RED FLEET MOVES INTO MEDITERRANEAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 7, 2001
• Sequence Number: 90
• Publication Date: November 22, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

November 2, pr? For Releeb / NQ AC A&5 9$003 ~Q 200290090-4
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker,. last
week's rejection of Waterbury as the
only city in Connecticut to be excluded
from the demonstration cities program
of HUD has aroused a predictable and
strong reaction among interested civic
groups in my home city. These people
who are bent upon the improvement of
this major municipality have been un-
able to understand the reason for the
discrimination practiced in this case.
As an example of the reaction which
I have described, I append to my re-
marks a copy of a letter which the
Greater Waterbury Chamber of Com-
merce has sent to Secretary Weaver on
this subject. I also add a news article
from the Waterbury Republican of No-
vember 18, 1967, describing the action
and reaction of this representative civic
organization:
GREATER WATERBURY CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE,
Waterbury, Conn., November 20, 1967.
Hon. ROBERT C. WEAVER,
Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The announcement from the
Department of Housing and Urban Renewal
last Thursday came as a real shock to
the people of Waterbury. Inclusion of the
cities of New Haven, Hartford and Bridge-
port and the exclusion of Waterbury seems
to point to some basic error in evaluation
of our application or in our presentation of
it. The records will show that this city
has not shared in urban renewal funds to
any degree that the cities mentioned above
have.
We strongly believe that a reexamination
of the facts in our case is in order, and we
urge that your office make a second exami-
nation.
The people of this community have sup-
ported wholeheartedly the idea of the Model
Cities program and have demonstrated this
support by full community participation in
the development of material and facts for
the application submitted to your office.
However, it is possible that we have not
provided precisely the information sought
or that we have not properly documented
that which we have placed before HUD
officials.
We would like to know from your office
where we have failed and why our applica-
tion was not accepted. Were we lacking in
details or specific explanations? Did we fail
to enclose enough supplemental material to
prove the case of Waterbury's need for these
funds?
Since we know intimately of the crying
needs of this community for participation
in the Model Cities program, we must con-
clude that for some reason we did not com-
municate this information properly to your
Department.
May we hear from you at your earliest
possible convenience with information as to
where we failed to measure up?
Respectfully yours,
REX BROWN,
First Vice President.
[From the Waterbury Republican, Nov. 18,
19671
CHAMBERS "DISMAYED" BY HUD
Expressing dismay at the decision of the
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, which omitted Waterbury from those
cities to receive model cities funds, the board
of directors of the Greater Waterbury Cham-
ber of Commerce promised "an aggressive ef-
fort" to get federal funds for the model cities
effort Friday.
In specific action, the board expressed "its
dismay at the announcement by HUD and
Secretary Robert C. Weaver to the effect
that Waterbury is not to share in model
cities funds.
"The elimination of Waterbury in the first
phase of model cities allocation, nothwith-
standing its relatively limited urban renewal
grants of the past, represents a form of dis-
crimination which is difficult indeed for us
to accept-especially in the light of the in-
clusion of the other major population centers
of Connecticut," the board said.
"We commend the City Administration,
U.S. Rep. John S. Monagan, Sens. Abraham
Ribicoff and Thomas J. Dodd, for their ef-
forts in Waterbury's behalf. At the same time
we resolve, beginning immediately, to carry
on an aggressive effort toward restoration of
this community to its rightful place of par-
ticipation in model cities fund allocations."
N6
RED FLEET MOVES INTO
MEDITERRANEAN -
(Mr. MONAGAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, it is un-
doubtedly human that in connection with
recent events in Europe and the Near
East we have centered our attention
more upon the critical outburst of force
itself than the strategic situations which
result. This is especially true with this
summer's Arab-Israel war. The United
Nations, is now working to resolve the
military and diplomatic difference of that
war, and we hope that a successful re-
sult will be achieved.
However, the significant fact for our
consideration is the influence which the
Soviet Union has gained in that troubled
area during the past few months. For the
first time in history the Russians have
established themselves as a maritime
power in the Mediterranean. They even
practice a gunboat diplomacy which had
been considered outdated. Their in-
creased influence and physical presence
will be more important than the outcome
of this June's 6-day war, and could well
create new issues in the continuing con-
flict between East and West. In the opin-
ion of many, the presence of the Red
fleet in the Mediterranean represents an
unparalleled deterioration of Western
Europe's strategic situation. With this
opinion in mind, I commend to the atten-
tion of my colleagues an article entitled
"Red Fleet in Med Is the Event of the
Year," which appeared in the Novem-
ber 3, 1967, issue of the German news-
paper, Christ and Welt:
RED FLEET IN MED Is THE EVENT OF THE YEAR
(By Peter Meyer-Ranke)
Kremlin leaders have given the celebra-
tions of the fiftieth anniversary of the Rus-
sian Revolution a markedly military note in
view of the international situation. This has
been done to encourage friends and deter
enemies.
The Soviet Union's sabre-rattling pre-
paredness is being demonstrated all over the
Eastern Bloc in a monster show of parading
soldiers, tanks and remote-controlled weap-
onry. The launching of fresh satellites un-
derscores the technological claims of a space
power.
This unpeaceful picture of ostentatious
strength on the part of the Euro-Asian con-
tinental power is accompanied by revolu-
tionary events off the southern shores of
Europe.
For the first time in history the Russians
have established themselves as a maritime
power in the Mediterranean, and not just for
H 15789,
show-the new Red maritime might is most
active. This factor adds completely new di-
mensions still frequently underestimated in
the West to the dangerously smouldering
Middle East conflict.
Only five years ago, in the Cuban crisis,
Moscow's first attempt to act as a maritime
power in distant oceans, foundered on the
maritime predominance of the United States.
Today, in contrast, with Soviet watchdog
fishing fleets at home in all waters a Soviet
fleet squadron is despatched to the Mediter-
ranean as a political and military shield for
the Arab states.
For the second time since the war last
June Soviet warships have dropped anchor
in Alexandria and Port Said, an example of
classic gunboat diplomacy, which had been
thought outdated.
The despatch of these warships and the
securing of bases are but part of Moscow's
maritime policy and complemented by copi-
ous arms shipments and the demonstrative
Egyptian sinking of the Israeli destroyer
Eilat using Soviet missiles.
The permanent presence of the Soviet
Mediterranean fleet in Egyptian ports is in-
terpreted a little too self-confidently in the
West as a move designed to restrain Nasser's
Egypt.
There can be no denying its defensive,
protective role but one day this could de-
~velop into offensive cover fire against Israel
and above all against the Mediterranean-
based United States Sixth Fleet.
The forebodings of Western naval com-
mands have developed into genuine concern.
Since Mediterranean power France is leav-
ing its last remaining North African base,
Mers el Kebir in Algeria next year, the Soviet
Union has grasped the opportunity to set up
new bases of its own on the North African
coast.
The two Egyptian ports are not full-scale
bases but they suffice for overhauling war-
ships and supplying ammunition, fuel and
food.
While the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the eastern
Mediterranean has not even been able to
dock in Beirut since the June crisis and was
barred from all North African ports before-
hand Moscow is demonstrating its protective
power role in respect of North Africa and the
Arab socialist states in the very countries
from which, 25 years ago, the Allies began
to close in on continental Europe-Egypt and
Algeria.
The continued presence of the Red Fleet in
the Mediterranean consequently represents
an unparalleled deterioration of Western
Europe's strategic situation, particularly as
it will in the foreseeable future be joined by
Soviet aircraft carriers and landing craft.
The operational conditions of the Sixth
Fleet, the role of which is not only to brand-
ish the nuclear deterrent but also to cover
transport and landing operations, have thus
worsened, its freedom to move and operate
in the eastern Mediterranean and off North
Africa is now limited, its role as a policeman
and provider of protection for Western
friends in the Middle East paralysed.
The renewed worsening of the Arab-Israeli
situation bears this assertion out. While
Israel is increasingly coming to see the so-
viet Union as the enemy, calculatedly stirring
up unrest for political ends, with the failure
of fresh United Nations efforts to send a
neutral mediator on the Arab side the call
for vengeance for the June defeat is gaining
in volume.
. In Cairo Nasser too is deserting ideas- of a
negotiated solution for extremism again. No
longer is there talk of the urgent need to end
the state of war with Israel. The direct peace
talks demanded by Jerusalem grow increas-
ingly unlikely. The sole exception to the
trend away from talks is King Hussein but
for how long will this be the case?
More emphatically than ever before the
Arabs are demanding unconditional with-
drawal by the Israelis. Under the cover of
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November .22, 1967
Soviet naval gunsights they, like the Viet
Cong, reject both compromises and the con-
ference table. A second Vietnam is in the
making.
While King Hussein is travelling around
in the West and in Bonn too imploringly
pointing out that increasing pressure is being
brought to bear on him at home by ex-
tremists and that his country's situation is
desperate as he neither can nor will make
peace with the Israeli nation he recognized,
Nasser by sending his deputy All Sabri and
a military delegation to Moscow and holding
fresh talks with Syria and Algeria is forging
fresh and firmer links with the other Arab
clients of the Soviet Union.
Captured Soviet shells, fired by the Israelis
from captured Soviet guns, have proved able
to bring virtually to a standstill Egypt's pro-
duction of artificial fertilizers and the Suez
refineries, which accounted for 75 per cent
of Egypt's domestic fuel oil production.
The Israelis have shown that after dealing
the Egyptian army a savage blow they are
still able to do the same to the Egyptian
economy, a tactic to which they did not
resort in June. But this threat is now offset
by the fear of provoking Soviet missile coun-
terattacks on Haifa and Tel Aviv.
The deterioration of the Middle East crisis
thus coincides with the demonstrative acts
of the new Soviet maritime power in the
Mediterranean. What happens today off
North Africa and Israel can tomorrow occur
off Cyprus or Greece.
The appearance of the Red Fleet on Eu-
rope's southern doorstep in Moscow's anni-
versary year can justly be described as the
event of the year-and not a very gratifying
one for the West, either.
VIETNAM AN OBJECT LESSON
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, it comes
as good news that Gen. William C. West-
moreland has recently announced that
the end of the war in Vietnam is in view
and'that, according to a war master plan,
there is an intention to shift a large
share of the military load in that area
over to the South Vietnamese.
I have-as Members of this House
know-consistently urged that the South
Vietnamese and their Asian associates
take on an ever-increasing share of the
military burden in this area. I have also
urged that we do everything possible to
help in bringing about certain civil re-
forms in South Vietnam.
Our good position in the war, we are
told by General Westmoreland, comes
about because of the successes of our mil-
itary forces in Vietnam operating under
some highly difficult conditions. Every
one of us has just cause to be proud of
the fact that our American boys have
once again proved to be unbeatable on
the battlefield.
It is also encouraging to note that
efforts are being made to bring about cer-
tain social and economic reforms, with
the newly elected Government in South
Vietnam having drawn up broad plans
toward this end. American advisers and
assistance will prove very valuable in
attaining these goals, helping the social
and economic achievements to coincide
with the successes on the battlefield and
bringing South Vietnam closer to being
a stable and unmolested country.
We should, of course, guard against
being overoptimistic about our successes
in Vietnam, for although we have come
a long way, there apparently remains a
long way to go. It is not a usual type of
war that is being fought in that area, for
the terrain is difficult to negotiate and
the enemy is imponderable and con-
stantly relies on unorthodox tactics on
the battlefield. With respect to this war,
it was General Westmoreland who said
that "it is difficult to conceive of a total
military victory in the classic sense."
In any event, it is encouraging to re-
ceive this advice on our situation in Viet-
nam from an authority who has first-
hand familiarity with the matter. If we
can push forward to a successful conclu-
sion in this area, it will mean that free
men will have been spared from aggres-
sion and that our American boys who
have fallen on the field of battle will not
have died in vain.
We should consider our involvement in
Vietnam as an object lesson, using it as
a guideline for our international rela-
tions of the future. We should not let our-
selves become what is, in effect, a "po-
liceman of the world," committing our
men and money wherever trouble crops
out on this globe. Instead, we should
stand ready to aid free men wherever
they are oppressed by providing assist-
ance that will help them to help them-
selves, as we are now doing successfully
in Vietnam.
If we will do this, then free men the
world over will become self-sufficient and
clear of oppression, and both the charac-
ter and image of America will be strong
and convincing.
CORRECTION OF VOTE
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 405 I am recorded as not voting.
