justified South Vet-Nam
in suspending compliance with the provision
controlling entry of foreign military person-
nel and military equipment.
D. South Viet-Nam was justified in refus-
ing to implement the election provisions of
the Geneva accords.
The Geneva accords contemplated the re-
unification of the two parts of Viet-Nam.
They ccintained a provision for general elec-
tions to be held in July 1956 in order to ob-
tain a "free expression of the national will."
The accords stated that "consultations will
be held on this subject between tint com-
petent representative authorities of the two
zones from 20 July 1955 on wards."
There may be some questi in whether South
Viet-Nam. wea bound by these electlon pro--
visions. As indicated earner, South Viet-
Nam did net sign the cease-fire agreement
of 1954, nor did it adhere to the Final Dec-
laration of the Geneva conference. The
South Vietninnese Government at that time
gave notice of its objection in parttiular to
the election provisions of the accords.
However, even on the p::emise th,:t these
provisions were binding Oct South Viet-Nam,
the South Vietnamese Government' failure
to engage in consultations in 1955, with a
view to holding elections in 1956, involved
:no breach of obligation. The conditions in
North Viet-Niun during that period ware such
as to make impossible any free and weaning-
ful eXpTCES10,11 of popular will.
Some of the facts about conditions in the
This principle of law and the circum-
stances in which it may be invoked sre most
fully direuesed in the Fourth Repoli'. on the
haw of Treaties by Sir Gerald Fitzinaurice,
articles 18, 20 (U.N. doe. A/CN.4/12( 11959))
11 Yearbook of the Interne Donal Lew Com-
87 (U.N. doe, A/CN.4/SER AS1959/
Adria) and in the later report by Sir Hum-
phrey Waldock, article 20 (U.N. doe. A./CN.4/
156 and Add. 1-3 (1963) ) Yearbook of the
International Law Commission 36 (U.N. doe.
A/CN4/SER.A/:1963/Add. 1 . Anions; the au-
thorities cited by the fourth report for this
proposition are: II Oppenheim, International
Law 136, 137 (7th ed. Lauterpacht 1955); I
Rousseau, Frincipes gdndraux du arc it. inter-
national p-notiie 365 (1944) ; II Hyde, Inter-
national Law 1660 et seq. (2d ed. 1247); II
Guggenheim, Traite de droit international
public 84, 85 (1935); Spiropoulos, Traitd
thearique et gratique de droit international
public 289 11933); Verdrofs, Veilkern 328
(1950); Hall, Treatise 21 (8th ed. Higgins
1924); 3 Aecioly, Tratado de Direits Inter-
nacional Publico 82 (1956-57). See also draft
articles 42 and 46 of the Law of Treaties by
the International Law Commission, contained
in the report on the work cf. its 15th session,
(General Assembly, Official Records, 38th Ses-
sion, Supplement No. 9(A/58091). [Footnote
in originall
North were admitted even by the Communist
leadership in Hanoi. General Giap, cur-
rently Defense Minister of North Viet-Nam,
In addressing the Tenth Congress of the
North Vietnamese Communist Party in
October 1956, publicly acknowledged that the
Communist leaders were running a police
state where executions, terror, and torture
were commonplace. A nationwide election in
these circumstances would have Teen
travesty. No one in the North woull have
dared to vote except as directed. With a. sub-
stantial majority of the Vietnamese people
living north of the 17th parallel, such an
election would have meant turning the coun-
try over to the Communists without regard
to the will of the people. The South. Viet-
namese Government realized these facts and
quite properly took the position that con-
sultations for elections in 1956 as contem-
plated by the accords would be a useless
formalityall
IV. THE PRESIDENT HAS FULL AUTHORITY lo COM-
MIT UNITED STATES FORCES IN THE COL:,ECTIVE
DEFENSE OF SOUTH VIET-NAM
There can be no question in present cir-
cumstances of the President's authority to
commit United States forces to the defense
of South Viet-Nam. The grant of au thority
to the President in article II of the Consti-
tution extends to the actions of the United
States currently undertaken in Viet-Nam.
In fact, however, it is unnecessary to deter-
mine whether this grant standing alone is
sufficient to authorize the actions taken in
Viet-Nam. These actions rest not only on the
exercise of Presidential powers under article
,II but on the SEATO treaty?:t tresty ad-
vised and consented to by the Senate?and
on actions of the Congress, particuls fly the
joint resolution of August 10, 1964. When
these sources of authority are taken to-
gether?article II of the Consetituticn, the
SEATO treaty, and actions by the Congress ?
there can be no question of the legality under
domestic law of United states actiins 111
Viet-Nam.
A. The President's Power Under Article II
of the Constitution Extends to the Actions
Currently Undertaken in Viet-Nam.
Under the Constitution, the President, in
addition to being Chief Executive, i Com-
mander in Chief of the Army and Navy. He
holds the prime responsibility for this con-
duct of United States foreign re :t-tions.
These duties carry very broad powers, in-
cluding the power to deploy Arierican
forces abroad and commit them to military
operations when the President deems such
action necessary to maintain the security
and defense of the United States.
At the Federal Constitutional Convention
in 1787, it was originally propose.] that
Congress have the power "to mak( war."
There were objections that legislative pro-
ceedings were too slow for this power to be
vested in Congress; it was suggest( ci that
the Senate might be a better rep isitory.
Madison and Gerry then moved to substi-
tute, "to declare war" for "to make war,"
"leaving to the Executive the power to repel
sudden attacks." It was objected that this
might make it too easy for the EXCC1,Live to
Involve the nation in war, but the motion
carried with but one dissenting vote.
In 1787 the world was a far large: place,
and the framers probably had hi IY1 ,G1
F'-
tacks upon the United States. In the 20th
century, the world has grown much t mallets
zltIn any event, if North Viet-Nain ninsid -
ered there had been a breach of obligation
by the South, its remedies lay in die mssion
with Saigon, perhaps in an appeal to the
cochairmen of the Geneva conference, or in
a reconvening of the conference to consider
the situation. Under internaticni I law,
North Viet-Nam had no right to me force
outside its own zone in order to tifa life its
political objectives. [Footnote in orig,inal
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved FiagaygsfaR/A0f/i9icatlycf ?TROBI6R000400070006-5
May 23, 1966 10675
An attack on a country far from our shores
can impinge directly on the nation's secu-
rity. In the SEATO treaty, for example, it
Is formally declared that an armed attack
against Viet-Nam would endanger the peace
and safety of the United States.
Since the Constitution was adopted there
have been at least 125 instances in which
the President has ordered the armed forces
to take action or maintain positions abroad
without obtaining prior congressional au-
thorization, starting with the "undeclared
war" with France (1798-1800). For exam-
ple, President Truman ordered 250,000 troops
to Korea during the Korean war of the early
1950's. President Eisenhower dispatched
14,000 troops to Lebanon in 1958.
The Constitution leaves to the President
the judgment to determine whether the cir-
cumstances of a particular armed attack are
so urgent and the potential consequences
so threatening to the security of the United
States that he should act without formally
consulting the Congress.
B. The Southeast Asia Collective Defense
Treaty Authorizes the President's Actions.
Under article VI of the United States Con-
stitution, "all Treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land." , Article IV, paragraph 1, of the
SEATO treaty establishes as a matter of law
that a Communist armed attack against
South Viet-Nam endangers the peace and
safety of the United States. In this same
provision the United States has undertaken
a commitment in the MATO treaty to "act
to meet the common danger in accordance
with its constitutional processes" in the event
of such ah attack.
Under our Constitution it is the President
who must decide when an armed attack has
occurred. He has also the constitutional re-
sponsibility for determining what measures
of defense are required when the peace and
safety of the United States are endangered.
It he considers that deployment of U. S.
forces to South Viet-Nam is required, and
that military measures against the source of
Communist aggression in North Viet-Nam
are necessary, he is constitutionally empow-
ered to take those measures.
The SEATO treaty specifies that each
party will act "in accordance with its con-
stitutibnal processes."
It has recently been argued that the use
of land forces in Asia is not authorized un-
der the treaty because their use to deter
armed attack was not contemplated at the
time the treaty was considered by the Sen-
ate. Secretary Dulles testified at that time
that we did not intend to establish (1) a
land army in Southeast Asia capable of de-
terring Communist aggression, or (2) an
integrated headquarters and military orga-
nization like that of NATO; instead, the
United states would rely on "mobile strik-
ing power" against the sources of aggres-
sion. However, the treaty obligation in
article IV, paragraph 1, to meet the common
danger in the event of armed aggression, is
not limited to particular modes of military
action. What constitutes an adequate de-
terrent or an appropriate response, in terms
of military strategy, may change; but the
essence of our commitment to act to meet the
common danger, as necessary at the time of
an armed aggression, remains. In 1951 the
forecast of military judgment might have
been against the use of substantial United
States ground forces in Viet-Nam. But that
does not preclude the President from reach-
ing a different military judgment in differ-
ent circumstances, 12 years later.
C. The Joint Resolution of Congress of
August 10, 1964, Authorizes United States
Participation in the Collective Defense of
South Viet-Nam.
As stated earlier, the legality of United
States participation in the defense of South
No. 84-12
Viet-Nam does not rest only on the consti-
tutional power of the President under article
II?or indeed on that power taken in con-
junction with the SEATO treaty. In ad-
dition, the Congress has acted in unmistak-
able fashion to approve and authorize United
States actions in Viet-Nam.
Following the North Vietnamese attacks in
the Gulf of Tonkin against United States
destroyers, Congress adopted, by a Senate vote
of 88-2 and a House vote of 116-0, a joint
resolution containing a series of important
declarations and provisions of law.24
Section 1 resolved that "the Congress ap-
proves and supports the determination of the
President, as Commander in Chief, to take all
necessary measures to repel any armed attack
against the forces of the United States and to
prevent further aggression." Thus, the Con-
gress gave its sanction to specific actions by
the President to repel attacks against United
States naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin
and elsewhere in the western Pacific. Con-
gress further approved the taking of "all
necessary measures . . . to prevent further
aggression." This authorization extended to
those measures the President might consider
necessary to ward off further attacks and to
prevent further aggression by North Viet-
Nam in Southeast Asia.
The joint resolution then went on to pro-
vide in section 2:
"The United States regards as vital to its
national interest and to world peace the
maintenance of international peace and se-
curity in southeast Asia. Consonant with
the Constitution of the United States and the
Charter of the United Nations and in accord-
ance with its obligations under the Southeast
Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United
States is, therefore, prepared, as the President
determines, to take all necessary steps, in-
cluding the use of armed force, to assist any
member or protocol state of the Southeast
Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting as-
sistance in defense of its freedom."
Section 2 thus constitutes an authorization
to the President, in his discretion, to act?
using armed force if he determines that is
required?to assist South Viet-Nam at its
request in defense of its freedom. The iden-
tification of South Viet-Nam through the
reference to "protocol state" in this section is
unmistakable, and the grant of authority "as
the President determines" is unequivocal.
It has been suggested that the legislative
history of the joint resolution shows an in-
tention to limit United States assistance to
South Viet-Nam to aid, advice, and training.
This suggestion is based on an amendment
offered from the floor by Senator [GAyLoRn]
Nelson which would have added the follow-
ing to the text:
"The Congress also approves and supports
the efforts of the President to bring the
problem of peace in Southeast Asia to the
Security Council of the United Nations, and
the President's declaration that the united
States, seeking no extension of the present
military conflict, will respond to provocation
in a manner that is 'limited and fitting.'