I was present and voted "aye." I ask
unanimous consent that the permanent
RECORD and Journal be corrected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
AMERICAN PUBLIC SHOULD BE AD-
VISED IF HANOI IS BEHIND PEACE
DEMONSTRATIONS
(Mr. GERALD R. FORD asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
the distinguished majority leader of the
House, the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. ALBERT], chargedMonday night in
Atlanta, Ga., that the massive anti-Viet-
nam demonstration staged at the Pen-
tagon October 21 was "basically organ-
ized by international communism" and
that "the marchers included every Com-
munist and Communist sympathizer in
the United States who was able to make
the trip."
Mr. Speaker, this statement apparent-
ly is based on the kind of information
given orally to Republican leaders of the
House by the President at a White House
meeting after the Pentagon demonstra-
tion. I presume the same information
was made available to the Democratic
leaders. I subsequently urged that the
White House make public the informa-
tion it has on the time nature of th,i so-
called peace demonstration at the Penta-
gon. As a result, the Attorney General of
the United States visited me in my office
and argued against release of the infor-
mation.
I believed then and I believe now that
the American people should be given full
information on the degree of Communist
participation in the anti-American policy
demonstration so that the people may
judge just how deep or widespread anti-
Vietnam war sentiment is in this country.
If the evidence in the hands of the ex-
ecutive branch of our government indi-
cates manipulation of the peace move-
ment in this country by Hanoi, then the
propaganda impact of such demonstra-
tions will be lessened and perhaps de-
stroyed. This would Ibe a highly beneficial
result, indeed.
Mr. Speaker, one of the national news
magazines has quoted the Secretary of
State as saying that the release of this
information would trigger a new wave of
McCarthyism in this country. I dislike
taking issue with the distinguished Sec-
retary of State, but I believe the Ameri-
can people are now mature enough to
receive such information and to react
without hysteria.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
the distinguished majority leader of the
House has made charges of a most. seri-
ous nature regarding the Communist
role in the demonstration at the Penta-
gon, I urge that the President Order a
full report made to the American people
on the extent of Communist participa-
tion in organizing, planning, and direct-
ing the disgraceful display which took
place at the Pentagon last October 21.
Such a report will 'be most helpful and
constructive to all Americans. In addi-
tion, such a disclosure would be benefi-
.cial to the well-intentioned Americans
who participated in. this demonstration
not knowing who had organized the dem-
onstrations, at the Pentagon and else-
where throughout the free world.
Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HALEY. Why limit it to just this
one instance? Why do we not cover the
whole waterfront, so to speak? I am sure
you will find the same agitators and the
same Communist influences in many of
these so-called demonstrations where we
have seen cities destroyed and lives lost.
Mr. GERALD R. FIORD. I am sure that
the' release of this information by the
President would cover more than these
worldwide demonstrations that occurred
on October 21.
I repeat and reiterate-I think this
information which is in the hands of
the President and in the hands of the
executive branch of the Government
should be made available promptly to all
Americans.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 392 I was recorded as being ab-
sent. I was in the Chamber and answered
"present" when my name was called.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
November'..-522, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
great men`of our country. I have had the
pleasure and the privilege of working
with the Speaker in the passage of legis-
lation in positions of leadership and also
of working with him since I first came
here over a quarter of a century ago. I
know of no man more dedicated to this
House and to this country than JOHN
MCCORMACK. Nor do I know of any man
more effective in leadership than the
Speaker of this body. When I read some
of these carping critics say that he has
no contact with and does not commu-
nicate with Members of this body, I think
that nothing could be further from the
truth. There is no Member of this body
on either side of the aisle that JOHN
MCCORMACK cannot pick up the phone
and talk to as a friend. There is no Demo-
cratic Member, regardless of the dif-
ference in political or economic phi-
losophy, with whom he does not have the
closest relationship.
I am proud indeed to have been
actively associated with him. I reiterate
the statement made here last week by the
distinguished majority leader, the Honor-
able CARL ALBERT, Of Oklahoma, who
gives great leadership in this body. Inci-
dentally, I commend Mr. ALBERT on the
wonderful speech he made in Atlanta,
Ga., last evening. I wish to reiterate the
statement he made here last week in
saying that his candidate for the Speaker
of the House of Representatives as long
as he has anything to say about it will be
JOHN MCCORMACK.
A THANKSGIVING TRIBUTE TO
JOHN McCORMACK
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, my dis-
tinguished and beloved colleagues have
somewhat preempted me by getting rec-
ognized ahead of me. I had hoped to be
the first today to compliment our great
Speaker upon the magnificent record he
has made in the House. At this time I
want to extend on my own behalf and
on the behalf of all the Members of the
House our best wishes to the greatest
living legislator for a happy Thanksgiv-
ing Day.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
will the distinguished majority leader
yield?
Mr. ALBERT. I will be delighted to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
let me reiterate and reemphasize that we
on our side of the aisle join with the
gentleman from Oklahoma in wishing
for the Speaker a most happy and en-
joyable Thanksgiving weekend. I do not
think we can go quite as far as to say
that the Speaker is our candidate for
Speaker, but let me assure you that we
join with all of you on your side of the
aisle in saying that JOHN MCCORMACK is
one of the finest gentlemen who has ever
served in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentle-
man from Massachusetts has our ad-
miration and affection. We hope and
trust that he continues this fine record
of service in the House of Representa-
tives as long as the people from the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts want him
to continue to serve. Outside of the
speakership, we hope that service will
be indefinite.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, whether we
measure the record of the distinguished
Presiding Officer of this House of Rep-
resentatives in terms of legislative ac-
complishments or on any other basis, we
still know and appreciate him as one of
the greatest Speakers of all time and as
one of God's noblemen. No legislature
body of national importance in the his-
tory of any country has produced more
far-reaching legislation, as the gentle-
man from Illinois has pointed out, than
has been produced in this House under
the leadership of the distinguished gen-
tleman from Massachusetts, JOHN
MCCORMACK.
Mr. Speaker, if we measured our
Speaker by the yardstick of humanitari-
anism we would have to say that he is
one of the kindest, most considerate men
who ever lived. If we judged him by his
conduct, both in public and in private
life, we would all say that he is a prac-
ticing Christian and man of God.
Mr. Speaker, after wishing the best
of the Thanksgiving season to the
Speaker and Mrs. McCormack, I also de-
sire to wish the best for all my colleagues
who have worked so patiently and so
hard with us through the hard and dif-
ficult months behind us.
Mr. Speaker, all of us, as Members of
the House of Representatives realize and
know that we are constantly in debate.
Democrat against Republican, and liberal
against conservative, trying by that
means to determine the proper policy
and the wisest course we should pursue
in the development of a legislative pro-
gram to improve the lot and better the
lives of the American people.
However, there is one thing concern-
ing which we never have need to de-
bate, nor find it necessary to dispute-
that is our unanimous and mutual de-
votion, love, and loyalty to this, the
greatest republic mankind has ever
known, the greatest democracy ever
existing in the annals of the ages. In my
judgment, William Jennings Bryan
eloquently described it, when he said:
Behold a Republic increasing in wealth,
in strength, in influence, solving the prob-
lems of civilization and hastening the com-
ing of a universal brotherhood-a Republic
whose history like the path of the just "is
as a shining light that shineth more and
more into the perfect day."
Mr, Speaker, we have on this
Thanksgiving Day every good reason to
thank the Father and Creator of all for
the rich privilege of being citizens of
such a Republic. No man in all the
world has the opportunities, the free-
dom, the liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness as does the citizen of the
United States of America. This
Thanksgiving -Day, in our prayers, we
should thank God that the pioneers in
the Colonies, so long ago, preserved and
passed on to us a spiritual and religious
heritage through which we know that
there is a just God who presides over
the fate of nations and the destiny of
mankind. We should thank our Father
in Heaven that we are not bereft of be-
lief in a divine Creator which is the
unfortunate fate of the subjects of a
Communist state. Mr. Speaker, on this
Thanksgiving, we must be grateful to
our Nation's forefathers who had .the
courage to fight and to die for indi-
vidual liberty and freedom, for the es-
tablishment of a government founded
and existing upon the broad base of the
people's will. In my judgment, as long
as the American people cling to those
ideals, and preserve them in the hearts
of the Nation, domestic wolves of dis-
cord nor foreign foes will ever prevail
against this great Republic-the United
States of America:
0f-
MIDDLE'EAST -SITUATION
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include extra-
neous matter.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, on Novem-
ber 15, Ambassador Goldberg made a
strong speech at a meeting of the U.N.
Security Council on the Middle East situ-
ation. In this address Ambassador Gold-
berg reviewed our efforts to achieve
peace, efforts which began even before
the outbreak of hostilities last June. He
set forth specific proposals which we
hope, if adopted, will lead to a just and
lasting peace between Israel and her
neighbors. Because of the importance of
the Goldberg speech, I have requested
unanimous consent for it to be printed in
the RECORD. I hope that every Member
of the Congress will read this statement,
which follows:
STATEMENT ON THE MIDDLE EAST BY AMBASSA-
DOR ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG IN THE U.N. SECU-
RITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 15, 196'1
Inasmuch as the United States has tabled
a resolution in this Council and since sev-
eral delegations have commented on our
resolution, it is only appropriate that I now
reply to these comments.
More than six months ago, even before
the fighting began last June, some govern-
ments represented in this Council, includ-
ing my own, sought to avert the war and to
begin to seek new ways to open at long last
a road towards real, stable, enduring peace
in that region which has known no peace-
genuine peace-for a generation.
Mr. President, in.this connection, there is
one point of fact which must be set straight,
as a result of comments that have been made
in our present. series of meetings. There have
been truly Orwellian efforts by the com-
munist members on this Council to rewrite
history. And it is exceedingly ironic that
those who charge the United States with
delay have been from the very beginnings
of this conflict the prime instruments of
delay in our proceedings and of effective
Security Council action.
A charge like this was made on the 13th
of November by my friend, the distinguished
representative of Bulgaria, Ambassador Tar-
abanov. He said that the responsibility for
delay in dealing with the matter before the
conflict rests on governments, presumably
including my own, because it was "they"-
now I quote him-"who did not want to act
in the matter."
Mr. President, how this can be said by
my distinguished colleague is beyond me.
It was he at the height of the crisis who
said on May 24 when we in this Council
pleaded the need for action-urgent action-
that this would be-and I quote him-"an
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 H 15780
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE November&22, ,.1967
exercise in futility". And then the Repre-
sentative of Bulgaria went so far as to tell
this Council that-and I quote him again-
"we are not available for consultations on
this draft resolution or on anything else that
may be planned." That's the end of the
quotation.
Similar efforts were made by the Soviet
Representative who in a phrase well-remem-
bered in this Council said that we were at-
tempting to dramatize the situation.
The efforts of the United States throughout
this crisis have been to prevent the conflict
before it started, and after the conflict com-
menced, to bring it to a speedy end and to
start the process of making peace in the area.
I have only to refer you to the resolution
offered by the United States on the 1st of
June in which we proposed that-and I read:
"Noting that the Secretary General has in
his report expressed the view that "a peace-
ful outcome to the present crisis will depend
upon a breathing spell which will allow
tension to subside from its present explosive
level", and that he therefore urged "all the
parties concerned to exercise special restraint,
to forego belligerence and to avoid all other
actions which could increase tension, to allow
the Council to deal with the underlying
causes of the present crisis and to. seek
solutions,"
"1. Calls on all the parties concerned as a
first step to comply with the Secretary Gen-
eral's appeal,
"2. Encourages the immediate pursuit of
international diplomacy in the interests of
pacifying the situation and seeking reason-
able, peaceful and just solutions,
"3. Decides to keep the issue under urgent
and continuous review so that the Council
may determine what further steps it might
take in the exercise of its responsibilities for
the maintenance of international peace and
security."
That resolution foundered on the opposi-
tion of those who now seek to ascribe re-
sponsibility for delay to others. And every
member of this Council knows that when
the conflict broke out on June 5 it was the
United States along with some other mem-
bers of the Council which were the principal
proponents, initiators and supporters of ac-
tion by this Council calling for an immediate
cease-fire. Here, too, Mr. President, it was
the opposition of certain members which
made it impossible for the Council to act
urgently and without debate in the interest
of peace and stopping the fighting before it
developed as it- subsequently did.
Now, there were two opportunities before
the Council at that time. One arose from an
initiative by the Governments of Canada and
Denmark, and that was to send a special
representative to the area. And the other
arose from the resolution that we offered.
I ask you, the members of the Council,
to think of where we would be today had
it, the Council, endorsed proposals made by
Canada and Denmark, supported by the
United States, in the interest of accelerating
the peace-making process. We could have
had a UN representative in the area since
last June, working on the complicated task
of restoring peace. Several precious months
have been lost, and the question recurs-
How much more time is to be wasted arguing
over rhetoric when what Is needed is recon-
ciliation?
While there have been rumors spread in
the corridors that the United States is now
seeking delay, nothing could be farther from
the truth. We have sought immediate action
throughout, we seek immediate action today,
and I mean action not words.
Mr. President, these are the facts. What we
need is a truce in the Security Council
against recrimination. And let us have an
end to this ceaselessly repeated use of old
and discredited charges to sow new hostility.
As far as we are concerned, let there be no
more delay. Let there be no more attempts
to pervert this Council, this Instrument of
peace, into a center of defamation and in-
cendiary charges.. For such abuse of the
United Nations Instrumentalities simply
compounds the difficulties of the peace-
making process which are already formidable
enough.
I do not intend in thisspirit to make any
detailed reply, for example, to the statement
made by the distinguished Representative
of Syria. I have previously had occasion in
this Council to state that the Internal affairs
of the United States, its leaders and its poli-
cies, are not the subject of legitimate com-
ment by representatives in this Council. In
no statement made by the United States dur-
ing the many meetings of the past few
months have we ever even commented on
any utterances made by the leaders of Syria
or attempted to characterize those utter-
ances as has been done by the Representative
of Syria with respect today to the political
leaders of the United States. I do not intend
to depart fromthis practice despite the pro-
vocation which has been offered. It is a le-
gitimate matter of discussion in this Coun-
cil to deal with the substance of the problem
before us. A statement has been made by the
Representative of Syria that the United
States has been inconsistent in its positions
with respect to the Middle East crisis. I have
before me, Mr. President, a document which
I- shall make available to you, to the mem-
bers of the Council, and to the representa-
tives of the parties immediately concerned,
containing every policy statement made by
the United States since. this crisis first broke
out, before the conflict, during the Security
Council considerations, and up to the present
time. I am content to rest on the record of
our statements which demonstrates that our
statements have been consistent throughout.
We adhere to the statements that have been
made; we do not depart from them.
Illustrative of the double standard which
the Representative of Syria applies in his
discussion of the grave issues before us, is
his reference to the arms situation. It is
interesting that on commenting upon a re-
cent decision of our Government to meet
prior commitments with respect to military
armaments, he does not refer to the fact that
our decision was designed to meet commit-
ments not only to the State of Israel but to
several Arab countries. Nor does he talk
about the outpouring of military armaments
to the countries of the Middle East, includ-
ing Syria, which has gone on for years and
which continues to this day. If the Repre-
sentative of Syria is genuinely interested in
seeking limits placed on the wasteful and
dangerous arms race, which has gone on in
the Middle East for years, one would have
expected him to express support for the Idea
contained in the draft resolution we have
placed before the Council, which calls upon
the Council to consider the necessity for
limiting the wasteful and destructive arms
race in the area. No such word of support
was forthcoming.
Now, Mr. President, we don't need words
of the character that have been uttered. The
words that are now needed are words that
clearly point to practical action for a just
and durable peace that shall be fair and
equitable to all parties. It is for such a peace
that my delegation, despite all difficulties,
continues to strive.
To this end, last month while the non-
permanent members of the Council were ac-
tively seeking an acceptable formula for ac-
tion by this Council, my delegation. at the
specific request of some of the parties con-
cerned, deferred to their efforts. When their
efforts did not succeed, you, Mr. President,
quite appropriately in your capacity as Presi-
dent of the Security Council, and with the
agreement of the non-permanent members,
turned to the permanent members of the
Council to ask that they join fully and ac-
tively in the search. My delegation responded
promptly to your call, and as soon as pos-
sible formulated its concept of appropriate
and attainable Council action. Aid we so
reported to you, Sir. On an urgent- basis we
likewise proceeded to discuss our concept
with other members, permanent and non-
permanent, and with the parties -on both
sides. We were guided throughout by certain
axioms of negotiation-axioms which
stemmed in part from the unanimous view
that the Council should act under Chapter
VI of the Charter.
First, only the parties themselves through
mutual accommodation and compromise and
peaceful means of their own choice, can
make peace. An imposed peace, whether im-
posed by one side on the other or on both
sides by any outside authority, including
this Council, cannot endure.
Second, members of this Council, both
individually and collectively, by virtue of
their very great influence, individual or
combined, and by virtue of the Council's re-
sponsibility under the Charter, can and must
assist the process of accommodation between
the parties.
Third, to serve this purpose, the Council
must find a formula which will not prejudice
the known positions of the parties of either
side and which will not preclude the accept-
ance by either side of the assistance, en-
couragement, help and guidance the United
Nations can properly offer.
Fourth, to arrive at such a formulation, it
is essential that consultations be held with
the parties on both sides, as well as with the
members of the Council.
The process of consultations we had initi-
ated had not run its course when the re-
quest for the convening of the Council made
it necessary to circulate the product of our
efforts on November 7'. While we would have
preferred to hold back our draft resolution
until the final result of our consultations
were in, I have no hesitation in stating that
our draft resolution in our view is the only
resolution now before the Council which
conforms to the axioms set forth both in
content and in the procedures used in draw-
ing it up.
Moreover, even since its circulation, we
have remained intensively engaged in the
search for the right formula for Council
action-"right" in terms of the balance it
strikes between conflicting views and emo-
tions, and in terms of the cooperation it will
elicit from all involved in the peace-making
process it would put in train. Even since
the Council was convened, we have con-
tinued our efforts-and let me make ex-
plicitly clear that our interest is not in
having an American label on the successful
formula. If it would in any way facilitate
the search we are all engaged in, that label
can be rapidly dispensed with. Pride of au-
thorship has no place in the serious business
at hand. -
Mr. President, in my statement on No-
vember 9, last Thursday, I pointed out that
we of the United States have sought to stay
within these requirements by basing the
substance of our resolution on a set of prin-
ciples: namely, the five principles enunciated
by President Johnson in his address on June
19.
We did so as I pointed out not merely be-
cause our President had set them forth but
because both parties h*tf in various state-
ments indicated that those principles were
an acceptable basis for Security Council
action. And I have not heard a repudiation
on the part of those who have spoken that
those principles still do not constitute an
acceptable basis for progress in the interest
of peace in the area.
I briefly recall those principles, namely:
1. the recognition of national life;
2. justice for the refugees;
3. Innocent maritime passage;
4. limits on the arms race; and
5. political independence and territorial in-
tegrity for all,
We have sought to embody these five prin-
ciples in our draft resolution In a way which
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
Novemb r- 22, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
would be fairly and prudently balanced, and
would, as I have said, not prejudice the vital
interests or the stated positions of either side.
We have taken into account the known dif-
ferences between the parties in regard both
to the goals sought and to the means toward
those goals. We have sought to develop and
express, as well as we knew how, the maxi-
mum of common ground as a starting point
for the peace-making process that should
have commenced-with the blessing of this
Council-months ago.
In my statement in the Council last Thurs-
day I outlined the general considerations
underlying this draft resolution. Let me now
add certain specific comments on particular
provisions in the hopes of clarifying their
meaning and intent in light of the com-
ments made with respect to these clauses in
the course of our debate.
In paragraph 1, among the elements em-
braced in the concept of "a state of just and
lasting peace," is "withdrawal of armed
forces from occupied territories." Let me be
quite clear about the meaning which we at-
tach to this language. In the first place, it
obviously refers and was always intended to
refer to the armed forces of Israel; let me
also state and make clear that this is com-
pletely on a par with the other essentials
listed in the same statement: termination of
claims or states of belligerence-which of
course refers primarily to the Arab states. It
also embraces a necessary ingredient for
peace in the area: mutual termination by
Israel and the Arab states of the state of
war which unhappily still persists in the area
and mutual recognition of, and respect for,
the right of every state in the area to sov-
ereign existence, territorial integrity, politi-
cal independence, secure and recognized
boundaries, and freedom from the threat or
use of force.
Mr. President, we thought that this con-
cept was very clear in the Resolution we of-
fered but since doubts have been expressed
on this point we have clarified them, I think
explicitly, in our statements today.
Now, Mr. President, we believe that the
language of paragraph 1 as stated in the
Resolution and as amplified by me here to-
day is both intrinsically sound and carefully
balanced in what it requires of the respective
parties. And I should like to repeat them for
emphasis.
Israel must withdraw; the Arab States must
renounce the state of belligerence and claim
of belligerence which they have claimed for
many years and the states on both sides
must terminate the present state of War and
must mutually recognize each other's rights,
which are set forth explicitly in Article II of
the Charter. And, lest there be any ambiguity,
let me also make clear despite the references
that have been made to this sentence that
by the word "recognition" we do not mean
diplomatic recognition, although we do not
also mean to exclude it. This is a matter for
the parties concerned to settle between them-
selves. We mean recognition of what the
Charter provides-recognition of the sover-
eign existence of all nations to which all
states in the area are committed by the
Charter. We mean respect for the territorial
integrity, political independence and freedom
from the threat or use of force; and we mean
that the parties should determine that in
order to be free from the threat or use of
force secure and recognized boundaries
should be fixed.
Now I cannot emphasize too strongly that
these principles are interdependent. There is
nothing artificial about this interdependence;
we did not manufacture it; it is in the nature
of the situation and of the history of this
conflict. To seek withdrawal without secure
and recognized boundaries, for example,
would be just as fruitless as to seek secure
and recognized boundaries without with-
drawal.
Historically, there have never been any
secure or recognized boundaries in the area.
Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the
cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered this
description. The armistice agreements explic-
itly recognize the necessity to proceed to per-
manent peace, which necessarily entails the
recognition of boundaries between the par-
ties. Now, such boundaries have yet to be
agreed upon-and agreement on this point
is an absolute essential to a just and lasting
peace, just as withdrawal is. Secure bound-
aries cannot be determined by force; they
cannot be determined by unilateral action
of any of the States; and they cannot be
imposed from the outside. For history shows
that imposed boundaries are not secure-
that secure boundaries must be mutually
worked out and recognized by the parties
themselves, as part of the peacemaking
process.
I would add one further observation as to
timing. Clearly the timing of steps to be
taken by the parties in fulfillment of the
objectives set forth in the resolution we
have tabled would need to be carefully
worked out with the assistance of the Special
Representative. It is not our conception that
any one step or provision should be relegated
to the end of the process.
In short, Mr. President, our resolution
reflects the conviction that progress toward
peace can only be made if there is a careful
and just balance of obligations among the
parties. Such a balance must take account
of the just aspirations of all without harming
the vital interest of any. It must recognize
and seek to relieve the legitimate grievances
of all without creating new grievances for
any. It must be a balance which all will have
a strong interest in maintaining. Only thus
can it provide the foundation for a durable
peace.
Let me turn briefly to paragraph 2 of the
resolution since I have been speaking of
paragraph 1. In our view the provisions of
this paragraph are no less vital to a durable
solution than those of paragraph 1. Those
relating to guarantees for freedom of navi-
gation for all nations through international
waterways in the area and to the refugee
problem deal with grievances of the first
order of importance which clearly could not
be left out of a peace settlement. The other
two provisions are designed chiefly to ensure
that a peace settlement shall be, as it clearly
must be, insulated from violeiVe and from
excessive competition in the means of
violence.
As to freedom of navigation in interna-
tional waterways for all nations it is a mat-
ter of historical record that the principal
factor which precipitated the conflict in
early June was the UAR decision not to per-
mit ships of all states to pass through the
Straits of Tiran with equal freedom. It has
been a plain fact of life that a return to
peace will require guarantees concerning
freedom of navigation in the Straits as well-
as in the Suez Canal for their closure. has
been inconsistent with the state of peace that
has been recognized by past decisions of this
Council.
I should like also to comment on the refu-
gee problem, for it is far more than merely
a political grievance. It is a profoundly hu-
manitarian problem, and it must at long
last be solved. Those who are homeless or
displaced because of both the recent and
the previous conflicts have a desperate need
for help and for justice. The nations of the
area, with the help of the world community,
must act with new determination and new
energy to achieve that end. And in the solu-
tion of the problem my Government is pre-
pared to do its share and to do more than
its share just as throughout the years it has
been doing in relieving the distress of the
refugees in the area.
But it is not merely continuance?of tem-
porary relief, to which we have largely con-
tributed, that is needed. More than ever be-
fore this problem cries out for a permanent
and a humane solution. Such a solution
H15781
must be a part of the framework of the peace
settlement. The needs of the refugees and
the needs of peace in the Middle East are not
in conflict; they are inseparable from each
other. They must be attended to together.