Our continuing policy is to limit our role
to the provision of aid, training assistance,
and military advice, and it is the sense of
Congress that, except when provoked to a
greater response, we should continue to at-
tempt to avoid a direct military involvement
in the Southeast Asian conflicts
Senator [J. W.] .FULBRIGHT, who had re-
ported the joint resolution from the Foreign
Relations Committee, spoke on the amend-
ment as follows:
"It states fairly accurately what the Presi-
dent has said would be our policy, and what
I stated my understanding was as to our
24 For text, see Rottman of Aug. 24, 1964,
p. 268.
26 110 Cong. Rec. 18459 (Aug. 7, 1964.
[Footnote In original.]
policy; also what other Senators have stated.
In other words, it states that our response
should be appropriate and limited to the
provocation, which the Senator states as `re-
spond to provocation in a manner that is
limited and fitting,' and so forth. We do
not wish any political or military bases
there. We are not seeking to gain a colony.
We seek to insure the capacity of these peo-
ple to develop along the lines of their own
desires, independnt of domination by com-
munism.
"The Senator has put into his amendment
a statement of policy that is unobjectionable.
However, I cannot accept the amendment
under the circumstances. I do not believe
it is contrary to the joint resolution, but it
Is an enlargement. I am informed that the
House is now voting on this resolution. The
House joint resolution is about to be pre-
sented to us. I cannot accept the amend-
ment and go to conference with it, and thus
take responsibility for delaying matters.
"I do not object to it as a statement of
policy. I believe it is an accurate reflection
of what I believe is the President's policy,
judging from his own statements. That does
not mean that as a practical matter I can
accept the amendment. It would delay mat-
ters to do so. It would cause confusion and
require a conference, and present us with
all the other difficulties that are involved in
this kind of legislative action. I regret that
I cannot do it, even though I do not at all
disagree with the amendment as a general
statements of policy." 26
Senator NELSON'S amendment related the
degree and kind of U.S. response in Viet-
Nam to "provocation" on the other side; the
response should be "limited and fitting."
The greater the provocation, the stronger
are the measures that may be characterized
as "limited and fitting." Bombing of North
Vietnamese naval bases was a "limited and
fitting" response to the attacks on U.S. de-
stroyers in August 1964, and the subsequent
actions taken by the United States and South
Viet-Nam have been an appropriate response
to the increased war of aggression carried on
by North Viet-Nam since that date. Morec
over, Senator NELSON'S proposed amendment
did not purport to be a restriction on author-
ity available to the President but merely a
statement concerning what should be the
continuing policy of the United States.
Congressional realization of the scope of
authority being conferred by the joint reso-
lution is shown by the legislative history of
the measure as a whole. The following ex-
change between Senators COOPER and FUL-
BRIGHT is illuminating;
Mr. COOPER [JOHN SHERMAN COOPER]. . . .
The Senator will remember that the SEATO
Treaty, in article IV, provides that in the
event an armed attack is made upon a party
to the Southeast Asia Collective Defense
Treaty, or upon one of the protocol states
such as South Vietnam, the parties to the
treaty, one of whom is the United States,
would then take such action as might be
appropriate, after resorting to their consti-
tutional processes. I assume that would
mean, in the case of the United States, that
Congress would be asked to grant the author-
ity to act.
Does the Senator consider that in enacting
this resolution we are satisfying that re-
quirement of article IV of the Southeast Asia
Collective-Defense Treaty? In other words,
are we now giving the President advance
authority to take whatever action he may
deem necessary respecting South Vietnam
and its defense, or with respect to the defense
of any other country included in the treaty?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think that is correct.
Mr. Coop. Then, looking ahead, if the
President decided that it was necessary to
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
11)676 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May ,,
use such iorce as could lead into war, we will
give -that authority by this resolution?
Sr. Funcrucarr. That is the way I would
interpret it. If a situation later developed
in which we thought the approval should be
withdrawn it could be withdrawn by con-
current resolution.,
The August 1964 joint resolution eon-
LieIles in hirce today. Section 2 of the reso-
lution provides that it shall expire "when
the President shall determine that the peace
and security of the area Is reasonably as-
so ed by international conditions created
by- action of the United Nations or other-
wise, except that it may be terminated earlier
by concurrent resolution of the Congress."
The President; has made no such determina-
tion, nor has Congress terminated the joint
resolutions'
Instead, Congress in May 1965 approved
ian appropriation of 6700 million to meet the
eXpense or mounting military requirements
in Viet-Nam. (Public Law 89-18, 79 Stat.
109.) The President's message asking for
this appropriation stated that this was "not
a routine appropriation. For each Member
of Congress who supports this request is also
voting to persist in our efforts to halt Com-
munist aggression in South Vietnam."
The appropriation act constitutes a clear
congressional endorsement and approval of
the actions taken by the President.
On March 1. 1966, the Congress continued
to express its support of the President's
policy by approving a. $4.8 billion supple-
mental military authorization by votes of
:192 4 and 93-.2. An amendment that would
Sate limited the President's authority to
commit forces to Viet-Nam was rejected in
the Senate by a vote of 94-2.
D. No Declaration of War by the Congress
IS Required To Authorize United States Par-
ticipation in the Collective Defense of South
Viet-Nam.
110 Cony. Rec. 18409 (Aug. 6, 1964).
Serator WAYNE MORSE; who opposed the joint
resolution, expressed the following view on
August 6, 1964, concerning the scope of the
proposed resolution:
Another Senator thought, in the early part
of the debate, that this course would not
broaden the power of the President to en-
gage in a Land war if he decided that he
wanted to apply the resolution in that way.
That Senator was taking great consolation
in le then held belief that, if he voted for
the resolution, it would give no authority to
the President, to send many troops into Asia.
I. am sure he was quite disappointed to fi-
nally learn, because it took a little time to
get the matter cleared, that the resolution
places no restriction on the President in that
respect. 11 he is still in doubt, let him read
tile language on page 2, lines :3 to 6, and page
2, lines 11 to 7. The first reads:
Joe Congress approves and supports the
determination of the President, as Com-
mander in Carief, to take all necessary meas-
ures to repel Lily armed attack against the
liextes of the United States and to prevent
further aggression."
It does not say he is limited in regard to
the sending of ground forces. It does not
limit that authority. That is why I have
called it a predated declaration of war, in.
clear violation of article I, section 8, of the
Constitution, which vests the power to de-
clare war in the Congress, and not in the
Presider] t.
What, is proposed is to authorize the Presi-
dent of the United States, without a declara-
tion of war, to commit acts of war, (110
(Jong. Rec. 18426-7 (Aug. 6, 19114)). )Foot..
note in original.)
On March I, 1966, the Senate voted, 92-5,
to table an amendment that would have re-
pealed the joint resolution. (Footnote in
original.)
Por text, see BULLETIN of May 24, 1965,
I). 822.
No declaration of war is nedeed to author-
ize American actions in Vieti-Narn. As shown
in the preceding sections, the President has
arnple authority to order the piirticipation
of United States armed forces in the defense
of South Viet-Nam.
Over a. very long period in our history,
Practice and precedent have confirmed the
constitutional authority to engage United
States forces in hostilities with of a dec-
laration of war. This history extends from
the undeclared war with Fran a and the
war against the Barbary pirates It the end
of the 18th century to the Km 'an war of
1950-53.
James Madison, one of the leading framers
of the Constitution, sod Presidents John
Adams and Jefferson all construed the Con-
stitution, in their official actions during the
early years of the Republic, as Authorizing
the United States to employ its it ,:med forces
abroad in hostilities in the abst ace of any
congressional declaration of i.var. Their
views and actions constitute hignly persua-
sive evidence as to the meaning and effect of
the Constitution. History has accepted the
interpretation that was placed on the Con-
stitution by the early Presidents and Con-
gresses in regard to the :lawfulness- of hostili-
ties without a declaration of wat. The in-
stances of such action in our istory are
numerous.
In the Korean conflict, where large-scale
hostilities were conducted with au American
troop participation of a quarter or a million
men, no declaration of war was n,ade by the
Congress. The President acted oti the basis
of his colasti-tutional responsibilitleS. While
the Security Council, under a treaty of this
country--the United Notions Charter?rec-
ommended assistance So the Republic of
Korea against the Communist an aid attack,
the United States had no treaty commitment
at that, time obligating tis to join in the de-
fenee of South Korea. In the case of South
Viet-Nam we have the obligati :in of the
SEATO treaty and clear expressions of con-
gressional support. If the Prescient could
act in Korea without a declarathin of war,
a fortiori he is empoweeed to do so now in
Viet-Nam.
It may be suggested that a declaration of
war is the only available constituConal proc-
eSS by which congressional support can be
made effective for the use of Un ,ted States
armed forces in combat abroad. But the
Constitution does not insist on any rigid for-
malism. It gives Congress a chonte of ways
in which to exercise its powers. la the case
of Viet-Nam the Congress has supported
the determination of the President by the
Senate's approval of. the S:EATO ?reaty, the
adoption of the joint resolution of August 10,
1964, and the enactment of the necessary
authorizations and appropriations.
V. co INCLUSION
South Viet-Nam is 'being suljected to
armed attack by Communist nath Viet-
Narn, through the infiltration of armed per-
sonnel, military equipment, and regular com-
bat units. International law recoenizes the
right of individual and collective eelfdelense
against armed attach_ South Viet ?Narn, and
the United States upon the request of South
Viet-Nam, are engaged in such collective
defense of the South. Iheir actions are in
conformity with international law and with
the Charter of the United Nations. 'The fact
that South Viet-Nam has been pa eluded by
Soviet veto from becoming a memher of the
United Nations and the feet that South Viet-
Nam is a zone of a temporarily divided state
in no way diminish the right of collective
defense of South Viet-Nam.
The United States has commitments to
assist South Viet-Nam :in defending itself
against Communist aggression irom the
North. The 'United Stales gave andertak-
ings to this effect at the conclusion of the
Geneva conference in 1954. Later that year
the United States undertook an international
obligation in the SEATO treaty to defend
South Viet-Nam against Communist armed
aggression. And during the past decade tie
United States has given additional assur-
ances to the South Vietnamese Government.
The Geneva accords of 1954 provided for
a cease-fire and regroupment or contending
forces, a division of Viet-Nam into Iwo zones,
and a prohibition on the use of miSer zone
for the resumption of hostilities or to -fur-
ther an aggressive policy." From the begli-
ning, North Viet-Nam violated tie Geneva
accords through a systematic &Teri to gam
control of South Viet-Nam by force. In the
light of these progressive North X ietnamese
violations, the introduction into S.nith Viet-
Nam beginning in late 1961 or substantial
United States military equipment iind per-
sonnel, to assist in the defense of :he Soutm,
was fully justified; substantial breach of en
international agreement by one side permits
the other side to suspend performs see ol' co
--
responding obligations under the agreement.
South Viet-Nam was justified hi refusing
to implement the provisions of the Geneva
accords calling for reunification through
free elections throughout Viet-Nam since
the Communist regime in North Viet-Nain
created conditions in the North I hat matie
free elections entirely impossible.
The President of the United States has
full authority to commit United States forces
in the collective defense of South Viet-Nam.
This authority stems from the cenr I inane-lid
powers of the President. However, it is not
necessary to rely on the Constit in ion alone
as the source of the President's inthoril y.
since the SEATO treaty?advised and con-
sented to by the Senate and forming part
of the law of the land?sets forth a. United
States commitment to defend South Viet-
Nam against armed attack, and since the
Congress?in the joint resolution .)f Augurt
10, 1964, and in authorization and appropri-
aitions acts for support of the tr S military
effort in Viet-Nam?has given its approvt 1
and support to the President's actimie.
United States actions in Viet-Nam, taken by
the President and approved by the Congress,
do not require any declaration war, as
shown by a long line of precedents for Die
use of United States armed forces Abroad in
the absence of any congressional dielarat
of war.