Freedom of navigation in international water-
ways and the needs of peace in the Middle
East are not in conflict; they are insepa-
rable from each other. They must be at-
tended to together.
Such, Mr. President, are my main com-
ments concerning the provision of the United
States draft resolution. Before concluding,
let me only add three general observations
which I hope may prove constructive.
First, an observation about the Special
Representative and his role. I have no hesita-
tion in saying that the key provision in the
entire Resolution is the appointment of the
Special Representative. The principles in
paragraph 1 will be useful only to the ex-
tent that they may help him in working out
with the parties solutions that will lead
to a just and lasting peace in the area.
I have already mentioned that six months
ago a resolution was introduced by Canada
and Denmark in the Council asking the
Secretary General to seek solutions of the
dangerous tensions then prevailing. It was
a good resolution. It was criticized at the
time because it contained no detailed princi-
ples to guide the Secretary General.
Now, let us look back upon the history in
this particular area. We may well recall the
resolutions of the Security Council under
which the Armistice Agreements of 1949
were negotiated by Dr. Bunche-agreements
which, despite the later tragic course of
events, helped at that time to stop war. But
these resolutions likewise contained no de-
tailed principles to guide the negotiations.
Our Resolution goes far beyond the reso-
lutions of the Security Council under which
Dr. Bunche so successfully operated. Our
Resolution proposes a far more specific man-
date. But, it seems to us that what is far
more important than a list of written prin-
ciples is the existence on both sides of a
sufficient practical will to make peace. The
peacemaking process is not quick or easy.
Nor is it a kind of magic which enables each
side to realize its maximum demands. The
only magic in peacemaking is the awareness
of each side that the benefits of peace and
tranquility are valuable enough to justify
very great efforts in search of it, and accept-
ance of compromise and accommodation by
both sides on the actual terms. And, Mr.
President, the terms cannot be spelled out in
advance. They must be spelled out on the
ground.
The crucial role which the Special Repre-
sentative can play is to foster on both sides
the frame of mind essential to peacemak-
ing-the pragmatic will to peace which can
face and overcome the undeniable difficulties
in defining mutually acceptable terms.
Mr. President, greater and more compli-
cated conflicts even than this grave and
complicated conflict have been resolved at
the peace table. Peace is indeed difficult, but
it is not impossible where a genuine will
exists on both sides-and where the neces-
sary support and encouragement are af-
forded by third parties, including this great
Organization.
This leads me to my second major observa-
tion. In our consultations on possible action
by the Security Council, the question we en-
countered most frequently from the parties
concerned on both sides, was not about any
particular proviison of a proposed resolution,
but rather about what the United States
would be prepared to do in the interest of
bringing about peace in the area. Would the
United States-it has been put to me very
explicitly-place its influence and political
support behind a just and durable peace in
the area, and the steps necessary to achieve
such a peace?
Let me give here in public, in this Council,
the same answer we have given in private
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 H 15782
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November-2 , 1967
to this question. We are committed to the
achievement of a just and lasting peace in
the area. From this commitment there flows
a willingness to do our full share toward
achieving that goal. As President Johnson
said on June 19:
"I offer assurance to all that this Govern-
ment of ours, the Government of the United
States, will do its part for peace in every
forum, at every level, at every hour."
On behalf of my Government, I now renew
the pledge I made to the Council and to the
parties themselves when I introduced the
United States draft resolution on Novem-
ber 9. Under the terms of that resolution-
and this Includes every portion of the text-
the United States could and will exert its
full diplomatic and political influences in
support of the efforts of the United Nations
representative to achieve a fair and equitable
settlement.
Finally, Mr. President, I would stress once
again the spirit in which the United States
will approaches the question of peace:in the
Middle East. As the President of the United'
States emphasized at the very outset of the
crisis last May, "The United States has con-
sistently sought to have good relations with
all the states of the Middle East." And he
added this has not always been possible, and
indeed it has not proved to be possible even
to this day. But today, six months later, our
resolve to seek such good relations remains
undimmed, despite the tragic events of June
and all that has taken place in the after-
math.
We are well aware that neither side in the
dispute-judging by their expressions in and
out of this Council-is - likely to be well
pleased with all aspects ofour position. But
this Is inevitable considering that they are
the parties involved. And for us it is a small
price to pay if we can thereby contribute
to the progress toward peace which the peo-
ples of the Middle East and indeed, all the
world so sadly need.
PRESIDENT PLEDGES AID: TO
AMERICAN FARMERS IN REMARKS
TO NATIONAL GRANGE
(Mr. DE LA GARZA asked and was
given permission to address the House for
1 minute, to revise and extend his re-
marks, and to include extraneous
matter.) - -
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Speaker, Presi-
dent Johnson's message to the National
Grange Convention demonstrates the
depth of his administration's desire to
improve the lot of the American farmer.
As the President noted, we owe much
to the hard-working farmers of America:
They have made us the best-fed people
in the history of the world at- a cost the
average citizen could easily afford.
They have provided food and fiber for
our Nation and its allies during time of
international conflict and world war.
And their crop has fed hungry millions
the world over.
Yet, while the farmer has given :much
to his Nation, we have returned too little
to him. As the President made clear to
the National Grange, he has committed
himself to end generations of deprivation
and give American farmers their just
reward.
The Johnson administration has seen
its farm program pay rewarding divi-
dends. Farm income has risen over 50
percent since 1960, costly surpluses have
been reduced, and the resources of the
Federal Government have been mar-
shaled to insure increased prosperity for
every farmer in America.
The President has pledged "to preserve
a good healthy condition for the Ameri-
can farmer." A grateful Nation must do
no less for those who have bestowed the
bounty of their labor at our doorsteps.
I insert at this point in the RECORD the
President's remarks to the National
Grange convention:
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATIONAL
GRANGE CONVENTION, BY TELEPHONE FROM
THE WHITE HOUSE
I am pleased and honored to be privileged
to take part in your Centennial convention.
Your organization has a great leader-my
close friend, Herschel Newsom. It does not
matter whether the issue is our commitment
in Vietnam, a tax increase to head off costly
tax inflation, or Import quotas that threaten
our agricultural exports-Herschel Newsom
and the great National Grange organization
have always chosen the course of responsi-
bility. And for this I am profoundly grateful.
This has been the history of the Grange
through all its hundred years of responsible
citizenship, of constructive, affirmative
leadership. The Grange belongs to the class
of people I call builders in America. It is
easy enough to complain and be critical of
what others do, especially with the benefit
of hindsight. It's much more difficult to help
find a true course through all the problems
that beset us. The Grange has traditionally
sought- to attain its ends through the vigor-
ous pursuit of affirmative goals. In fact, it
has been my observation that you have al-
ways been so busy building, you have not
had much time to waste on quarreling with
those whose stock in trade seems to be hating
and tearing down. Yours is the blessed way
-and the world is far better for having peo-
ple like you among us.
I like to think that you and I have many
things In common-a love of the soil and
the open sky, an urge to make things grow,
a fascination of the challenge of wind and
weather, a spiritual - sustenance from the
wonders of nature as they are revealed to us
upon our farms. I must confess that I envy
you-and at some times more than others-
because you can spend more time on your
farms than I can spend on mine. At least,
that's the way it is just now.
Another t g we have In common is a
concern abo farm Income, and my con-
cern about that is perhaps even greater
than yours; because as President I cannot
help but be deeply concerned about the mil-
lions of people on farms who are not able to
earn a decent living. I'm glad to be able to
say I believe this situation should be im-
proved and-I hope is improving, but it is not
improving fast enough.
We all know the pattern of the continuing
revolution in American agriculture-a tech-
nological revolution-where the ability to
produce continues to out run our ability to
consume. It has been this way most of the
time for more than forty years. The result
has been all too often depressed prices and
financial distress. No way has been found to
cope with this problem except through pro-
grams of the Federal Government.
Some of you are old enough to remember,
as I remember, the long, hard fight it took
to gain acceptance of this Federal responsi-
bility. Indeed, there are those in ourcountry
today who don't accept this as-a Federal re-
sponsibility even yet-and there are far too
many that wish we had no Federal farm
program of any kind.
I wish it to be clear that I fully accept the
Federal responsibility to help maintain farm
income at reasonable and stable levels. The
Federal Government cannot do the whole
job. The farmer must do his part. But the
programs required are of such large size that
they cannot be successfully operated unless
the strong Federal Government makes -avail-
able the machinery through which the farm-
ers can operate the programs.
Having accepted this responsibilil, how
well have we done in meeting it? Not nearly
as well as I would like-because the average
farmer still finds himself earning only two-
thirds as much as city people earn. And many
of you know from your own experience that
it is still quite a struggle to make ends
meet-to keep expenses from outrunning
income. Yet the record shows creditable
progress.
Average net income per farm in 1967 is
running 56 percent above 1960. It is some-
what less than in 1966 when net income per
farm reached an all-time high in our nation's
history, and this setback is disappointing to
all of us. I hope and believe that this setback
is only temporary. I shall do my best to make
it temporary and hope you will help me in
that effort.
The record since 1960 does prove that prog-
ress can be made-that surpluses can be eli-
minated-that farm income can be increased.
But this progress can be continued only if
our programs are continued. These programs
are under constant daily attack. In the pres-
ent Congress, no less- than 21 bills have been
introduced that would kill, that would ter-
minate existing farm programs. I shall be
counting upon your strong support to see
that these attacks do not prevail. I want you
to keep the farmers in business-at least
until I can join you full-time.
I am proud of what you are doing to make
America Strong and- to feed the hungry peo-
ple of the world. This country owes a lot to
the farmer:
American agriculture Is the envy of all
nations.
You have provided food and fiber- to this
nation and to its allies through world war
and international conflict.
You have saved the lives of millions
around the world who would have starved in
the absence of American food aid.
You have made Americans the healthiest,
best-fed people in the history of the world
and you have done it at a cost that the aver-
age person could easily afford.
You have provided the largest single con-
tribution to world trade of any single seg-
ment of our economy.
I point these things out so that you- know
that we care about you and what happens
to you. At the same time I salute you for
these accomplishments and I thank you for
all that you have done. -
Most of all I aSk your continued help in
the tasks that lie ahead In the job that all of
us have to do-a job that will give us better
prices and better income, that will try to
hold our costs where people can have an in-
centive to stay on the farm.
Our biggest problem today is that people
have left the farms to go to the cities with-
out any skills to use in the cities, and we
are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
trying to deal with that problem. How hap-
pier we would probably all be if we could
have spent the money in preventive medicine
before they left the farm.
So I am going to be here trying to correct
some of the mistakes that have been made. I
am going to be here trying to preserve our
farm program and to preserve a good healthy
condition for the American farmer. With
your help and with your support I believe
we can succeed.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBERS
PARTICIPATE IN GOOD WILL
TOUR TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND
ALEXANDRIA, VA.
(Mr. ROONEY of Pennsylvania asked
and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute, to revise and extend
his remarks, and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. ROONEY of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, as you are aware, it was my
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
November 22, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
(MQ-95), Port Lavaca-Calhoun County
Health Unit, 131 Hospital Street, Port Lavaca,
Texas.
A, B--Dr. John R. Copenhaver, M.D., Direc-
tor, Cameron County Migrant Health Proj-
ect (MG-97) Cameron County Health De-
partment, 186 North Sam Houston Boulevard,
San Benito, Texas 78586. -
A, B--Hon. Tom H. Neely, Director, Huds-
peth County-Dell City, Migrant, Hudspeth
County Commissioners' Court, Hudspeth
County Court House, Sierra Blanca, Texas.
A, B-H. A. Rickels, Director, Spur-
Dickens County Health Service Project (MG-
110), Spur City Aldermen, City, Post Office
Box 356, Spur, Texas.
A, B-B. Oliver Lewis, M.D., Director,
Southwestern Texas Health Department
Migrant Project (MG-44), Southwestern
Texas Health Department, Headquarters,
Post Office Box 517, Uvalde, Texas.
A, B-Pedro Ramirez, Jr., Director, Zapata
County Migrant Health Project (MG-100),
Zapata County Commissioners' Court, Post
Office Box 272, Zapata, Texas.
UTAH
A, B-Robert W. Sherwood, M.D., Director,
Utah Migrant Health Service (MG-98), Utah
State Department of Health, 44 Med-
ical Drive,- Salt Lake City, Utah 84113. -
VIRGINIA
A, B-J. B. Kenley, M.D., Director, Migrant
Health Project-Virginia (MG-41), Division
of Local Health Services, State Department
of Health, Richmond; Virginia.