GOLD MINING IN NEVADA
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, Nevada
has been witnessing what has been
termed "a quiet, businesslike mining re-
vival" in recent months, with gold min-
ing making significant advances. This
is nothing like the old gold and silver
boom days which made famous tile min-
ing camps such as Virginia C'ity and
Goldfield. But it is just as impertant in
its own way.
First, there was the launebiag of a
$10 million open-pit gold mining opera-
tion in northeastern Nevada, the New-
mont Mining Corp.'s Carlin God Mine
Then, most recently, Deep San Petro
Energy Developments Co. started a simi-
lar operation in eastern Nevada, near
Pioche.
There are indications now that N.2vacia
will, for the first time in too many years,
be contending for the gold pr eduction
lead.
I bring these developments to the p1 -
tention of the Senate as proof of what
can be done in the face of Federal poli--
cies that have all but crippled the miners'
ability to dig for gold. If the gold miner
can do this well with Government handi-
caps, there is no telling how nlllc i bottom'
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
A2752 Approved For&Imeag9gCMpitft-tRif16.7 ii~itim400070006-5May 23, PI
this way help to get over the rough period.
This will not be a 9-5 clinic. Addicts do not
take drugs or develop problems on a 9-5
basis!
7. To disseminate the problem of narcotics
and its ramifications to all concerned: public
schools, churches, philanthropic organiza-
tions, parent groups, etc. by competent
lecturers.
8. To further research in the field of drugs
and the causes for taking them.
9. To employ hospital personnel who are
dynamic and driving and whose appearance
and demeanor are smart, bright and alert so
that the addict can look up to these people
as leaders and make some identification.
Too many in this field now are sloven, non-
articulate and inspire nothing but chagrin
and hopelessness.
10. Because of the magnitude of the nar-
cotics problems with its social, economic and
legal implications, discussions of possible
programs directed toward cooperative solu-
tions with other agencies have been omitted,
but subsequent brochures will define these
projects concerning summer camps, com-
munity social groups, restoring licenses, re-
claiming endemic narcotics areas, etc.
CONTEMPLATED LEGISLATION
11. Make illegal any cough medicine prepa-
rations containing codeine or any deriva-
tives of opium unless prescribed by a doctor.
12. Impose economic sanctions on coun-
tries to whom we give foreign aid (green
stuff) and who in turn then send us illicit
exports of heroin (white stuff) . They would
then make an attempt to maintain better
narcotics traffic control.
13. Legislation to the effect that all diplo-
matic personnel have baggage inspected by
dual inspectors (country of his origin or his
embassy plus our custom officers) .
14. Levy a fine against the mode of trans-
portation (ship, planes) in which the nar-
cotics come, as well as a fine against unions
who vouch for said individual. This would
further more thorough screening of all per-
sonnel by employers and unions.
15. Inspection for possible heroin addic-
tion of all personnel, (commercial or armed
services) coming in and out of our country.
16. Unannounced physical examination of
all elementary high school and college stu-
dents in Sept., Jan. and June of each year
to check for early addiction by inspecting
arms and other sites, such as mouth, nose
and fingers.
17. A part of hygiene courses from the 3rd
grade on should incorporate the explanation
of the advanced reactions of gluesniffing,
heroin, goof balls, and pep pills, to let the
youngsters actually know how very sick they
can get on these medications, inclucLing the
possibility of death. (Never make it bizarre
or glamorous but factual and sobering.)
18. Revocation of the licenses of pharma-
cists who sell narcotics, cough preparations,
derivatives of opium and other synthetic
addicting drugs, barbiturates and ampheta-
mines without a prescription. The penalty
should be the same for the professional
heroin pusher-50 years.
19. The penalty for the non-addict pusher
should be 50 years without probation or pa-
role. As a safeguard against those who would
plead that they are addicts, urine analysis
and blood tests should be given with careful
observation for withdrawal symptoms over
a period of ten days.
20. The illicit manufacturer of barbitu-
rates, amphetamines, cough preparations
which have been flooding the black market,
should be classified in the same category as
the professional drug pushers, and further,
receive a 50 year sentence. All pills should
have a lot number, manufacturer's name and
code.
These quotes are from "Narcoticsville,
U.S.A." by R. W. Baird, M.D.; publisher
Doubleday.
21. Redemption of various licenses for
former drug addicts who are drug-free for
one year or more.
22. Revocation of driver's license of known
narcotics addicts who are actively using
drugs.
23. Stiff penalties for any merchant who
sells airplane glue to a child.
24. Development of M.D. narcotics spe-
cialists with probationary commitment
powers.
25. Commitment to an institution of any
drug addict by a family member.
26. The possession of LSD or marijuana
must always be considered a felony. A lesser
penalty would promote increased sales and
increased use.
It is rather discouraging for HAVEN to
note that there is a minority of uninformed
doctors and othe professional who have ac-
cess to radio and television. These men are
minimizing the so-called mild effects of mari-
juana. At the same time they are saying
that they themselves would willingly and
casually experiment with LSD. We chastise
these people severely since we have a most
difficult problem in trying to convince high
school and college students of the dangers
of these drugs. The students often refute
our warnings by quoting from these supposed
"experts" who have never treated drug ad-
dicts and yet claim that these drugs are not
dangerous.
Please help us get some of the above pro-
grams adopted. We have been advocating
these approaches for the past five years in
newspapers, on radio and on television. With
your help and encouragement we can look
forward to more rapid action.
It is felt if such a program as outlined
were instituted, we might gain success in
this field since that would be the first all-
encompassing praCtical approach which has
never before been employed.
To many years of contemplative research
and statistic and meetings have passed while
the problem continues to grow rampant.
We do not want a new generation to be
born whose only outlook will be that there
is a strong possibility of becoming addicted
to this disease which we have been talking
about for the past 50 years with no defini-
tive action!
Let a positive approach to action be un
taken now!
Ellsworth Calls for New Look at Vietnam
Policy
---
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
01'
HON. DONALD RUMSFELD
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, May 2, 1966
Mr. R,UMSFELD. Mr. Speaker, I am
submitting a statement by my able col-
league, the Honorable ROBERT ELLS-
WORTH, of the State of Kansas, on the
subject of U.S. policy in South Vietnam.
Representative ELLSWORTH'S statement
follows:
ELLSWORTII CALLS FOR NEW LOOK AT VIETNAM
POLICY
It is now time for the Johnson Adminis-
tration to shape up in South Vietnam or get
out.
As a Member of Congress I have repeatedly
voted for measures to support our Armed
Forces in Vietnam and to give the President
all the authority he has asked for.
But I am rapidly losing confidence in this
Administration's ability to see to it that our
military operations are effectively backed up
by the necessary political stability in Saigon.
This, in turn, has undercut our efforts to
move the Vietnam conflict from the battle-
field to the negotiating table,
Over 400,000 people have already been
killed in this war?yellow, white, and black.
More than 3,000 Americans have been
killed.
We now have 300,000 Americans on the
scene in Vietnam, and by the end of the
year we will probably have 500,000.
Helicopters, air support, and modern fire-
arms give our troops in Vietnam four to five
times the striking power our soldiers had in
World War II.
We have already dropped the equivalent
of a ton of bombs for every Viet Cong soldier.
Since 1954, we have given over three bil-
lion dollars in aid to South Vietnam.
In March, 1963, General Harkins, then our
Commanding General in South Vietnam,
stated that the South Vietnamese Armed
Forces had "all that is required for victory."
In May of 1963 the Pentagon told us:
"The corner definitely has been turned."
In October, 1963, Secretary of Defense Mc-
Namara said: "The major part of the mili-
tary task can be completed by the end of
1965."
Early in 1964 Secretary McNamara told
Congress that neither more combat troops
nor more money would be needed in South
Vietnam.
Late in 1964, Secretary McNamara, return-
ing from a personal inspection of Vietnam,
said: "We have stopped losing the war."
A credibility gap exists between what the
administration tells us and what actually
happens.
After all these years, all these efforts, and
all these sacrifices, there is no evidence that
the American presence has brought political
maturity or political stability to the people
or the government of South Vietnam. Just
the opposite is the case: anti-government
riots have shown an alarming influence in
the very cities we and the South Vietnamese
regimes have claimed to control. The spring
of this year has seen chaos, turmoil, and
rioting in the streets of South Vietnam, and
curtailment of our military operations be-
cause of it.
Soldiers and officers of the South Viet-
namese Army have removed their uniforms
and put on civilian clothes in order to par-
ticipate in anti-American riots.
At the height of the riots, we began for the
first time to experience a higher death rate
among our own American troops than the
South Vietnamese forces were sustaining
themselves. The anti-Communist South
Vietnamese were so busy wrangling among
themselves that they didn't have time to
fight the Communists.
The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese
are close to winning the conflict in Vietnam
on the political front.
Here at home, our Vietnam expenditures
are largely responsible for the inflation that
wracks our own country, for material short-
ages, and for government interference in
wage and price decisions. The Vietnam War
is a profound threat to our whole economy.
When Chairman Gardner Ackley of the Presi-
dent's Council of Economic Advisors was be-
fore the Joint Senate-House Economic Com-
mittee on February 1 this year, discussing
the President's Economic Report, he admitted
in response to a question from me that he
was "either ill-informed or a poor guesser
about the trend of Vietnam expenditures."
Our dollar outflow to Vietnam accounts
fore more than half of our present annual
balance of payments deficit.
No matter how much military power we
focus in South Vietnam, no matter how
magnificent the morale of our fighting men
is, no matter how much effort and sacrifice
they pour into the Vietnam conflict, and no
matter how much strain it put on our own
society here at home, it will all be wasted
unless the South Vietnamese can be effec-
tively organized on a political basis. This
the Johnson administration has failed to do.
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
./ .13, 1966 Approved eeill\WIPMSTeR/W6A2k(R14?51-3PIWICIPIIMF
000400070006-5
A277i1
into this hurricane barrier plan. At our
Irgence, the House and Senate Public Works
Committees have approved resolutions for
a study of flood control and hurricane pro-
tection needs for the west bank. The Corps
of Engineers will conduct the study, so as
to include all of the west bank in the hurri-
iiinie protection plan.
We will act to provide a chain of connect-
ing levees and other flood control works to
help safeguard New Orleans, Gretna, Harvey,
Marrero, Westwego, Bridge City, Lafitte, Ba-
eataria, Grand Isle, St. Charles Parish, and
the remainder of the west bank. In other
words, the west bank of Orleans, Jefferson,
and St. Charles Parishes will be included in
Ithis hurricane barrier plan for the metro-
politan area.
So, all in all, I believe we are making great
progress in bringing the finest hurricane and
ilood control protection possible to our area.
zan proud of the fine support which the
people and the officials here at home are giv-
ing to this hurricane barrier plan. I look
iorwa.rd to working with you and the officials
ee the parish and our neighboring parishes
to bring this worthy project to completion
soon as possible.
Freedom of Information
EX"FENSION OF REMARKS
110N. JAMES H. (JIMMY) QUILLEN
OE TENNESSEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, May 23. 1966
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, in the
hist week two newspapers in my district
Printed editorials supporting the free-
dom-of-information bill,
am inserting these statements in the
leECOan, so that we can all take note of
their views:
ills Eliza bethlon (Tenn.) Star, May
9661
illi (ill V ER NMENT NEEDS
Hopes are high in newspaper circles that
Congress may soon pass the first "freedom
ef information" bill in many, many years.
There has been a bill of one form or an-
other in. both houses of Congress for the
nest several years. In 1964 one was passed
overwhelmingly by the Senate but died in
a. House committee.