WASHINGTON
A, B-Dr. Phillip Jones, Director, Whatcom
County Migrant Health Program (MG-132),
Bellingham-Whatcom County District Health
Department, 509 Girard Street, Bellingham,
Washington 98225.
A, B-Ernest Kredel, M.D., Director, Health
Services for Migrant Workers in Puyallup-
Stuck Valley (MG-19), Tacoma-Pierce
County Health Department, 649-County-City
Building, Tacoma, Washington 98402.
WEST VIRGINIA
A, B-R. C. Hood, M.D., Director, Migrant
Health Project (MG-123), Berkeley-Morgan
County Health Department, 209 East King
Street, Martinsburg, West Virginia.
WISCONSIN
A, B-Mrs. Clayton S. Mills, Director,
Migrant Medical Aid Program (MG-75),
Catholic Diocese of Madison, Guadalupe
House, Elm Acre, Endeavor, Wisconsin 53939.
A-Mrs. Al Lambrecht, Director, St. Joseph
Migrant Family Health Clinic (MG-129), St.
Joseph Hospital, 707 South University Ave-
nue, Beaver Dam, Wisconsin 53916.
A-Mrs. Mary Ann Minorik, Director,
Waushara County (Wisconsin) Migrant
Health Clinic (MG-130), Waushara County
Committee for Economic Opportunity, Box
310, Wautoma, Wisconsin.
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr.
President, at present only an estimated
one-fourth of the total migrant popula-
tion has access to Migrant Health Act
project services. There is, therefore, an
urgent need for increased Federal appro-
priations if we are to provide for the
expansion of present project services to
provide adequate coverage for the mi-
grant worker and his family. Such ex-
pansion will add to the value of diag-
nostic service now offered and will make
possible the funding of new projects
where they are needed now. An increased
number of health projects, both in home-
base areas and in communities along the
migrant stream, are needed so that the
migrant family will have the opportunity
for uninterrupted clinical service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately re-
ferred.
The bill (S. 2688) to extend and other-
wise amend certain expiring provisions
of the Public Health Service Act for
migrant health services, introduced by
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey (for him-
self and other Senators), was received,
read twice by its title, and referred to
the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS
AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, on behalf of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON]
I ask unanimous consent that, at its next
printing, the name of the Senator from
Hawaii [Mr. FONG] be added as a co-
sponsor of the bill (S. 2661) to amend
the Public Health Service Act to provide
for the establishment of a National In-
stitute of Marine Medicine and Pharma-
cology in the National Institutes of
Health.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, at its next
printing, the names of the Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. MONDALE], the Senator
from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the
Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FOND] be
added to my bill (S. 2147) to clarify and
otherwise amend the Meat Inspection
Act, to provide for cooperation with ap-
propriate State agencies with respect to
State meat inspection programs, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MONTOYA. Mr. President, this
brings to 25 the number of our colleagues
that have joined me in cosponsoring this
measure. I ask unanimous consent that
the names of all the Senators joining me
in sponsoring S. 2147 be Inserted at this
point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The names of the Senators cosponsor-
ing S. 2147 are as follows:
Senators ANDERSON, BARTLETT, BENNETT,
BOGGS, BREWSTER, BROOKE, BYRD of West Vir-
ginia, CLARK, COOPER, FONG, HART, KENNEDY
of Massachusetts, KENNEDY of New York,
LAUSCHE, LONG Of Missouri, MCGEE, MONDALE,
MONRONEY, MORSE, Moss, SMITH, TYDINGS,
YARBOROUGH, YOUNG of North Dakota, and
YOUNG of Ohio.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, on behalf of the senior Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY] I ask
unanimous consent that, at its next
printing, the name of the Senator from
Alabama [Mr. HILL] be added as a co-
sponsor of the joint resolution (S.J. Res.
54) proposing an amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United States relative to
equal rights for men and women.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
S 17013
ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE
APPENDIX
On request, and by unanimous consent,
addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were
ordered to be printed in the Appendix,
as follows:
By Mr. CHURCH:
Poem entitled "And in Them, God," writ-
ten by Earl Wayland Bowman. .
N 4g T r)
TOWARD LA TING PEACE IN THE
EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, the world
cannot allow another outbreak of con-
flict in the Near East. Three times in the
past generation, Israel and the Arab
nations have gone to war. Each time the
issue has turned on the survival of one
people as a nation. Each time the
weaponry has been more sophisticated
and deadly, the cataclysm more hor-
rendous. Each time we have called on
the United Nations to achieve settlement.
And each time, so far, we have failed to
achieve a lasting peace.
The next time, and God forbid that it
should come to pass, the antagonists will
probably have missiles, maybe with nu-
clear warheads. The instruments of war
have been improved-if that is the
word-to kill more people with greater
rapidity, as they have become more
easily available and far easier to operate.
The pushbutton generation of nuclear
missiles is not far away. Any nation,
regardless of its technical ability, will
be able to train a man to pull a lever,
once a helpful technician from some
"advanced country" like the Soviet Un-
ion, has tuned the guidance system,
armed the warhead and aimed the mis-
sile toward the enemy nearby or far
away.
Next time, Mr. President, it will be too
late. The time is approaching when the
fate of the entire world will depend on
keeping perennial trouble spots like the
Near and Far East from coming to the
flashpoint. We now have an opportunity
to reach a settlement in the Near East.
There at last appears some disposition
on the part of the nations of the Eastern
Mediterranean to recognize the danger
and to seek peace. Moreover, the long
experience of the United Nations to-
gether ' with the clear interest of the
majority of the world powers in avoid-
ing conflict over the holy land are clear
and positive factors.
In the past month, in the course of
speaking engagements in the State of
California, I have attempted to outline
what I believe to be the essential guide-
lines of settlement. Two elements are
clearly necessary. First, a series of agree-
ments providing for diplomatic recog-
nition, defensible frontiers, commercial
and cultural relations between Arabs
and Israelis, as well as free use of in-
ternational waterways and, hopefully,
cooperation toward economic develop-
ment. Second, a system of guaranteeing
through timely use of neutral force, those
agreements, once reached.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that two speeches which I recently
gave in California outlining these pro-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 5 17014
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 22, 1967
posals be placed at the conclusion of my
remarks in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. -
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. KUCHEL. Let me state briefly
what I propose. The settlement between
the peoples of Israel and the Arab na-
tions must take full advantage of the
historic, geographic and spiritually stra-
tegic position of the holy city of Jeru-
salem. The city must continue to re-
main united as the capital of Israel,
providing through international agree-
ment- on administration of the holy
places, a center of world harmony for
all who honor that hallowed ground.
Jerusalem offers today, as it did in the
time of Our Savior, a unique meeting
place for the commerce and culture of
Palestine and of the entire eastern
Mediterranean. It could provide, by
means of a customs-free access to the
sea, an open door for Arab commerce,
and a meeting point to exchange ideas
of all kinds, technical, political and ar-
tistic. Reunited and flourishing, it would
draw visitors and revenue from the en-
tire Western World.
Any agreement on territory, what-
ever it may be, will require for some
years to come the guarantee of a neu-
tralizing force to prevent major border
clashes to assure one side against attack
from the other. Decades of hostility will
not pass overnight. There is need for a
friendly policeman. I suggest it is high
time for the creation of an international
peacekeeping force under the United
Nations to meet this need. Using :the in-
creasingly powerful observation capabil-
ities of an artificial satellite this force
could gain ample warning of large-scale
troop movements. With airborne troops
provided by acceptable donors, such a
force, under U.N. command, could be
based at a nearby, neutral point, like the
island of Cyprus where their very pres-
ence would be an added boon to stability.
These suggestions might seem: fanci-
ful to those who continue to do their
thinking in yesterday's world. But to-
morrow is too soon and too frightening
for our great Nation not to dare to con-
trive the necessary devices of peace
among men. The -holy land is the place
to start.
ExaIBIT 1
THE VISION OF HOPE: A NEW JERUSALEM
(Partial text of remarks by U.S. Senator
THOMAS H. KUCHEL before the Professions
& Finance Group of the City of Hope,
Beverly Hilton Hotel, Beverly Hills, Calif.,
October 22, 1967)
I deem it a great honor to be here this
evening. I share your deep concern for the
human condition, and I am pleased to have
this opportunity to speak briefly with you
about the hopes and fears of our world in
this era of exploding change and of almost
constantly expanding horizons. The persist-
ent advance of the City of Hope, reaching
out to increasing numbers of men and
women in Southern California, and through-
out-the world, is testimony of the indomita-
ble good will of its membership and of your
determination to put scientific achievement
at the service of mankind. Your insistence
on the sanctity of the individual, his right
to life and freedom, to dignity and to equal
treatment, bespeaks the very heart: of the
American philosophy. The City of Hope has
opened its doors to all, regardless of creed,
status, origin or pocket book. Your determi-
nation to deal equally with rich and poor,
the humble and the high, fully expresses the
best teachings of our common culture.
The selfless human effort, exemplifies a
kind of wisdom that is all too rare in our
society today. You dare to hope, when many
others, out of fear and cynicism, have
despaired.
I have read with deep interest of the
achievements of the City of Hope in develop-
ing chemical agents which will help in the
treatment of epilepsy and other convulscent
diseases. These discoveries resulted, in part,
from unrelated research connected with pro-
tection of workers in our aerospace industry.
It is an exciting example of human ingenuity
profiting from the increasing interplay
among the growing scientific community
here in California. It demonstrates in real
terms, what we all feel to be true, that, here
in our State, the phenomenal growth of hu-
man knowledge has put us at the frontier of
the modern world. Men and women in Cali-
fornia are meeting challenges and finding
opportunities which other societies will not
experience for years to come. What we do
here will have a critical impact on the future
of all mankind.
Through its contributions in mass com-
munications, in motion pictures, radio and
television, California has changed thought
patterns throughout the world. So, too, will
its advances in electronics, aero-space, high-
energy physics, and medical science. I am
proud that the human dimension, as shown
in institutions like that which we honor to-
night, has been given due emphasis. Never
before have men held so much power over
nature. This is an awesome force, and we
must bring it out of the shadow of fear into
the light of human progress. You are not
going to stop progress-or change-for that
matter. Science is going to continue unlock-
ing doors and making great new discoveries,
and the rest of us had better get along with
the growing need to improve ourselves and
strengthen whatever virtues the human- race
has been able tenuously to acquire. For all
the newly found powers over nature-for
good or for evil-are going to be in human
hands to utilize.
The work on epilepsy underscores an essen-
tial point-advance in the modern world is
a product of many minds, many views, and
many elements of knowledge all working to-
gether in common service to mankind. This
joining together of thought in free associa-
tion is the bedrock of our American system,
of our democracy.
Our own traditions of behavior drawn from
the teachings of many great religions have
helped to build a peculiarly American sense
of common values, of individual dignity, hu-
man rights, free give and take and fair play.
These are a product of our Judeo-Christian
culture. They are enshrined in our proudest
national documents-in the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, in the Bibli-
cal cadence of Lincoln at Gettysburg. These
origins are distant. They reach to the source
of what we call Western civilization. They
trace back to thestone passages, the Temple
walls, the aged olive trees of the still-living,
sacred city of Jerusalem.
Last fall, together with my wife and other
members of the American delegation to the
1966 session of the Interparliamentary Union
in Teheran, I wandered through the teem-
ing, timeless streets of the Old City. I paused,
in awe, and for a long time, in the Dome
of the Rock, where we are told Abraham
brought his son Isaac for sacrifice to the
Lord. No American with any sense of history
can escape the overwhelming vision of human
struggle and aspiration and the inspiring
faith in a Supreme Being which remains
palpably etched in the ancient stones and
holy sites which remain. Our common cul-
ture, though drawn from many parts, has a
central origin in the teachings of this great
mystical, ancient city.
Jerusalem was divided when I visited there.
It is not divided today. It must now, I think, -
remain united-united not merely as the
capital of a thriving state of Israel, but as
a living joyous center for the celebration of
harmony in our Western world. Jerusalem
remains the city of hope for Christian,
Muslim and Jew. Its division has been, for
the past 19 years, a symbol of despair for
the establishment of peace on this earth, Its
unity. now ought to give rise to new possi-
bilities-for brotherhood. We all have a stake
In that cause.
As a member of the United States Senate
and an American, I strongly believe that the
continued unification of Jerusalem, both as
the capital of Israel and as a world religious
center, must be a cardinal objective of the
foreign policy of the United States. On June
5, 1967, I was the first member of the Senate
in those first anxious hours of this summer's
conflict to address the Chamber and call for
a settlement recognizing Israel's right to live
in peace and freedom. And I pointed out
shortly thereafter that any such settlement
must recognize the-Israeli claim to a unified
Jerusalem as its capital.