Last year, as a new two-year Congress sea-
on began, hearings were held before both
:louse and Senate committees. They again
lied separate bills...-one in Sen. EDWARD
lr5cs Senate Judiciary Committee, one in
Sep. JOHN MOSS' House Government Opera-
tions Subcommittee. Again, the Senate
11.aseCt its bill handily, but the House did not
it during the portion of the session held
ffiet year.
nut How it appears that the House is
Posit to Suit on the Senate bill?that is, vote
(iii the bill that the Senate has already passed
without subjecting it to the added process
ai
it conference committee (a committee to
ISW a single bill from. both Senate and
Laiuse versions),
This is the closest any of these bills has
'err come to passage. It is a moment long
iasited by many within the various news-
pieiers organizations that have been working
the bills.
BLit not only newspaper associations. Last
ineir, in the midst of the "free press and fair
,nal" debate between newsmen and attor-
-uys, the American Bar Association joined
With news groups in heartily endorsing the
n formation bills.
The current bill is relatively mild. It
would reemphasize the basic right or the
public to free access to information bout
government agencies?and their policies and
practices. But it would exempt militare! and
diplomatic matters.
The bill's principles are open to interpreta-
tion and will likely be interpreted in many
and opposite ways. But, very imports ntly,
the bill now seemingly on the verge of :ap-
proval would provide for prompt recouise to
the courts by any newsman, or any individ-
ual or group who feels that ilHOITTIDAID1 is
being wrongfully withheld. This shou.d be
an effective restraint on those who would,
when In doubt, withhold.
Having spent some little time ourselves
lobbying for the Senate bill now before the
House--Senate Bill 1160---ineluding I einie
mony before both House and Senate groups
a year ago, the whole matter takes in a
personal as well as a professional impor-
tance.
Primarily, these will eliminate foggy lan-
guage now part of government directives on
release of information. For example, Lome
state that a government employe may with-
hold "for good cause." Now what does that
mean? This new bill would be very specific
about what may be withheld with all else
presumed to be available.
Access to Information about government
has always been vital. But access to infor-
mation about government becomes increas-
ingly important the larger the government
becomes ,and the greater its influence or the
people.
And that is specifically what is happeeling
right now.
(From the Bristol (Tenn.-Va.)
Courier, May 21, 1906)
INFORMATION BILL SHOULD BE PASSED
Freedom of the press, of course, is basic
to America and its form of government. But
freedom of information can be another thing
indeed. The public's right to know may be
frustrated by many and, unfortunately, often
is.
For the past several years, Congress has
considered and killed a number of "freedom
of information" bills. This year, however,
chances Inc success seem good and news-
papers all over the nation are urging action.
The bill in question has been passed by the
Senate and a House vote appears imminent.
Considered a relatively mild step, the
measure would re-emphasize the right of
free access to information about government
agencies, their policies and practices. It
would exempt military and diplonailic
matters.
Recourse to the courts would be provided
For any person or group who feels informa-
tion has been improperly withheld.
In short, the bill reasserts what the U.S.
Constitution clearly sets forth. But because
of the tendency of officials?particut
minor officials?to withhold because of
doubt, the redundancy is necessary.
While newsmen all over America are openly
iobbying for the measure, it is important to
oote that this is no "newspaper bill." It
deals with information, a subject vitally
portant to every citizen. Since newspapers
are the primary means of disseminating in-
formation in this nation, it follows toot
newsmen would have an abnormal inteiest
in the progress of this particular proposal.
Still, this bill is important to everyone. It
deals with the public's right to know. And
since the public's right and the newspapers'
right are, in this case, one and the same
thing, support for the bill may be drawn
Hora a wide spectrum of society.
The American Bar Association, for in-
stance, has endorsed the "freedom of infor-
mation" bill. This group?increasingly at
odds with the American press of late?recog-
nizes the clear need for open channels of
information in government.
Heral,1
We hope every citizen shares this recog-
nition. And particularly do we hope that a
majority of Congress is aware of the problem
and is ready to do something about it.
HAVEN, Inc.?Help Addicts Voluntarily
End Narcotics
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. THEODORE R. KUPFER51AN
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE .>
Monday, May 23, 1966
Mr. KUPFERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Dr.
Robert W. Baird, is the founder of an or-
ganization known as HAVEN, Inc.--13 elp
Addicts Voluntarily End Narcotics. This
organization, under Dr. Baird's leader-
ship, held its third annual dinner on May
14 in its drive to curtail and wipe out, the
narcotic habit. I present to my c 31-
leagues for consideration their progi ;on
here set forth:
The Haven Fund was founded by a doe tor
who conducted a free ambulatory harm .1,5
withdrawal clinic in his office for eight years
in Harlem, the narcotics capital of the Tjni led
States. In addition, a lecture and informa-
tion center and a weekly parents' commii Lee
were developed.
Taking care of these addicts in the pail 3
years, night after night from 10:00 p.m.-4:00
am, and when necessary and Saturdays end
Sundays and having patients completely off
narcotics, made him realize expanded facili-
ties were urgently needed.
Dr. Robert Baird sought the aid of some
responsible civic-minded citizens and he was
fortunate to find a core of unselfish people
willing to help. He has outlined a plan for
seeking a hospital which will be volunt try
and non-profit with a program directed at
rehabilitation job procurement and 24-hour
clinical services. This is an outline of its
goals. The HAVEN Clinic is free to all v ho
seek its help.
1. To procure a hospital in which to pier
drug addicts for a period of detoxification
using other drugs rather than narcotics, ex-
cept in the few recalcitrant cases, and to have
ambulatory narcotics clinics not using nar-
cotics for withdrawal.
2. After the period of detoxification in the
hospital, to get the cooperation of unions,
school systems, etc., to help teach and trithi
these boys and girls for some vocation soils
as plasterers, carpenters, clerks, etc. (practi-
cal application of job interest).
3. After this period of training (six to eight
months) during which time they are still at
this hospital but in an informal set-up, they
would then be allowed an afternoon or even-
ing a week out, then to return to the hospiiil
at night, gradually giving them more mid
more liberties after they have proven theta-
selvea.
4. If this period of one day a week has beiiii
successful, allow them a weekend at home eo
that temptation could be overcome and tea 1-
sition made easier.
5. During this time, if training has been
successful or if they already have a vocation,
we would then procure a job for them! At
the end of the day they would return to the
Haven center to sleep_ The idea would be to
gradually get them to have confidence al
themselves and be able to withstand the
temptation of the community.
6. The clinic is to be established on a 2.1-
hour basis open at night so that if an addle!:
should suddenly develop a compulsive crev-
ing or desire to return to the use of narcotics,
he could talk it over with someone and is
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
For
May 23, 1966 Approved c.x.,~?1eINAT61:2LkaliStRDIArelkOSMAR000400070006-5 A2753
The political initiative in South Vietnam,
In the sixth year of our American presence
there, now rests with the anti-Americans.
If there is a single vital lesson to be drawn
from our experience in Vietnam, it is that
foreign aid for economic development plus
foreign aid for military development are
practically useless without a strong program
of political development among the people we
are trying to help. Unless the people of a
country can learn to participate in politics?
to .band together for community projects?
to build the forms of citizen action, which
we in this country take for granted and
which have been the source of our progress?
unless the people of a country can do these
things, then all the money in the world for
economic development, and all the bombing
and killing of which we are so clearly cap-
able, cannot bring much progress or much
stability. This lesson of Vietnam the John-
son Administration still has to learn.
Lack of political cohesion among the anti-
Communist forces in South Vietnam is and
has been for a long time our most immediate
and pressing problem. The Johnson Admin-
istration has failed effectively to do very
much about it.
This Administration must now make it
perfectly clear to all political leaders in
South Vietnam?religious and military
alike?that we do not intend to fight on in
Vietnam unless they can get their own house
in order, stop fighting each other, and start
fighting the Communists.
Neither the American people nor the Con-
gress will support the war in Vietnam much
longer, unless the South Vietnamese are re-
quired to and do make an effective effort
to establish political stability.
The sacrifice of our men's lives can have
meaning only if our purpose is clear and our
efforts are not wasted.
I, therefore, propose:
1. The Johnson Administration must im-
mediately ask and get reasonable political
stability in South Vietnam; otherwise, we
must prepare to withdraw and quit wasting
the efforts and sacrifices of our troops and
our people.
(a) The original agreement to hold elec-
tions in August for a Constituent Assembly
to draft a national Constitution should not
be delayed to September or October or some
later date, despite "trial balloons" along that
line recently floated from the Ky regime in
South Vietnam.
(b) It must be made clear that we expect
the Constituent Assembly to complete its
task in a specified and reasonable length of
time so that a representative government can
be established.
(c) We must insist that the leaders of all
major anti-Communist religious sects sub-
ordinate their differences to the immediate
task of fighting the Communist threat to
their freedom, if they expect us to help them.
(d) A firm pledge of loyalty to the govern-
ment must be exacted from each military
officer in the Vietnamese Armed Forces, with
compelling sanctions against violation of
such pledges.
(e) We should also require, from all the
main factions, pledges of full cooperation in
broad and intensive programs for educating
the urban and rural people of South Vietnam
so that a foundation is laid for them to be
able to control their own destiny.
If the government and people in South
Vietnam are unwiling to make and keep these
pledges, the United States should withdraw
its forces. We are not there to impose our
will on the people of Vietnam. If the gov-
ernment and people of Vietnam are not will-
ing to take the minimum steps necessary
to achieve enough political stability so that
they can fight effectively, then the sacrifice
of American lives will serve no purpose.
2. At the same time the Johnson Admin-
istration must renew and redouble its efforts
to move the Vietnamese conflict from the
battlefield to the negotiating table, This,
however, it must do against a background
of reasonable political stability in South
Vietnam and by the use of real and mean-
ingful diplomacy.
Real and meaningful diplomacy is not the
use of grandiose public relations efforts, A
truce in Korea was made possible not by the
dispatch of big-name Presidential envoys to
hold press conferences in far-flung capitals
of the world, but by a President who con-
vinced the Communists that he sincerely
desired to bring an end to the conflict.
The Suez Crisis was resolved, not by a
flamboyant appeal for a U.N. debate which
was never followed up by a real debate, but
through a sincere effort to seek U.N. help to
avoid a world crisis.
Successful negotiations for a test ban
treaty did not come through spectacular
Presidential journeys to Honolulu or other
exotic spots, but through quiet, tough, pa-
tient diplomacy.
The twin pillars of peace in Vietnam are
stability in Saigon and diplomacy in Wash-
ington. Peace cannot be secured without'
both.
It is now time for the Johnson Administra-
tion to require reasonable political stability
in South Vietnam and to move the Viet-
namese War from the battlefield to the ne-
gotiating table, or to get out of Vietnam.
Open Letter From the Archbishop of
Washington, Patrick A. O'Boyle
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. JULIA BUTLER HANSEN
OF WASHINGTON
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, May 23, 1966
Mrs. HANSEN of Washington. Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the archbishop of
Washington, the Most Reverend Patrick
A. O'Boyle, issued an open letter which
specifically and beautifully stated the
case against bigotry and discrimination
in education, housing, job opportunities,
and social life.
The letter is so eminently worthy that
I thought all Members would be pleased
to read it, and thus, I insert it in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON,
Washington, D.C., May 22, 1966.
DEARLY BELOVED IN CHRIST : As you well
know, I have on more than one occasion
spoken to you regarding the teaching of the
Church on the moral aspects of civil rights.
Most residents of the Archdiocese are fa-
miliar with precepts. However, the Washing-
ton area has many transients, and this is a
continuing issue. It should be helpful to
all of us, residents and visitors alike, to re-
view briefly the spiritual basis on which the
concept of social justice with charity is
founded.
In the Gospels we read the following words
of Our Lord, addressed to each one of us:
"It is not the man who says to Me, 'Lord,
Lord' who will enter into the kingdom of
Heaven, but he who does My Heavenly
Father's will." (Matt. 7,21)
Doing the will of God in this life is the
price of our eternal reward. It is also the
price of peace and contentment in our homes
and our community.
We know what the will of God means in
relation to our neighbor. It means treating
him as a fellow son of God, recognizing him
as an equal image of the infinite God who
Is our Creator, our Redeemer and our Judge.
This fact was emphasized repeatedly by the
Apostles in the society of their day, rife as
it was with deep cleavages and animosities.
St. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians
(3: 28) said, "For you are all the children of
God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all
you have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek;
there is neither slave nor freeman."
The Bishops of this country, in 1958, ap-
plied the doctrine of Christ to the social
-problems of today when they said, "The heart
of the race question is moral and religious.
It concerns the rights of man and our atti-
tude toward our fellow man. If our attitude
is governed by the great Christian law of
love of neighbor and respect for his rights,
then we can work out harmoniously the
techniques for making legal, educational,
economic, and social adjustments."
Thank God, great advances have been
made in developing a Christian attitude in
the field of civil rights, with consequent
gains in equality in education, housing, job
opportunities and social life. These gains
are assurances that further progress is pos-
sible. But further progress is assured only
if we continue to condemn individually the
denial of equal housing, education and job
opportunities as morally wrong, just as we
condemn other sinful actions which are part
of the crime wave afflicting so many of our
great cities. Those who deny a neighbor.
solely on the basis of race, the opportunity
to buy a house, enjoy equal educational and
Job opportunities are in effect denying that
right to Christ Himself.
As Christians, we cannot select which part
of the moral law we are to obey. We can-
not grant ourselves personal privilege or
exemption from any part of it. We cannot
be part-time Christians or partially-loyal
Christians. We are brothers of Christ and
sons of God only if we accept His law fully--
and that means accepting the dignity of
every other person. If any one of us is a
son of God, everyone is a son of God?wlth
the same duties and same opportunities.
To fulfill the law of Christ our attitude
must be, "What can I do to help my neigh-
bor?every neighbor but especially him who
needs most my help?"
Faithfully yours in Christ,
PATRICK A. O'BOYLE,
Archbishop of Washington.
Mission of Mercy
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR.
OF OHIO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, May 23, 1966
Mr. CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR. Mr.
Speaker, Davis Elkins, whose father and
grandfather were U.S. Senators from
West Virginia, has been in Vietnam for
the past several months distributing
2,400 tons of relief supplies for the Viet-
namese people as a gesture of good will
from the Americans. In traveling
around the country he found an orphan-
age at Di An which had no water supply
system, so he had a water supply system
built, and paid for out of his own pocket,
next to the orphanage in order to save
the children carrying water in buckets
f or about a mile and a half according to
this report. Such actions and good deeds
should be brought to the attention of
us all:
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
A2754 Approved For 8.54m2sIMR6A9Iny_67 TIONAR03240 0 0 70 0 0 6-5
May 2, /9
iErans she Morgantown (W. Va.) Post, Apr.
10Cia
la.aoun. AT ODERANDE IN VIETNAM HONORS
WEST VIRGINIA SOLDIERS, MAJOR ELKINS
There 'S a shiny new plaque on the well of
an orphanage at Di An in South Vietnam
that; reads: "Dedicated to the men of West
Virginia who gave their lives in service to
(LA and their country in the Republic of
Vietnam. Also in memory of Major Davis
Elkins, U.S. Army 7th Inf. Regt., Belleau
Woods and Argonne Forest. France, 1916-
I.910."
ilohind it. there's quite a story, the story of
a young West; Virginian who went to South
Viet Nun on a mission of mercy and found
himself all but overwhelmed by the needs of
Hie people of that war-torn nation.
The story came to light when former
Morgantown radio announcer Bill (Micky)
.flarris, now an Army lieutenant in South
Viet Nam, ran into Davis Elkins, widely
known in Young Republican circles, and a
resident of Elkins when he isn't busy with
Isis political and business interests. He's a
WWI graduate whose father and granddad
were U.S. Senators from West Virginia.
It. Harris reported the encounter in a
letter to a friend James Welden, another
former radio announcer.
here's how Lt. Harris tells the story:
In case you didn't know it already, our
good friend Davis Elkins has been here in
Viet Nam for the past several months on
a mission from the Young Republicans, the
Young Democrats and the Junior Chamber
of Commerce. He came here with 2,400 tons
of relief supplies for the Vietnamese people
as a gesture of good will from the Americans.
You'd never believe how badly this type of
thing is needed and how much good it has
done already.
Well, old Davis did some traveling around
the countryside and he got pretty wrapped
up in this place and its problems. 'They've
got this orphanage over at Di An which
houses over 400 children who lost their
parents as a result of the war. He was there
with Col. Lambert, who is pretty much of a
legend in Viet Nam. He's only got one eye
and he is a war hero in the past three U.S.
armilicts. Right now he's free-lancing for
the Army as a special assistant to Gen.
Westmoreland with the mission of helping
the Vietnamese people in any way possible.
He's quite a colorful character and the Viet-?
namese peopie love him.
Before gooing to Di An, they had spent
about a month traveling around the country-
side supervising the distribution of the food-
stuffs. Actually it was quite a venture for
Davis because Col. Lambert is fearless and
they went a 'few places where the proverbial
"angels fear to tread." Some of the roads
they traveled are only used by convoys norm-
ally, and then not without trouble from
',he VC.
Th ay moved about in a pickup truck, just
the two of them, with Davis reading two
months old hometown papers to keep him
from thinking of the possibility of VC recep-
tion committees. Col. Lambert insisted there
was no real danger because he never moved
an inch without his trusty pen knife for
protection. They were quite the talk of III
(;orps.
started to tell you earlier, they were
visiting this orphanage at Di An. You may
have read about it in the papers. Two
American sergeants were shot in the back,
one fatally, while they were working there
on their own time. 'They were from the
Viral) Infantry Division..
anyway, Davis learned that the orphanage
lad no water supply system. Previously,
they had carried water in buckets for about
a mile and a half. I guess the kids sort of
get to him. Before he left there, he had
built and paid for, out of his own pocket, a
water supply system next to the orphanage.
Madame Ngai, a well-known Vietnamese
philanthropist who built the orphanage, in-
sisted that he have a plaque placed on the
well. So, Elkins purchased a brorze plaque.
It was a tremendous help to Madame
Ngai's orphanage and it really helped to con-
vince the area U.S. intentions were directed
at their welfare. It is impossible to place
too much emphasis on American civic action
and the results that it produces. The work
that many Americans are doing over here on
their own time and at their own expense
is invaluable and it is easy to see that this
type of thing must be done if we ,ire to win
the support of the Vietnamese poople.
Davis will be going back to work in the
States in a few days and Col. Lamhert is ex-
pecting to retire pretty soon. ID Corps is
going to miss them to say the least
Secretary McNamara's Credo: The United
States Has No Mandate To Police the
World and No Charter To Rescue
Floundering Regimes Who Fail To Meet
the Expectations of Their Citizenry
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
II9N, ROMAN C. PUCINSKI
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday? May 11, 196i
Mr. PUCANSKI. Mr. Speaker, Secre-
tary of Defense Robert S. McNamara de-
livered a historic speech before the Amer-
ican Society of Newspaper Editors in
Montreal. Canada, last week.
Among other things, Secretary Mc-
Namara said:
The United States has no mane ate from
on high to police the world, and no inclina-
tion to do so. There have been classic cases
in which our deliberate non-action was the
wisest action of all.
Certainly we have no charter to rescue
floundering regimes, who have brought vio-
lence on themselves by deliberately refusing
to meet the legitimate expectation)) of their
citizenry.
,y>nsider this one of the moEe. impor-
tant pronouncements emanating from
the Johnson administration sio.ce the
President took office.
I believe that all of those -nervous
nellies" who have been sharpshooting at
the President's policies and complaining
that we have no policy ought to read Sec-
retary McNamara's speech in its entirety.
I should like particularly to call their at-
tention to the quote cited above.
I believe that Secretary McNamara's
unequivocal assertion that we do not in-
tend to pollee the entire world should be
a great source of comfort to these who,
along with President Johnson, seek an
end to world hostilities.
Mr. Speaker, I am placing Secretary
McNamara's speech in the RECOED today
in its entirety because I consider it one of
the most significant pronouncements of
our times. It spells out concisely the
magnitude of our problems ahead, but
it also makes clear the conditions under
which this Nation will a.,id its allies.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary's McNamara's
speech follows:
ADDRESS BY ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, SECRET, R
OF DEFENSE, BEFORE AMERICAN Si WIETY
NEWSPAPER EDITORS, QUEEN ELIZABETIE
HOTEL, MONTREAL, CANADA, W ED NES D A Y
MAY 18, 1966
President Royster, ladies and gentlemen,
any American would be fortunate to visit
this lovely island city, in this hospitable
land.
But there is a special satisfactam for ),
Secretary of Defense to cross the longest
border in the world?and realize Unit it I?
also the least armed border in the world. It
prompts one to reflect how negative aud liar-
row a notion of defense still clouds our
century.
There is still among us an almost eradi-
cable tendency to think of our security prob-
lem as being exclusively a military problem -
and to think of the military problem as be-
ing exclusively a weapons-system ar hard-
ware problem.
The plain, blunt truth is that contem-
porary man still conceives of war amd peace
in much the same stereotyped terms that his
ancestors did. The fact that these ances-
tors?both recent and remote?were con-
spicuously unsuccessful at avoiding war, and
enlarging peace doesn't seem to dampen stir
capacity for cliches.
We still tend to conceive of national ae-
curity almost solely as a state of armed
readiness: a vast, awesome arsenal of weap-
onry.
We still tend to assume that it is i ri mayfly
this purely military ingredient that creates
security.
We are still haunted by this coaeept ni
military hardware.
But how limited a concept this tel nally is,
becomes apparent when one ponders the
kind of peace that exists between the United
States and Canada.
It is a very cogent example. Here we are,
two modern nations: highly developed tech-
nologically, each with immense territory.
both enriched with great reserves of natural
resources, each militarily sophisticated?and
yet, we sit across from one another, divided
by an unguarded frontier of thousands of
miles and here is not a remotest set of
circumstances, in any imaginable time-
frame of the future, in which our two na-
tions would wage war on one another.
It is so unthinkable an idea as to be total-
ly absurd.
But why is that so?
Is it because we are both ready in an in-
stant to hurl our military hardware at one
another?
Is it because we are both zeroed in (in one
another's vital targets?
Is it because we are both armed to our
technological teeth that we do not go to
war?
The whole notion?as applied to (air two
countries?is ludicrous.
Canada and the United States are :it tea'o
for reasons that have nothing whal over to
do with our mutual military readiness.
We are at peace?truly at peace-. necanse
of the vast fund of compatable com-
mon principles, and shared ideals.
We have our differences and our diversity
and let us hope for the sake of a mu' ually
rewarding relationship we never bacon a' ster -
ile carbon copies of one another.
But the whole point is that our isiais or
mutual peace has nothing whatevel to do
with our military hardware.
Now this is not to say, obviously ltniittgul,
that the concept of military oh:tern-in( is is T)(1
longer relevant in the contemporary vorld.
Unhappily, it still is critically releva it, with
respect to our potential adversaries.
But it has no relevance whatever Ma ween
the United States and Canada.
We are not adversaries. We are my: going
to become adversaries. And it is not mutual
military deterrance that keeps us frian he
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
A28 Approved FoCROIOUSB10041612MBEICA1DP67/1357312181;02040007000641qy 23, 1966
after case, ignores that provision in its
interpretation of charges relating to un-
fair labor practices.