Reunited, Jerusalem is now, as it was in
the time of David, the key to stability in
the Holy Land. It lies athwart the rugged
Judean hills between the fertile Plain of
Sharon and the Valley of the Jordan. Since
earliest times, it has stood astride major
trade routes to the Arabian hinterland. It
has been a meeting ground for the peoples
of Palestine. But for the past two decades,
it has, alas, represented cleavage and hos-
tility. It is therefore today a proper place to
begin to repair the peace of the Near East-
to remove that area from conflict between
East and West.
For reasons not readily apparent, there
has been little definition in America's policy
in the Near East. America has, to a large ex-
tent, carried water on both shoulders in
what Administration leaders have called an
"even-handed policy".
The job of a great world power is not to
play cat and mouse with the destiny of peo-
ples. The recent conflict has shown that the
people of the United States believe over-
whelmingly that they have a direct commit-
ment to the safety, integrity and prosperity
of the people of Israel. In my opinion, the
United States has erred in trying to conceal
that point from the Arab nations, friendly
or otherwise. We have permitted the so-called
Palestine problem to move us, rather than
striking the firm position, which the people
of the United States insist we take. This has
been no service to our diplomacy, to Israel, or
even to our few remaining Arab friends. We
have, by our unwillingness or our hesitation
to proclaim our stand, given unwitting cause
to continued Arab emotionalism and hos-
tility. -
The time has surely come to make our posi-
tion unmistakably clear. This is not to im-
ply that America has no role to play among
the Arab peoples, nor that they should be
abandoned to the socialist camp. In the long
run, nothing would be more harmful to the
interests of Israel, the United States, and of
world peace. Despite the shrill propaganda
of some of their leaders, there are some real-
ists in the Arab world. It is to our benefit to
encourage them and to bring them to the
negotiating table, and most important, to
seek assiduously to bring their peoples to-
gether with the people of Israel in mutual
-- -
understanding.
In this cause, the city of Jerusalem will
again play a major role. It occupies once
again a strategic crossroad. In this Holy City
we all have a continuing concern, as com-
municants and seekers of truth. The Israeli
government has announced its interest in
working with the Vatican on administration
of the Holy Places. It has already signified
that it will adhere to its longstanding policy
of placing them under international control.
An avowed and accepted international in-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
November 22, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S17015
terest in Jerusalem would make it a draw-
ing'pint for peoples all over the world. The
benefits to be derived from this would re-
dound to the whole region. Even before
the conflict of last June, the anemic econ-
omy of Jordan had learned to profit from
the tourist trade, and had done so despite
the ridiculous rigamarole associated with
the Mandelbaum Gate-now, thankfully,
passed into history. With the free movement
of people which a real peace would bring to
the Near East, that traffic would increase
many times. Certainly, there is no question
that under the present arrangement more
people will be able to visit the Holy Shrines
than ever before. An intelligent policy on
the part of Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon, if
that is not too ephemeral to. contemplate,
would extend those benetfis to the entire
Eastern Mediterranean.
But it is not simply a tourist economy
that would flourish after a true peace in the
Holy Land. Large sections of the Arab world,
particularly Jordan and Southern Syria,
have been closed off from access to the sea.
This folly of Arab intransigence has diverted
large quantities of trade through the Port
of Beirut which ordinarily would have
passed through Haifa, Gaza, and Jaffa. It
would he to the advantage of all residents
of the Holy Land to establish a free market
to Jerusalem for Arab produce, both agricul-
tural products and handicrafts. This would
provide immediate advantages of a greater
market to both sides. Combined with free
access to the sea and a customs zone at one
of Israeli's teeming ports, the Arab hinter-
land would find a strong pull of self-interest
toward continued peace and understanding
with the people of Israel.
I have long believed that the self-interest
of the peoples of the Near East was the
principal force that would bring them to-
gether in the peaceful existence which we all
devoutly desire. Arab produce has an ample
market in the growing industrial economy
of Israel. Israeli technology has much to
offer the Arabs. Such an exchange, in-
cidentally, would redound to the great ad-
vantage of the United States. It would not
only reduce the need for aid grants but woul,.
pub Arab development on a long run, self-
sustaining basis. Some years ago it was the
claim of Tel Aviv that it had more doctors
per capita than any other city on earth.
No similar statistics come readily. to hand
from Amman or Jedda, but is evident that
the situation is far from the same. In-
deed, the Arab need for modern knowledge
can be nowhere better filled than by a peo-
ple whose homage to human wisdom is sec-
ond to none.
As a Californian, and ranking Republican
member of the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee, I am particularly in-
trigued by the possibilities of the Eisen-
hower plan for joint development through
nuclear energy of the water resources of the
area. Religious, racial, and national conflicts
in the Middle East are, themselves,`. a
symptom of the staggering difficulties of life
in a harsh, desolate and and portion of the
world.
More than ten years ago, President Eisen-
hower determined to help alleviate these
frightful shortages of food and water. He
sent his personal emissary, Eric Johnston, to
the area to try to bring the Arabs and the
Israelis into agreement on a comprehensive
plan for the development and allocation of
the waters of the Jordan River. Regrettably,
that effort failed, but the idea of cooperative
water resource development in the Middle
East did not die.
power generating plants in the Middle East. country as a crusading Governor of the Em-
Two plants would be located on the Mediter- pire State, a guiding spirit in the world-
ranean coast of Israel, the other at the wide effort to rebuild devastated Europe at
northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan the close of the Second World War, and an
or Israel. undaunted and outspoken member of the
law, my bill to allow the Department of the
Interior to participate financially in the con-
struction of a 150 million gallon per day de-
salting plant off the coast of Orange County
in Southern California. The Orange County
plant is about fifty times larger than any
desalting plant operating in the world today.
The first stage of the bold Eisenhower-
Strauss proposal will be a 450 million gallon
per day plant; three times larger than the
one authorized for Orange County. This first
plant would produce electric power far in
excess of the present needs, but industry and
prosperity would quickly follow the avail-
ability of abundant water and power.
Technical problems undoubtedly exist, but
they should not bar a serious attempt to
implement the Eisenhower-Strauss proposal.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee now
has pending before it a resolution, of which
I am a co-author, to put this plan into action.
The Eisenhower-Strauss plan would provide
jobs for refugees, would increase the produc-
tivity of desert wastelands, and would give
Israel and the Arab governments a common
basis for cooperation.
Indeed, the possibilities for future devel-
opment of what once a wandering people
called the Land of Milk and Honey are al-
most boundless. As we who live in the
equable, but semi-arid, climes of Southern
California know, the soil can produce un-
believably, once water is available. All of this
requires cooperation and understanding,
trust and comprehension. It cannot be done
without establishing a deep conviction that
the long run Interests of Arabs and Jews in
the Near East are joined and not antagonistic.
In the effort to achieve understanding the
arrangements for Jerusalem are absolutely
crucial. To each religion Holy Places of the
other are sacred. In Hebron the tombs of
Abraham and Isaac are sealed, in the custom
of the Muslim tradition. They are patriarchs
to Islam as well as to Jews and Christians.
At least four Christian churches claim do-
minion over the Church of the Holy Sepul-
cher. The rock where Abraham offered to
sacrifice Isaac is part of the Mosque of Omar.
There are now differences of opinion over
the administration of the Wailing Wall. Any
one of these problems would be a political
hot potato of the first magnitude in our
country. The Government of Israel will need
help in meeting each problem, and, probably
would seek broad support for the adminis-
tration of these areas. Certainly, it has given,
every indication that this will be the case.
The peace and security of Israel must re-
main a major concern of America and her
people. In Jerusalem, and its great treasures
of history, lies the Holy Grail of this noble
cause. If men of all faiths are able to pray
together in Jerusalem again, the city will in-
evitably become the center of understanding
in the Near East. With wisdom, foresight and
courage, that understanding may bring the
peace men have long been seeking, not merely
for Israel, but for all the world.
Herbert Lenman was weu aueau ui ii
time. He saw the needs of the human heart
and the human spirit as the aftermath of
global conflict ushered us into a startling
new era. Together we served in the United
States Senate and fought side by side in many
battles where the rights of people were in-
volved, battles to achieve equality of oppor-
tunity for all, battles against disease, bat-
tles to bring our national resources to bear
on the problems of the aging and the aged.
He will long be remembered for his deep in-
terest in eradicating the scourge of infan-
tile paralysis from our society. A dozen years
ago, he authored the Senate Resolution pro-
viding the means by which the Salk vaccine
was made available to the people of our na-
tion. And close to his heart, as an American,
he was earnestly devoted to the cause of a
free and flourishing state of Israel. His was
a concern for people, for justice, and for the
right.
My fellow Americans, in the past 50 years
the earth on which we live has witnessed vast
and unbelievable change. There has been a
quantum jump in the problems of the
human race, including the very problem of
survival. Unfortunately, the countervailing
increase in added wisdom or new devices to
deal with them has not kept pace. Alas,
human virtue does not grow as fast as
scientific discovery. But we have learned
much from men like Herbert Lehman. Our
experience has shown us clearly that free na-
tions need each other, that we progress when
we act in concert. Conversely, we fail when
we seek to withdraw in isolation. For the days
of isolation, of living alone on this globe, are
gone.
In my early days in the Senate, Herbert
Lehman and I served an the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs. It was added
evidence of his interest in- conservation, for
he was, indeed, an ardent conservationist. He
was keenly devoted to the preservation of the
resources of this country and of our great
natural and aesthetic treasures. My theme
tonight concerns the progress of the past half
century. There are many important mile-
stones. Next year California will be celebrat-
ing the 50th Anniversary of the Save-the-
Redwoods League, which brought forth the
concept of preserving our majestic groves
through private philanthropy. Herbert Leh-
man staunchly believed in these labors. Were
he alive today, he would count as one of the
achievements of this year, 1967, the progress
made in the Senate, when, last week it over-
whelmingly adopted an excellent piece of
legislation, from his Interior Committee,
establishing a Redwood National Park in
Northern California.
This is one of the hopeful signs. The red-
woods share with the ancient olive trees of
Jerusalem the unique and moving distinc-
tion of continuing their existence through all
of the past two thousand years, since the
time when leaders of the Roman Empire
caused the most cruel dispersion of the peo-
ples of Palestine. Through all of the ters-
pestuous, intervening centuries, the trees in
THE PROGRESS OF HUMAN BROTHERHOOD IN Gesthemene and here in California have stood
THE LAST HALF CENTURY as living sentinels of hope for better times,
(Partial text of remarks by U.S. Senator and for a deeper aprpeciation of the miracle
THOMAS H. KUCHEL, before the Israel Bonds of Creation and of eternity, and for the
Organization, northern Cailfornia area, resurrection of the good name and good deeds
Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, Calif., of the children of the Lord.
November 5, 1967) I recall one more half-century celebra.tlon.
I am deeply honored to accept this high Fifty years ago, on November 2, 1917, the
award bearing the name of a great American leaders of another far-flung empire pro-
humanitarian and statesman. The late Her- claimed in a now historic document that it
bert Lehman was my friend and colleague. His "viewed with favor the establishment in
wit, intelligence and warmth live on and Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
they occupy a special place in my memory. people." The Balfour Declaration bore wit-
He will long be honored in the history of our ness to a growing conviction in the Western
This summer, former President Eisenhower
and his Atomic Energy Commission Chair-
man, Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, proposed a
daring new approach to bring water to the
Middle East. The Eisenhower-Strauss pro-
posal would locate three massive dual-pur-
pose nuclear powered desalting and electric
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 S 17016
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE November 22; 1967
world that the return of the peoples of
Israel to their home in the Holy Land was
an article of deep and abiding faith, and an
essential element in human progress.
The American people have wholeheartedly
supported this movement. In 1891, President
Benjamin Harrison received a memorial call-
ing for the creation of the new Israel. In
1922, the Congress of the United States
adopted a resolution introduced by Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., of Massachusetts
favoring "the establishment In Palestine of
the national home for the Jewish people."
In 1944, my own Republican party and the
Democratic party incorporated this goal in
their national platforms. This has been a bi-
partisan cause of all of the people, and shall
so remain.
The State of Israel was formed in the after-
math of one of the bitterest conflicts in
human history. The world has not yet been
able to comprehend the full horror of the
sufferings of the Jewish people of Europe. The
creation of Israel was an act of atonement
by those who would build a new world, hope-
fully created on the principles of equality,
brotherhood and the noble freedoms which
are at least designed to set man apart from
beast, and to give him the chance to vindi-
cate his creation in the image of the Lord.
Our relationship to the people of Israel has
a deep meaning in the American spirit, The
Psalm states:
"Except the Lord build the house,
They labor in vain that built it.
Except the Lord keep the city,
The watchman waketh but in vain."
So, too, my fellow citizens, it Is with the,
world. The resolutions of the problems of the
human race are far more of the spirit than
of the flesh. The peace of this earth Is ulti-
mately dependent on the divine hope of
-brotherhood and on its extension as a work-
ing principle in the behavior of nation
states.
The last 50 years have not all been marked
by progress in this quest. The vast surface
of Eurasia has been the host of a new doc-
trinaire and materialistic view of life dis-
counting the force of human initiative, mock-
ing the spirit of equality, and destroying
brotherhood among peoples who have long
sought freedom. This is the 50th year of the
creation of the Soviet Union. There is no
freedom for the Jews of that nation today-
nor has there even been-for those who in
past years have given so much for their
motherland. Their religious observances are
stifled by administrative decree, and their
hope to return to the land of their forefath-
ers has been systematically frustrated and
betrayed.
I am not here this evening to exercise the
spectre of atheistic Communism. But, I must
state frankly, that those who live on this
side of the world need to look to friends and
to allies not only for mutual protection, but
for the necessary energies and inspiration
to achieve at least a rudimentary system of
world security. This would must be made not
only of firmness and conviction, but of com-
passion and understanding. At the end of the
fond World War, when the human race
had been horrified by the ravages of global
conflict, there arose like a phoenix from the
ashes, a bright new confidence that peoples
could join together in reason and, using the
processes of debate and deliberation, amica-
bly settle their differences. Here in the City
of San Francisco, this hope gave rise to the
Charter of the United Nations. But that
great "Town Meeting of the World" was not
enough, I am a devoted supporter of the
United Nations, but the miracles we hoped
it might achieve did not come to pass. The
need for collective security among free na-
tions soon called forth the North Atlantic
Treaty Oragnization, a military defensive
system against potential Soviet aggression.
A new chapter in American foreign policy
began to unfold. For the first time in our
history, we began to agree, in advance, to
come to the aid of a friend. Other agreements
were later made across the globe. These ar-
rangements were not only military; they
sought to find a basis for arms control agree-
ments, and to advance the cause of peace
through economic development, in a lasting
solution of the age-old ills of pestilence,
famine, and forlorn poverty.
This, too, was a bipartisan effort. I recall
with great pride one of my illustrious pred-
ecessors, Senator Arthur Vandenberg from
Michigan, who spoke out two decades ago
to bring to our country a clear understand-
ing that there must be an interdependence
among free peoples, that the United States
could not-cannot--"go it alone." But the
great hopes for world-wide security, so bright
In the aftermath of the Second World War
under men like Winston Churchill, Dwight
D. Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy, have
paled into disillusionment. France's De
Gaulle, Egypt's Nasser, and other narrow
nationalists, refuse to accept the principle
that one people's freedom is in pawn to
another's safety.
In this nuclear age no one nation can stand
alone against all comers. Ours is an Inter-
dependent world.
Once we lived in the secure protection of
the dividing oceans, two vast moats separat-
ing us from any potential foe. Today, any
city on earth can be largely obliterated within
moments by the flick of a finger. And logic
or reason are not necessarily a part of the
process. The order for the flick may come
from either a reasoning or unreasoning mind.
Militarily, theUnited States is more power-
ful today than at any time in her history,
but she has less security than ever before.
That is the supreme paradox of the nuclear
age. The discoveries of science, and the
streaking speeds of transportation and com-
munication with 12,000 mile per hour In-
tercontinental ballistic missiles have effec-
tively and permanently eliminated the idea
of living alone. Isolation is all gone and
nothing can bring it back. Whether we like
it or not, we are all, American and Russian,
Chinese and French, Israeli and Arab, ul-
timately in hock to the reasoning process
of a relatively small number of people who
control the levels of power in the bastions
of the expanding memberships in the nu-
clear club.
All nations who value their independence
have a common- interest in and a responsi-
bility for the defense of the free world. But,
today the concept of collective security, so
hopefully unveiled as a sound deterrent to
war, is in a sad state of disrepair.
Not only has that interdependent system
been weakened, but the United Nations has
far to go to fulfill the promise which at-
tended its birth. There is no area of the
world in which the United Nations has more
experience than in the Near East. It was the
midwife at the birth of the nation of Israel.
The United Nations has for nearly two
decades maintained supervisory activities
along the border of Israel and her neigh-
bors. With substantial American assistance,
a United Nations relief and works agency
has continued to feed thousands of homeless
refugees, whom the Arab nations would not
absorb. These Issues remain unsolved and
seemingly insoluble.
The difficulties which beset the United
Nations are a reflection of the disunity
among world leaders. In my view, the realis-
tic hope- for peace in the Near East depends
on a firm commitment of the so-called
"Great Powers," the United States, the Soviet
Union, and the nations of Western Europe
as well. Without this commitment to a stable
peace In the Near East by all protagonists
in the present precarious balance of world
power, that region will continue to be a
cat's paw for nationalist adventurism. The
Near East remains the crossroads of civiliza-
tion between Europe and Asia. The ,Suez
Canal is as important to the economy of the
Soviet Union as it is to Great Britain-and
as it ought by international law to be to
Israel. No settlement which permits dis-
crimination in the uses of that waterway
or falls to open free communication among
all the peoples of that ' area is likely to
endure.
As the ten-year history of conflict between
Israeli Defense Forces and those of the Arab
states surrounding them has shown, there
will be no victory for Arab nations bent on
the destruction of Israel. Little groups of will-
ful leaders, putting their hopes on shiny new
weapons, readily supplied by Communist
Eastern Europe, threaten the world with the
horror of global war, without so much as a
"by your leave" to the rest of us. But the
complete rout of the Arab Army In the des-
erts of Sinai, for the third straight time,
ought to provide a severe and Instructive les-
son. The Arab leaders must learn that peace
will not come to theNear -East by recourse to
war nor by recurrent demands for the de-
struction of Israel. Israel is a political, eco-
nomic and geographical fact of life on earth.
The Arab- nations must know too that
their aims cannot be achieved simply by ac-
quiring modern arms. The Soviet Union has
attempted to turn the Near East into a bat-
tleground of the Cold War. But the arithme-
tic must be equally clear to them. It has
cost nearly $2 billion in Soviet arras to the
Near East and, with recent shipments, that
cost is rapidly going up. Both the Arabs and
the Soviet Union surely recognize the failure
of their last adventure. Certainly, the Arabs
and the Soviets must begin to- realize that
neither they nor the rest of the world can
afford a crisis in the Near East every decade.
The world is growing :restive under the con-
tinued pressure of the division between the
Communist and the Free. But that does not
alter the hard fact that no agreement on the
Near East can be enforced by-the United Na-
tions, or by anyone else, unless all interested
nations, and surely the super powers, are
committed to such an agreement and take
responsibility for its enforcement.
That is not going to be easy to achieve.
Old alignments are falling away. Our once
gallant ally, France, now views the situation
with a combination of glacial indifference
and commercial opportunism. The Commu-
nists too have their problems. Rumania shows
an unaccountable Independence. She has
rightly refused to join In parroting Moscow's
condemnation of Israel. Similar grumblings
have been heard in other parts of Eastern
Europe.
it is now doubly important that we in
the West keep together those of our allies
who remain steadfast. The United States has
a long-standing tie to the State of Israel.
Americans acknowledge a direct commitment
to the safety, Integrity and prosperity of
that country. In this, our people have been
ahead of our government. In my opinion, the
Administration has erred in trying to con-
ceal that fact from the Arab nations, friendly
or otherwise. We have allowed the so-called
Palestine problem to manipulate us, rather
than sticking to our position which the peo-
ple of the Unnited States insist we hold. This
has been no service to our diplomacy, to
Israel, or even to our few remaining Arab
friends. We have by our unwillingness, or
our hesitation to proclaim our stand, given
unwitting cause to the Arab emotionalism
and hostility.
The long-term solution to the Near East
question requires, in my view, deep candor
together with reason and frankness on all
sides. It iscomparatively easy to draw a bal-
ance sheet showing the interests of each
protagonist and, by a simple mathematical
process, to chart the prospective courses of
negotiation. Georgraphy does not change.
Twenty years hence the peoples of Israel and
of the Arab nations will be living, as now,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
Nover'ber 22, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
side by side. It will always be in their com-
xnon-iinterest to live in peace.
The real Near East question, then, is why
doesn't this happen? The United Nations
has the experience and most of the necessary
means of diplomatic communication and in-
telligence. The so-called "Great Powers" have
every reason to avoid conflict. Finally, there
are a few simple steps which could be taken
to insure the maintenance of a settlement,
once it is reached.
The textbooks today are full of commen-
taries on "neutralization" as a means of
stabilizing crisis areas by taking those re-
gions out of the contest between the so-
called "Great Powers" and achieving a fair
balance of forces between opposing sides.
This solution can only be applied, however,
when a mutual interest in settlement can be
clearly perceived by all-and, most impor-
tant, when each side recognizes that the
other has more to gain by settlement than
by chaos and conflict.
There are many who propose neutraliza-
tion for Southeast Asia. This could, some
years from now, be the final answer. But this
possibility is far from reality. Neither the
necessary scope of understanding, nor even
the intent to communicate, now exist be-
tween Hanoi and the rest of the world. And
some of the powers of the Orient, notably
Red China, have yet to show that they have
any interest in arranging a settlement. On
the contrary, their determination to perse-
vere on the battlefield is increasingly ap-
parent.
There is also a communication problem in
the Near East, but it is not so stubborn.
Israel seeks peace and security. She needs
defensible frontiers and the recognition of
her right to use international waterways.
Finally, she will not, and cannot, be expected
to part with the now unified City of Jeru-
salem. The Arab nations also need peace.
They must at last overcome their irrational
fears and they must acknowledge a crying
need to turn swords into ploughshares in a
determined effort to overcome centuries of
poverty and ignorance among their own peo-
ple. The more enlightened Arab leaders
know this, but they seem to be afraid of
their own propagandists and provocateurs,
who for years have made their daily bread
out of a steady diet of hopeless, vindictive
polemics.
It may be too much to hope that peace
might proceed without incident. Visible guar-
antees will be required. The one element
long lacking in the arsenal of the United
Nations is a permanent international peace-
keeping force. Today, there is a need and
an opportunity to create such a force in the
Near East. The experience of the United Na-
tions Truce Supervisory Organization, what-
ever its triumphs or its failings, is common
to all concerned. Modern technology and the
peculiar terrain of the Levant offer unique
opportunities to provide instant intelligence
affording a U.N. force the earliest possible
warning of military movements.
Earlier this, year, I proposed an artificial
satellite to watch over the Holy Land to pro-
vide intelligence on large scale military
movements in the area and to give a genuine
advantage in guarding against surprise at-
tack. Such a satellite could be built with the
equipment used in our civilian lunar orbiter
program. It would give a U.N. peace force
and other elements on the side of peace an
opportunity to take quick and effective ac-
tion-in any case, it would be better than
the hand wringing around the world which
accompanied the outbreak of hostilities last
June,
I would add to that proposal the possibility
that an international force be created from
airborne units assembled from forces of ac-
ceptable donor nations and given a perma-
nent base in the Near East. Mobility is es-
sential, A peace force must be able to put
itself between opposing forces without de-
lay. Airborne troops would be required. The
satellite warning system would be on guard.
The peace force would have every oppor-
tunity to act rapidly.
I propose that serious consideration be
given to using such neutral ground as the
Island of Cyprus for this purpose. The Is-
land has long been a base for military ac-
tivity in the Eastern Mediterranean. A U.N.
force is already stationed on Cyprus to help
reduce ethnic disturbances. A permanent
U.N. presence would be a strong weight to-
ward stability. It would act as a further
guarantee of the independence of that stra-
tegic Island both in terms of tempests of the
Near East and of the larger conflicts of the
Cold War. It would bring an added measure
of stability to the Eastern Mediterranean,
and an opportunity for Cyprus to live in a
true neutrality.
It is high time that the United Nations
proceeds to the issues it was created to solve.