How long is the Congress going to
countenance this practice? Several bills
are pending in the Congress now which
would overhaul the NLRB and create a
fair and responsible agency to handle
labor-management issues. The one and
only function of such an agency should
be to interpret the law the Congress has
enacted, and do so in a fair and judicious
manner.
Let us hope that the Supreme Court
will resolve thiS issue in a responsible
manner when decisions on several cases
now pending before that tribunal are
handed down. And let us hope that the
members of the NLRB will do some soul
searching and recognize the legal limita-
tions of their authority in the perform-
ance of their duties. The public interest
can ask no more and can be satisfied with
nothing less.
Hearings Held in Minneapo
Vietnam?IV
on War in
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. DONALD M. FRASER
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 19, 1966
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, two ad-
ditional experts appeared at the Min-
neapolis hearings on Vietnam which I
conducted. One is Edward Coen, asso-
ciate professor of economics at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota, and the other is
Carl A. Auerbach, professor of law at the
University of Minnesota. Their role was
to summarize and comment on questions
brought up by the previous speakers.
The summaries follow:
EDWARD CORN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECO-
NOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
PROFESSOR COEN. I would like to address
myself to the problem of the proper terms
of settlement. -
We have said to the Communists that all
we want them to do is to get out of South
Viet Nam and they have said to us that all
they want us to do is to get out of South
Viet Nam and it is hard to see what sort of
compromise in the middle of those two de-
mands is feasible.
It's something like the Cuban Missile crisis.
Khrushchev wanted to put fifty missiles on
Cuba and we didn't want any and looking
back it doesn't seem as though he would
have settled for twenty-five.
Now, if this is the case then we have to
give much more thought to the gravity of this
situation than would be the case if there were
some middle ground and I want to argue that
if it is necessary to get out of Viet Nam In
order to prevent the loss of hundreds of
thousands of lives I think we should leave.
We may be able to find some face saving
device, and if we can that will be all to the
good but nevertheless as of now I would say
we aught to leave.
Now, it is felt that this would be a terrible
blow to our prestige and again I'd like to
mention again what happened in Cuba.
Khrushchev backed down one hundred per
cent and you would think that would ruin
his prestige from then on, but if you will
think about it, as a result of what he did
we, without being conscious of the fact, came
to realize that he was a rational man, not
given to total recklessness, and we began to
feel much more secure than we had before.
In fact, we began to feel so secure with
him that we were upset when he was turned
out of power later on by his fellow Commu-
nists and I believe that the rest of the world
regards this present problem in the same
light.
Our newspapers have not told us this, but
most countries in the world, almost every
country in the world, thinks that our con-
duct in this affair is barbaric and reckless
and they would be most reassured if we were
to pull out and prove that we have a moral
responsibility that goes with the holding of
the greatest amount of military power.
Now, I'd like to develop the arguments in
favor of our withdrawal. One argument that
has been given for us staying there goes as
follows:
Secretary Rusk has said we are not in
Viet Namn to save face; we are there to save
South Viet Nam; and I would like?well,
none of us are against salvation?but I
would like to examine more carefully what
he means by saving the South Vietnamese.
SAVING THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE
You may have noticed a few months ago
that at a press conference General Ky said
that the man he most admired in the world
was Adolph Hitler and what South Viet Nam
needed was another Adolph Hitler. More-
over, General Ky is not unrepresentative of
the social class from which he comes and
whose power we are engaged in protecting;
that class which will rule South Viet Nam
when we have won our war and left: That
class, by the almost unanimous testimony of
responsible American observers in that coun-
try, is corrupt and selfish and totally with-
out social conscience.
Now, the question is as follows: How many
people are we prepared to ask to die, how
many people are we prepared to kill so that
the survivors can live under a right wing dic-
tatorship by General Ky instead of a left
wing dictatorship headed by Ho Chi Minh?
What is the margin of superiority of the
Saigon Government over the Hanoi Govern-
ment which justifies us in committing all
this brutality and killing all these people??
And not merely just our own soldiers?
NATURE OF THE WAR
The next point I'd like to make concerns
the nature of the war that we are fighting.
You all remember a few weeks ago that we
bombed by mistake a little Village called
Deduc and when one of the fighter pilots was
interviewed afterwards he described how he
peeled off and went in to attack the Village.
"I could see people standing around in the
street," he said, "but that wasn't unusual; I
have seen people before in similar attacks."
O.K. What does that mean? It means
that when the Viet Cong go to a Village and
ask for food or ask the Villagers to nurse
their wounded or just to shelter them, that
Village becomes unfriendly and that's the
Village that we are entitled to bomb and
we go over there and even if they are stand-
ing around in the streets we drop our
phosphorous bombs on their children.
I'd like to read to you a piece from the
New York Times a few days ago. The head-
line is: "Rumble Depicts the Agony of a
Town in Viet Nam":
"Do Son is a complex of five prosperous
fishing hamlets set among fruit groves on
the beach. In mid-August United States
and Vietnamese Military Officers decided that
the Communists were using Do Son as a
base. Now, if they want to use it as a base
they don't ask the mayor if they can come in.
They come in regardless. So, the next two
months until the Viet Cong finally Withdrew
it was periodically and ferociously shelled
by 7th Fleet Destroyers and bombed by Viet-
namese and American planes.
"Vietnamese Government Officials are
certain that at least one hundred and eighty-
four civilians died, but they conceded that
because of lack of records and because the
confusion is still great no one really knows
how many. Some reasonable estimates run
as high as six hundred. The number of
wounded is also not known but is believed
much higher than six hundred.
"When an American visits Do Son these
days the Villagers seem to find a peculiar
relief in telling horror stories of how many
of the inhabitants were killed by bombs and
shells.
"'There,' said a fisherman pointing to a
bomb crater beside a ruined house, 'a woman
and her six children were killed in a bomb
shelter when it got a direct hit.'
"At least ten other hamlets in this heavily
populated province of about seven hundred
thousand persons have been destroyed as
thoroughly as the five in Do Son. Each
month six hundred to a thousand civilians
wounded by bomb shells and Napalm are
brought to the provincial hospital. Officials
say that about thirty per cent of these cases
require major surgery. A recent visitor
found several children lying on cots under
mosquito netting their bodies horribly
burned by Napalm. Officials believe a ma-
jority of the civilians who are wounded
never get to a hospital because of a lack of
transportation because they live in areas
still controlled by the Viet Cong."
Now, those are just a sample and I think
it is significant that while our government
tells us how many Americans are killed each
week, how many South Vietnamese are killed
each week, how many Viet Cong are killed
each week, they never tell us or give us the
vaguest estimate of how many civilians they
are killing each week. I think the number
Is so large you would be ashamed to hear
of it.
Now, in the newspaper tonight it says that
we may put as many as half a million men
into South Viet Nam and the CommuniSts
are capable of putting in another half a
million and they are going to run back and
forth killing each other a little bit but mostly
killing civilians because the Communists
aren't going to be able to bring the rice the
several hundred miles that they need from
North Viet Nam and they are going to force
the peasants to give them part of their rice
crop and we are going to bomb the same
peasants for doing it or take away their
rice from them so that they cannot give it to
the Viet Cong.
Now, our soldiers will get fed and the Viet
Cong will get fed but I think millions of
civilians will starve and will die from dis-
ease.
Now, this in effect is a sort of coalition,
a coalition between us and the Viet Cong to
see how how much terror we can inflict on
the people of South Viet Nam in the name
of freeing.
ESCALATION
Now, I'd like to talk a little bit about
escalation. The theory of escalation, I sup-
pose, is somewhat as follows: We both esca-
late but we are assuming that they are going
to quit first. O.K. Now the question is are
they and how soon? Does our government
really know how soon they will quit? They
haven't done a very good job of predicting
up to this point because sometime ago Secre-
tary McNamara said that he thought by De-
cember, 1965, we would be able to start
bringing home most of the American Troops.
I'd like to just make this one fundamental
point: There is a limit, a strict limit, to the
benefit which we can bring to these people.
We cannot give them democracy. We can
only give them a right wing dictatorship.
O.K.?
Is there some level of casulaties such that
if it occurs it will make the pain and the
brutality and grief ten times greater than
this benefit? Now, the people who advocate
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
May 23, 1:)66Approved FK?,e6RtsRar5ga/2hecifitBID?D6XMININNO0400070006-5
.A27517
These relationships call for realism. But
realism is not a hardened, inflexible, un-
imaginative attitude. The realistic mind is
a restlessly creative mind?free of naive de-
lusions, but full of practical alternatives.
There are practical alternatives to our cur-
rent relationships with both the Soviet Union
and Communist China.
A vast ideological chasm separates us from
them?anfi to a degree, separates them from
one another.
There is nothing to be gained from our
seeking an ideological rapproachement; but
breaching the isolation of great nations like
Red China, even when that isolation is large-
ly of its own making, reduces the danger of
potentially catastrophic misunderstandings,
and increases the incentive on both sides to
resolve disputes by reason rather than by
Ii wee.
There are many ways in which we can
build bridges toward nations who would cut
themselves off from meaningful contact with
us. We can do so with properly balanced
trade relations, diplomatic contacts, and in
some cases even by exchanges of military
observers.
We have to know where it is we want to
place this bridge; what sort of traffic we want
to travel over it; and on what mutual foun-
dations the whole structure can be designed.
There are no one-cliff bridges. If you are
going to span a chasm, you have to rest the
structure on both cliffs.
Now cliffs, generally speaking, are rather
hazardous places. Some people are afraid
even to look over the edge. But in a thermo-
nuclear world. we cannot afford any political
acrophobia.
President Johnson has put the matter
squarely. By building bridges to those who
make themselves our adversaries, "we can
help gradually to create a community of in-
I,erest, a community of trust, and a com-
munity of effort."
With respect to a "community of effort"
let me suggest a concrete proposal for our
own present young generation in the United
States.
It is a committed and dedicated genera-
tion: it has proven that in its enormously
impressive performance in the Peace Corps
overseas; and in its willingness to volunteer
for a final assault on such poverty and lack
of opportunity that still remain in our own
country.
As matters stand, our present Selective
Service System draws on only a minority of
eligible young men.
That is an inequity.
it seems to me that we could move toward
remedying that inequity by asking every
young person in the United States to give
two years of service to his country?whether
in one of the military services, in the Peace
Corps, or in some other volunteer develop-
mental work at home or abroad.
We could encourage other countries to do
the same; and we could work out exchange
programs?much as the Peace Corps is al-
ready planning to do.
While this is not an altogether new sug-
gestion, it has been criticized as in appro-
priate while we are engaged in a shooting
war.
But I believe precisely the opposite is the
case. It is more appropriate now than ever.
For it would underscore what our whole
purpose is in Vietnam?and indeed anywhere
in the world where coercion, or injustice, or
lack of decent opportunity still holds sway.
ft would make meaningful the central con-
cept of security: a world of decency and de-
velopment?where every man can feel that
his personal horizon is rimmed with hope.
Mutual interest?mutual trust?mutual
effort; those are the goals. Can we achieve
those goals with the Soviet Union, and with
Communist China? Can they achieve them
with one another?
The answer to these questions lies in the
answer to an even more fundamental ques-
tion.
Who is man.?
Is he a rational animal?
If he is, then the goals can ultimitely be
achieved.
If he is not, then there is little point in
making the effort.
All the evidence of history suggests that
man is indeed a rational animal?but with
a near infinite capacity for folly. His his-
tory seems largely a halting, but persistent,
effort to raise his reason above his animality.
He draws blueprints for Utopia. But never
quite gets it built. In the end, he plugs
away obstinately with the only build ng ma-
terial really ever at hand: his owa part-
comic, part-tragic, part-cussed, but part-
glorious nature.