A peacekeeping force in the Near East is
essential. In my view, the rational nations
on earth must recognize its necessity. The
United States must play a leading role. It
is vital to the Near East, to the United
Nations, and to the entire world that we
move now, effectively and with imagination,
to build the devices that will guard stabil-
ity and prevent conflict. The Holy Land
ought properly to be the first beneficiary
of what ingenuity we can offer to the cause
of peace among men. If, in the past fifty
years, we have failed to keep up with the
proliferation of man's problems, it is be-
cause we have failed to apply our creative
spirit with full vigor. We have delayed too
long. Too many costly battles have been
fought and refought without hope of achiev-
ing an end to bloodshed. The time to act
is now, while the opportunity for settle-
ment is at hand.
The American people believe deeply in
peace-no matter what our critics abroad
may say to the contrary. We, all of us, Amer-
icans and Europeans, the Communists and
the Free, must find common ground in forg-
ing the implements of international settle-
ment, and making them stronger than
weapons of war. Israel and the United States
are nations which clearly perceive the im-
portance of that cause; they must now act
in concert toward this goal.
There is in the City of Jerusalem, which
was divided when I visited it a year ago
with my family, a new spirit. That city
must now remain united-not merely as a
capital of the thriving State of Israel, but
as a living and joyous center for the cele-
bration of the harmony of our world. It
is a city of hope for Christian, Muslim and
Jew. Its division for the past 19 years has
been a symbol of despair for peace on this
earth. And its unity now as the capital of
Israel, and a world center of international
religious activity should open a wide door
to understanding among all peoples who
acknowledge a common legacy from that
hallowed place.
We seek harmony among nations as we
seek brotherhood among men. The experi-
ence of the past 50 years has brought a
fuller realization of the frightening problems
of our time. But I firmly believe that the ma-
turing relationship between the United
States and the people of Israel can stand as
a hallmark of international commitment
which all peoples must give to one an-
other, if man is to endure and thrive.
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS-
WELFARE PROGRAMS NEED HU-
MAN TOUCH
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I rise at
this time to complete the legislative his-
tory of two amendments to H.R. 12080,
S 17017
which were sponsored by me and other
Members of the Senate, and which were
adopted in the Committee on Finance.
The amendments to which I refer are
amendments Nos. 400 and 401.
Mr. President, I wish to incorporate at
this point, by reference, excerpts from
the RECORD of previous sessions which,
show other statements I have made con-
cerning these amendments. Originally,
when the amendments were submitted, I
made a statement which is contained in
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of October 16,
1967, beginning at page S14818. Other
statements by me concerning and ex-
plaining these amendments are contained
in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in the pro-
ceedings of October 20, 1967, October 23,
1967, at page S15102, October 26, 1967,
at page S15405, and October 31, 1967, at
page S15578.
Mr. President, I believe these two
amendments will bring about great im-
provements in the present welfare sys-
tems of our country.
Amendment No. 400, which has the
endorsement of the National Association
of Social Workers, Inc., and also the Na-
tional Association of Counties, makes
provision for the State plan of each State
to provide for the recruitment, training,
and effective use of community service
aides and social service volunteers in
their welfare programs.
It is intended that particular effort
would be made to use men, and not just
women alone, as community service
aides. It is intended also that these com-
munity service aides would be recruited
primarily from the poor and those who
would otherwise, except for their salaries
under such programs, be recipients of
welfare, to work in the communities in
which they live. These people will be far
better able to communicate with the wel-
fare recipients, better able to explain
public assistance and other community
programs to them, and better able to
help those who administer State public
welfare programs make such programs
most effective and most helpful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, the
amendment also provides for the use of
social service volunteers on a nonpaid
or partially paid basis. It is intended that
these volunteers, in addition to coming
from the more affluent segments of Amer-
ican society, would come also from
among the poor themselves.
This amendment would be effective
January 1, 1969, a date which was
changed in committee. I wish to point
out that the date was changed only be-
cause some legislatures will have to meet
in 1968 in order to change their basic law
under the State welfare system plan.
It is certainly my intent and the intent
of the other sponsors of the amendment
that we would not have to wait until that
date to implement the -program, but that
the States and the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare would move rap-
idly ahead to do so as soon as possible.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4
 S 17018
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R00 00290090-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE overnber 22v 1967
JOHN BARRETT DAY PROCLAIMED
BY GOVERNOR OF VERMONT
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, one of the
more important international organiza-
tions of which the United States is a
member is the Organization of American
States. The predecessor of that Western
Hemisphere organization was the Pan
American Union. The prime mover in
the Pan American Union was Dr. John
Barrett, who was born and raised in the
town of Grafton, Vt., which incidentally
happens to be the town in which both
of my parents were born and raised.
Mr. President, November 28 will be
designated tomorrow by Gov. Philip
H. Hoff, of Vermont, as John Barrett
Day, and there will be an observance in
the town of Grafton, Vt.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a paper prepared
by Dr. Vernon Reyman, of Grafton, Vt.,
who is the chairman of John Barrett
Day, which sets forth the life of Dr. John
Barrett and the story of the organiza-
tion of the Pan American Union.
There being no objection, the paper
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
A PAPER PREPARED BY DR. VERNON REYMAN,
GRAFTON, VT., CHAIRMAN OF JOHN BARRETT
DAY
JOHN BARRETT (1866-1938)
November 28 has been designated by Hon.
Governor Philip H. Hoff of Vermont as John
Barrett Day.
To set aside this day is not only fitting and
proper in view of the trip made by President
Johnson to Punta Del Este, Uruguay last
April, hopefully, to breathe new life into the
Alliance For Progress and to promote Latin
American economic cooperation, but this day
seems even more significant because of the
man who had so much to do with the suc-
cessful beginnings and development of Pan-
Americanism.
There stands in Grafton, Vermont opposite
the Old Tavern, where the road leads-to
Townshend and Newfane, a large impressive
white house in front of which stands a gran-
ite rock on which a plaque silently says:
John Barrett, Diplomat and Builder of the
Pan American Union, born here November
28, 1866.
Hon. John Barrett was not only born in
Grafton, Vermont but his deep love and
affection which "bound him to family and to
place" has always been an integral part of
his life. He attended the village school, then
Vermont Academy, graduated Worcester
Academy in 1884 and received his AB from
Dartmouth College in 1889 which college
among others later bestowed upon him an
honorary LLD degree for his "long and dis-
tinguished career".
After college he taught in California only
to take up newspaper work and for four
years on the Pacific Coast he was convinced
that the development of trade with the
Orient "was a sure means of prosperity."
Before the age of 30 President Cleveland
appointed him Minister to Siam from 1894-98
settling American claims worth millions of
dollars by arbitration and "to the satisfac-
tion of all involved."
During the Spanish American War he
worked for a chain of American newspapers
in the Far East as their-foreign correspond-
ent and at the close of the war he accepted
an appointment as delegate to the Second
International Conference of American States
in Mexico City in 1901.
This was followed in 1902-3 6y a trip
around the world to secure most countries
representation and participation ini the St.
Louis Exposition. After this mission was
completed his Latin American interests
were aroused. He entered the diplomatic
service in 1903-4 serving as Minister to Ar-
gentina and then first Minister to Panama
(1904-5). Theodore Roosevelt transferred
him to Colombia to settle our controversy
with that country over the Panama Canal.
President Roosevelt at first suggested several
others to President Rafael Reyes but the
latter wanted Dr. Barrett with whom he had
"good relations".
Secretary of State Elihu Root met Dr.
Barrett in Rio de Janeiro in 1906 at the Third
International Conference of American States,
recognizing in him an enthusiastic and ex-
tremely able personality. This led to the ap-
pointment of Director-general of the Bureau
of American Republics. John Barrett tackled
this job in 1907 with vision and confidence.
This set in motion 14 years of assiduous work
among the South American republics culmi-
nating not only in the name-change at his
initiative to the Pan American Union but it
was also through his influence that Andrew
Carnegie was persuaded to contribute gen-
erously to the building of the beautiful
marble structure in Washington, D.C., now
occupied by the Union and dedicated on
April 26, 1910.
It was at that dedication that Andrew
Carnegie praised the Director-General Bar-
rett as "a man whose abilities to meet all
emergencies has been truly surprising; noth-
ing could shake his devotion to his mission
and heart and brain was one in the cause."
It was Dr. Barrett who had entire charge
and responsibility for the construction and
maintenance of the building-a center for
growing cooperation in the Americas advo-
cating increased understanding for the Pan
American cause and dedicated to "peace-
friendship and commerce."
John Barrett held-many distinguished high
posts and in 1899 was commercial commis-
sioner in China, Japan, Korea, Formosa,
Siam, Cambodia, Java, India, Borneo and the
Philippines.
He later presided over the First and Second
Pan American Commercial Conference held
in Washington, D.C,, in 1911 and in 1919.
As a newspaper man iri Manila he met and
advised Admiral George Dewey of whom he
wrote a glowing biography published in 1899.
Other books Dr. Barrett published include:
Latin America, Land Of Opportunity (1909);
the Pan American Union (1911) ; and Panama
Canal, What is it, What it means (1913).
Hon. John Barrett resigned his post Sep-
tember 1, 1920 because of "material neces-
sities" and devoting himself to speaking and
writing on international topics.
In 1934 he married Mrs. Mary E. Cady bf
Burlington, Vt., who died in 1937. Dr. Bar-
rett himself died October 17, 1938 at Bellows
Falls, Vermont but is buried in the family
plot in Grafton, Vermont.
United States Supreme Court Justice Field
said of him "his (Barrett's) interpretation
of the law and facts of the case reflected
greatest credit."
Said Dr. L. S. Rowe, Director General of
the Pan American Union "the passing of Dr.
Barrett means an irreparable loss to the
cause of Pan Americanism; for 30 years he
labored to promote close relations between
the nations of America; during 14 years as
Secretary General he enlarged thefunctions
of the organization and strengthened its use-
fulness to all republics in the Western Hem-
isphere; his example will be a constant in-
spiration to renewed effort in fulfillment of
the great purpose to which he devoted his
long and useful public career."
On November 2, 1938 the Governing Board
of the Pan American Union passed a resolu-
tion to the above and transmitting a copy
thereof to the United States Government
and to the family of Dr. Barrett.
As Vermonters we have every reason to be
proud of this man and as Graftonites we pay
humble tribute to our native son and vi-
sionary.
PROGRESS IN VIETNAM
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I invite
the attention of the Senate to the strug-
gle going on in Vietnam, which we have
been inclined to overlook in the course
of debate as intense as the one we had
yesterday an a very different matter,
and to the remarkable and most infor-
mative speech which we heard yesterday
from General Westmoreland, command-
er of the forces of the United States in
Vietnam.
There are two things that he said
which are of unique significance to the
country. He is the man on the job and
what he says is what the United States
can do and is doing, and not what others
over whom we have no control say we
can do. When General Westmoreland
speaks to what we are doing and what
we can do, it is critically important that
we listen.
In his address to the National Press
Club, General Westmoreland said that
we will "use United States and free world
forces to destroy North Vietnamese.
forays while we assist, the Vietnamese to
reorganize for territorial security."
The other point he made was that
we will "turn a major share of frontline
DMZ defense over to the Vietnamese
Army." -
Mr. President, the one thing irritating
the American people most about Vietnam
is directly involved in these two aspects
of U.S. activities there; namely, what are
the Vietnamese doing - for themselves?
What are the Vietnamese people doing?
What is the Vietnamese Government do-
ing? What is the Vietnamese Army
doing?
We have been bedeviled for much too-
long with rumors and some statements of
fact by authoritative newspapermen that
the Vietnamese Army tights a five-and-a-
half-day war, that it takes only safe posi-
tions, and that there is an enormous
amount of incompetence in their army.
I know that some of them are very
brave men, because I saw many of their
units myself, a year and a half ago. They
stand on a level with anyone's army-in-
eluding our own. But a general feeling
pervades this country that there is real
weakness there, that they are not carry-
ing their load, that, unlike the Republic
of Korea troops, they are not growing and
developing with the situation.
Mr. President, more and more the at-
tention of the United States must be
focused on that particular aspect of the
subject. The people of this - country-
whether hawks or doves makes no dif-
ference-must insist that the U.S. Gov-
ernment, through its President and Com-
mander in Chief, do all that it humanly
can to fix the responsibility where it be-
longs; namely, upon the Vietnamese peo-
ple, the Vietnamese Government, and the
Vietnamese Army.
One of the most compelling reasons
for phasing out in Vietnam, will be if
that country does not show any inclina-
tion to carry its load,.
Upon that question, there can be no
dispute. We are not there fighting a colo-
nial war. We are supposed to be helping
them. We cannot help anyone who will
not try to help himself.
Thus, when General Westmoreland
says these two things, he is speaking very
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290090-4