I, for one, would not count a gloaal free
society out.
Coercion, after all, merely captures man.
Freedom captivates him.
Thank you very much.
NLRB Disregards the Law
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. 0. C. FISHER
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA7 IVES
Thursday, May 19, 1966
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, the rec-
ords are becoming replete with question-
able actions on the part of the National
Labor Relations Board. Scores of in-
stances are piling up which si rongly
indicate repeated misuse of authority
and the assumption of .unwarmnted
power on the part of the NLRB inad its
regional offices..
Today I desire to add another instance
to the record of cases that have been
badly mishandled. I have sought and
obtained factual information relating to
it. I am referring to a ease involving
Patio Foods, Inc., of San Antonio. Here
is a brief chronology of some events
which strongly indicates prejudice and
prejudgment of issues on the part of the
NLRB and its employees:
In February 1965, the company was
notified that a union, the ICE, was un-
dertaking an organizational effort in its
plant.
The company, in June, requested an
election from NLRB, and an election was
held on July 22, 1965. The union was
soundly defeated, by a margin of 235 to
160.
In September the company learned
that some 23 charges of unfair labor
practices had been filed against t, fol-
lowing the election.
On December 8, 1965-i the company
received a notice from the NLRB in
Houston to the effect that the NLRB had
refused to certify the election, and cited
three of the charges as the reason with-
out any ruling on the othm* 20 that were
pending.
Then, on December 10, 1965, tile com-
pany wrote to Mr. Clifford Potter,
NLRB's Houston Regional Director, and
pointed out the following coincidences:
First. That it took the Board 139 days
to give a decision on the election; where-
as in an other election, involving anoth-
er company, held about the saint time
as the one at the Patio Foods plant,
where the union won, the Board gave
its decision in only 77 days.
Second. That it was unusual that the
decision in the Patio Foods case wa -4 held
within 1 week before the same union
involved was holding an election at
Standard Electric in San Antonio, which
contest was widely used as propaganda
designed to influence the election at
Patio Foods.
Third. That organizers of the union
in the company's plant circulated ru-
mors about future developments against
the company, and did so several days
before the company received any infor-
mation from the NLRB's office.
Another coincidence occurred on the
afternoon of the day the regional di-
rector received the letter from the com-
pany: that afternoon the company's at-
torney received a telephone call from
Potter's assistant in Houston advising
him it had been decided to file 13 more
unfair labor practice charges, all re-
lating to the previous June and July.
This was followed by the appea-ance,
within 3 days, of two men in the com-
pany's San Antonio plant, who filed
three more unfair labor practice charges.
Mr. Speaker, the unsavory manner in
which the NLRB's Houston office handled
this case is highly suspect. It smacks of
prejudice and a total lack of judicial
temperament. Obviously, the filing of
the new charges was -a form of retaliation
against the company because of the
writing of the letter to Potter on De-
cember 10. This conduct was, on its
face, highhanded and reprehei isible
Here we have every indication of a con-
spiracy on the part of the NLRB's re--
gional office, which in conjunction with
the defeated and disgruntled union,
seemed determined to make life miser-
able for the management of Patio Foods.
If the NLRB has any desire to be fair
and judicial in the discharge of its func-
tions under the law, the regional office
in Houston should be thoroughly investi-
gated. The director there should be
either discharged or admonished to de-
sist from repeating such practices in the
future.
Most of the charges of unfair labor
practices in connection with plant elec-
tions relate to expressions by manage-
ment. Surely members of the NLRB
know, or should know, that the rights of
freedom of speech by management, as
well as that of labor, was spelled out in a
law enacted by the Congress in 1947. Let
us here refer to the wording of suction
8(c) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which
states:
The expressing of any views, argument, or
opinion, or the dissemination thereof,
whether in written, printed, grapli,e, or
visual form, shall not constitute or be evi-
dence of an unfair labor practice under any
of the provisions of this Act, if such ex-
pression contains no threat of reprisal or
force or promise of benefit.
Yet we know that despite the clear and
concise wording and meaning of the law,
with respect to freedom of speech on the
part of management, the NLRB, in case
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Mak 23, 1966 Approved EeNtliffsgSfORAVelaitdith-RDWIEENIME000400070006-5 A2759
escalation here, are they prepared to say
with some high probability that the Com-
munists will give in before the level of
casualties has reached a figure that totally
dwarfs any conceivable benefit from "win-
ning this war?"
Thank you.
CARL A. AUERBACH, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNI-
VERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Congressman FRASER. Now, our last speaker
before we get to the real exchange within
and among the panel is Professor Carl Auer-
bach,
Professor AUERBACH. Thank you, Congress-
man FRASER.
I have been given a rather impossible job
as the last speaker to reply in this short
time to two totally different proposals.
One, that we get out entirely, and the
other, the more moderate proposal as made
by Mr. Coen's predecessor, but I do believe
that I ought to concentrate on what Mr.
Coen had to say and let the panelists discuss
other matters of what went before.
I think it is rather reprehensible of Pro-
fessor Coen to imply with as much fervor as
he has implied that only those who are
opposed to American policy in Viet Nam are
fully appreciative of the horrors of the war.
There isn't a man on this panel who hasn't
lived through those horrors and seen them
day by day.
It is not enough to get simply indignant
or eloquent. We need not be reminded that
any kind of war and particularly thermo-
nuclear war is a crime against humanity.
The question is to use the intelligence and
the brains that God gave us to try to see
straight what ought to be clone. I would
have been more sympathetic with his elo-
quence if he had one word to say about the
barbarities committed by North Viet Nam,
not in South Viet Nam, but in North Viet
Nam itself.
Even before our bombing began, by 1958
two very serious events had occurred which
alerted onr government to what we might
expect. The first was the activities of the
Communist party up in North Viet Nam in
their own country.
As soon as Ho Chi Minh assumed power he
engaged in the land reform program in a
situation which did not call for it because
North Viet Nam particularly was always a
country of small land holdings in which a
landlord was called someone who owned
probably two acres or less.
Estimates of the brutalities and of the
executions of the peasants in North Viet
Nam total in the hundreds of thousands. He
thoroughly purged his own Communist op-
position. Ten thousand Trotskyrests were
murdered and these are the extreme left wing
which at that time were inimical to Ho Chi
Minh.
In South Viet Nam as the Vietminh under
the Geneva Accords withdrew to the North
they left terror, they bombed buildings con-
trary to the Geneva Accords. By 1958 they
had killed thirty thousand Village chiefs,
school teachers, social workers, and Village
notables or elders in general. Ever since 1964,
North Viet Nam has been determined to de-
stroy the social. and economic fabric of South
Viet Nam.
There isn't one iota of evidence that the
progress made in North Viet Nam exceeds
that made in South Viet Nam either on the
agricultural or the industrial front contrary
to what Mr. Romeyn Taylor gave us in a new
mystique that it takes authoritarian leftists
to achieve social and economic reform.
That's simply bunk.
The only area in which the progress of the
North Vietnamese industrially has exceeded
that of South Viet Nam is in the area where
South Viet Nam completely lacks raw ma-
terials: For example, coal. In other areas
the achievements are comparable.
There is a man of great importance and
great background and learning in this area
who is not an American and who has just
returned from South Viet Nam. He is a
University of London Reader in Vietnamese
Studies which is the rank in British Uni-
versities just below that of full professor.
This man reports that there isn't one shred
of evidence that he could find that there
Is popular support in South Viet Nam for the
National Liberation Front. The National
Liberation Front as an indigenous movement
Is a segment in the imaginations of people
like Professor Coen.
He reports that there is growing support
of the government in South Viet Nam.
I deplore with Professor Coen Premier Ky's
statement, which he later withdrew but not
'completely to my satisfaction. The hope,
however, is that in time as some tranquility
is restored to South Viet Nam that a gov-
ernment can be created which will achieve
for the people of South Viet Nam what they
hoped that Diem would achieve in 1954, a
man who cruelly disappointed their hopes as
time went on. He reports that there is grow-
ing support on the part of University Stu-
dents who for the first time have volun-
teered to help in South Viet Nam enter-
prises of all sorts without being paid for it
which is quite a commentary on the stu-
dents there but nevertheless is progress meas-
ured by the past.
TERMS OF A SETTLEMENT
It is very easy as members on the panel
have said to chart out briefly or at length
what the terms of a settlement might be
like. We would all like the bombings of
North Viet Nam to cease, but we would all
like, too, to see the Viet Gong terror and
destruction in the south stop.
We would like to see both sides get out.
We would like to see the people of South Viet
Nam have some chance to determine their
own destiny, but anybody who believes that
the victory of the Viet Cong is a precondition
for the achievement by the South Vietnamese
people of their own destiny is cruelly mis-
taken. Unfortunately, wishing will not make
It so.
Just as it takes two to tango it takes more
than one to negotiate. We have repeatedly
offered to negotiate on a basis that will assure
the right of the South Vietnamese people to
determine their own destiny. I would even
settle for a basis that would allow?as tran-
quillity is restored?elections in South Viet
Nam even though there would be no elections
in North Viet Nam. That too is a conces-
sion we have to make to the interests of
peace, but to assume that by getting out we
will solve any problems is a cruel hoax, a hoax
that may lead us into a more barbaric and a
more total war than even this cruel war .in
which we are now engaged.
If our word, if our political responsibility
in Southeast Asia is denied by a unilateral
withdrawal, what hope will people in other
areas?in Australia, in Japan, in India, in
Indonesia not to speak of Laos and Burma?
what hope will they have that we are com-
mitted or involved in their destinies whatso-
ever?
What hope will we have for a lasting peace
when the Red Chinese will be able to say to
the Soviet Union, "You see, the United States
is a paper tiger after all. Your arguments
were completely wrong. You broke with us
because you thought that wars of national
liberation would endanger world peace. We
told you they? would never endanger world
peace, that co-existence was a fraud from the
Communist's point of view because the Amer-
icans are paper tigers. You see, we were
right."
Can you imagine that this would be fol-
lowed by a period of peaceful co-existence or
peaceful cooperation with the Communist
world or that the trends toward liberation in
the Communist world will be improved? We
must stay there if for no other reason than to
prove to the Red Chinese that wars of libera-
tion will not pay off and that they have more
to gain by a policy of peaceful co-existence
with the United States than they do by a
policy of armed insurrection which disregards
the wishes of the people of Southeast Asia.
LAWS RELATIVE TO THE PRINTING OF
DOCUMENTS
Either House may order the printing of a
document not already provided for by law,
DIU only when the same shall be accompa-
nied by an estimate from the Public Printer
as to the probable cost thereof. Any execu-
tive department, bureau, board or independ-
ent office of the Government submitting re-
ports or documents in response to inquiries
rrom Congress shall submit therewith an
estimate of the probable cost of printing the
usual number. Nothing in this section re-
lating to estimates shall apply to reports or
documents not exceeding 50 pages (U.S.
Code, title 44, sec. 140, p. 1938).
Resolutions for printing extra copies, when
presented to either House, shall be referred
immediately to the Committee on House
Administration of the House of Representa-
tives or the Committee on Rules and Admin-
istration of the Senate, who, in making their
report, shall give the probable cost of the
proposed printing upon the estimate of the
Public Printer, and no extra copies shall be
printed before such committee has reported
(U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 133, p. 1937).
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE
Additional copies of Government publica-
tions are offered for sale to the public by the
Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, at
cost thereof as determined by the Public
Printer plus 50 percent: Provided, That a dis-
count of not to exceed 25 percent may be al-
lowed to authorized bookdealers and quantity
purchasers, but such printing shall not inter-
fere with the prompt execution of work for
the Government. The Superintendent of
Documents shall prescribe the terms and
conditions under which he may authorize
the resale of Government publications by
bookdealers, and he may designate any Gov-
ernment officer his agent for the sale of Gov-
ernment publications under such regulations
as shall be agreed upon by the Superintend-
ent of Documents and the head of the re-
spective department or establishment of the
Government (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 72a,
Supp. 2).
CHANGE OF RESIDENCE
Senators, Representatives, and Delegates
who have changed their residences will please
give information thereof to the Government
Printing Office, that their addresses may be
correctly given in the RECORD.
RECORD OFFICE AT THE CAPITOL
An office for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
with Mr. Raymond F. Noyes in charge, is lo-
cated in room 11-112, House wing, where or-
ders will be received for subscriptions to the
RECORD at $1.50 per month or for single
copies at 1 cent for eight pages (minimum
charge of 3 cents). Also, orders from Mem-
bers of Congress to purchase reprints from
the RECORD should be processed through this
office.
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY
The Public Printer, under the direction of
the Joint Committee on Printing, may print
for sale, at a price sufficient to reimburse the
expenses of such printing, the current Con-
gressional Directory. No sale shall be made
on credit (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 150, p.
1939).
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
Approved For ReleagrOWNER?proNAlpt67,WM9R000400070006-5
REPRESENTATIVES WITH
RESIDENCES IN WASHINGTON
OFFICE ADDRESS: House Office Building,
Washington,. D.C.
Streets northwest unless otherwise stated]
Speaker: John W. McCormack
Abbitt, Watkins M., Va___ _
Abernethy, Thomas 0., 6278 29th St.
Miss.
Adair, E. Ross. hid_ _4000 Mass. Ave.
Adams, Brock, Wash
Addabbo, Joseph P., N.Y___
Albert, Carl, Okla_ 4614 Reno Rd.
Anderson, John 13., Ill
Anderson, William R., 3006 P St.
Tenn..
Andrews, George W., Ala__ _3108 Cathedral
Ave.
Andrews, Glenn, Ala
Andrews, Mark, N. Da/c
At11111/12110, Frank, Ill
Arends, Leslie C., Ill_ ______4815 Dexter St.
Ash brook, John M., Ohio__
Ashley, Thomas L., Ohio__
Ashmore, Robert T., S.C___
Aspinall, Wayne N., Colo_. .The Towers Apts.,
1.201 Cathedral
Ave.
Apes, William H.. Ohio _
Bandstra, Bert, Iowa
Baring, Walter S., Nev
Barrett William A., Pa
Bates, William H., Mass__.._
Bailin, James F., Mont
Beckworth, Lindley, Tex_
Belcher, Page, Okla
Alphonzo,
Bennett, Charles E., Fla_ __. _3421 Rusticway
Lime,
Plans Church, Va.
Berry, E. Y., S. Dak_ 118 Schotts
c,:otart NE.
Betts, Jackson E., Ohio
Bin gham, Jonathan B.,
Blatnik, John A., Minn
Bongs, Hale, La
Boland, Edward P., Mass___
Bo] ling, Richard, Mo 307 Warrenton Dr.,
silver Spring, Md.
Bol ton, Frances P. (Mrs.), 2301 Wyo. Ave.
Ohio.
Bow, Frank T., Ohio_ 4301 Mass. Ave.
Brademas, John, Ind
Bray, William G., Ind
Brock, W. E. (Bill), Tenn
Brooks, Jack, Tex
_Broomfield. William S.,
Mich.
Brown. Clarence J., Jr.,
Chi?.
Brown, George E., Jr., Calif_
Broyhill, James T., N.C
Broyhill, Joel T., Va iiuchanan, John, Ala
Blake, James A., Mass
Burleson, Omar, Tex 2601 Woodley Pl.
Burton, Laurence J., Utah...
Burton, Phillip, Calif..
Byrne, James A., Pa__
Byrnes, John W., Wis. 1215 25th St. S.,
Arlington, Va.
(lab dl, Earle, Ter
William T., N.J
Callan, Clair, Nebr 1200S. Court-
house Rd.,
Arlington, Va.
Callaway, Howard H., Ga_._
Cameron, Ronald Brooks,
Calif.
Carey, Hugh L., N.Y_
Carter, Tim Lee, Kg
Casey, Bob, Tex
Ccdcrberg, Elford A., Mich._
Oilier, Emanuel, N.Y The Mayflower
Chamberlain, Charles E
(Lieu, Frank. Ks,
taitney, Donald D., Ohio
Clark. Frank M., Pa 220 C St. SE.
Clausen, Don H., Calif
Clawson, Del, Calif
veland, James C., N.H
Clevenger, Raymond F.,
Mieh.
Conelan, Jeffery, Calif__ _1028 Now House
Office Building
Collier, Harold R., Ill__ __
Colmer, William M., Miss__
Conable, Barber B., Jr.,
N.Y.
Conte, Silvio 0., Mass_ __ . __ 5619 Lamar Rd.,
Washington 16,
D.C.
Conyers, John, Jr., Mich__
Cooley, Harold D., N.C_____2601 Woodley Pl.
Corbett, Robert J., Pa__ ___
Corman. James C., Calif.. __
Craley, N. Neiman, Jr., Pa__
Cramer, William C., Pia_ __6215 Beachway
Dr., Falls Church,
Va.
Culver, Jchn C., __
Cunningham, Glenn., Nebr_
Curtin, Willard S., Pa__._
Curtis, Thomas B., Mo___
Daddario, Emilio Q., Conn_
Hague. Paul B., Pa_ _
Daniels, Dominick V., IV J.._
Davis, Glenn R., Wis.......
Davis, John W., Ga
Dawson, William L.. Ill_
de Is, Garza, Eligio, Tex___
Delaney, Jam es J., N.Y_
Dent, John H., Pa
Denton, Winfield K., ma..
Derwinski., Edward .1 , _
Devine, Samuel L., Ohio__
Dickinson, William L., Ala_
Diggs, Charles C., Jr., Mich_
,Lihn D., Mach__
Dole, Robert, Kans _6136 13,.achway
Dr., Fads Church,
Va.
Donohue. Harold D.,
Dorn, W. J. Bryan, S.C. _ _ _2030 Laburnum
St., McLean, Va.
Dow, John G., N.Y
Dowdy, John, Tex..........
Downing, Thomas N., Va..__
Dulski, Thaddeus J., N.Y__1'705 Lougworth
House Office
Building
Duncan, John J., Tenn__ _ _
Duncan, Pobert B., Oreg.. __914 Lakeview Dr.,
Falls Church, Va.
Dwyer, F1,)renee P. (Mrs.).
N J.
Dyal. Ker. W., Calif.
Edmondson, Ed, Okia_ _
Edwards, Don, Calif ___ ___ _9201 F( x Meadow
Lit., Po, mac, Md.
Edwards, Edwin W.,
Edwards, Jack, Ala.........
Ellsworth, Robert F., Kans...
Erienborn ?John N., Ill_..__
Evans, Frank E., Coto__ --
Everett, Robert A., Tenn_ _
E vins, Joe L., Tenn__ __ _ _ __5044 KLng1e St.
Fallon, George H., Md___ _ _
Farbstein, Leonard, N.Y......
Farnsley, Charles P., Ky....
Farnum, Billie S., Mich__
Fascell, Dante B., Fla
Feighan, Michael A., Ohio_
Findley, Paul, Ill.._
Firm, Paul A., N.Y __.._____ _
Fisher, 0. C., Tex__________Calvert -Woodley
Flood, Dau del J., Pa_____ __The Collgressional
Flynt, John J., Jr., Ga
Fogarty, john E., N.J ........__1235 New House
Office Building
Foley, Thomas S., Wash_
Ford, Gerald R., Mich_____514 Crown View
Dr., Alexandria,
Va.
Ford, William D., Mich__ _
Fountain, L. H., N.C______ _The Westchester
Fraser, Donald M., Minn_ __
Frelinghu ysen, Peter 11.13., 3014 N
Friedel, Samuel N., Md__
Fulton, James G., Pa____
Fulton, Richard, Tenn____
Fuqua, Don, Fla________.__
Gallagher. Cornelius E.,
N.J.
Garmatz, Edward A., Md__
Gathings, E. C.,
Gettys, Tom S., S.C..____ --
Gia1M0, Robert N., Conn_ __
Gibbons, Sam, Fla..
Gilbert, Jacob H., N.Y
Gilligan, John J., Ohio
Gonzalez, Henry B., Tex 200 C St SE.
Goodell, Charles E., N.Y 3842 Macomb St.
Grabowski, Bernard F.,
Conn.
Gray, Kenneth J., Ill
Green, Edith (Mrs.), Greg_
Green, William J., Pa
Greigg, Stanley L., lowa 301 G S(. SW.
Grider, George W., Tenn 119 7th At. SE.
Griffiths, Martha W.
(Mrs.) , Mich.
Gross, H. R., Iowa
Grover, James R., Jr., N.Y
Gubser, Charles S., Calif
Gurney, Edward J., Fla
Hagan, G. Elliott, Ga
Hagen, Harlan, Calif
Haley. James A., Fla
Hall, Durward 0., Mo
Halleck, Charles A., /ad_ _4926 Up; on St.
Halpern, Seymour, N.Y........
Hamilton, Lee H., Ind
Hanley, James M., N.Y
Hanna, Richard T., Calif
Hansen, George, Idaho
Hansen, John R., Iowa___ _800 4th At. SW..
Apt. 8-701
Hansen, Julia Butler
(Mrs.), Wash.
Hardy, Porter, Jr., Va
Ilarsha, William H., Ohio
Harvey, James, Mich
Harvey, Ralph, Ind
Hathaway, William D.,
Maine,
Hawkins, Augustus F.,
Calif.
Hays, Wayne L., Ohio 3424 Barger Dr.,
Falls Church, Va
Hebert, F. Edward, La 26 Cockrell St.,
Alexandria, Va.
Hechler, Ken, W. Va
Helstoski, Henry, N.J
Henderson, David N., N.C.._
Herb o tag, A. S., Jr., Fla
Hicks, Floyd V., Wash
Holifield, Chet, Calif
Holland, Elmer J., Pa
Horton, Frank J., N.Y
Hosmer, Craig, Calif
Howard, James J., N.J
Hull, W. R., Jr., Mo___
Hungate, William L., Mo
Huot, J. Oliva, N.H
Hutchinson, Edward, Mich_
Ichorcl, Richard (Dick),
Mo.
Irwin. Donald J., Conn
Jacobs, Andrew, Jr., Ind
Jarman, John, Okla
Jennings, W. Pat, Va
Joelson, Charles S., N.J.._....
Johnson, Albert W., Pa
Johnson, Harold T., Calif
Johnson, Jed, Jr., Okla
Jonas, Charles Raper, N.C
Jones, Paul C., Mo 1111 Army-Navy
Dr., Arlington,
Va.
Jones, Robert E., Ala
Jones, Walter B., N.0
Karsten, Frank M., Mo
Karth, Joseph E., Minn....
Kastenmeier, Robert W.,
Wis.
Kee, James, W. Va
Keith. Hastings, Mass
Kelly, Edna F. (Mrs.) , N.Y_
Keogh, Eugene J., N.Y
King, Carleton J., N.Y
King, Cecil R., Calif
King, David S., Utah
Kirwan, Michael J., Ohio
Kluczynski, John C., Ill
Korneg,ay, Horace R., N.C
Krebs, Paul J., NJ
Kunkel, John C., Pa
Kupferman, Theodore R.,
N.Y.
Laird, Melvin R., Wis
Landrum, Phil M Ga
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400070006-5
5441 160). Ave.,
Hyattsville, Md.
4517 Wetherill Dr.
Westmoreland
Hills, Mo.
The Mayflower